PDA

View Full Version : Election Day (Nov. 7th)



G. Schollmeier
11-06-2000, 01:31 PM
Tomorrow is election day in the US. Set aside some time to vote. Because we all love wooden boats, and we always agree, I'm sure you'll pick the right person. Please Vote! http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif
Gary

jeffery
11-06-2000, 01:35 PM
Have you heard the latest net hoax? a net roumer going around is that due to the heavy expected turn out that there will be two days of voting this year/ Republicans are to vote on tuesday and Democrats are to vote on Wendsday
:)
Jeffery

PatCox
11-06-2000, 01:58 PM
I add my voice urging everyone to vote; it should be a prerequisite to engaging in political discussions (not that we do that on this forum devoted solely to things wooden and floating). (Actually, I have an ulterior motive; it seems that the candidate whom I prefer is actually preferred by the majority of registered voters, but when the pollsters do their magic to predict who will be preferred by those who actually vote, the thing flip-flops and the candidate whom I do not prefer is consistently shown to have a slight lead. Thus, the more people who vote, the more likely my candidate will win.) (a second ulterior motive: I hope that there will be those who support the one I am against who will read the above, which is true, and will conclude therefrom that the thing to do to help their candidate is to not vote, thus reducing turnout. Its the sort of logic their candidate would himself fall for. Worth a try, anyway.)

Ian McColgin
11-06-2000, 02:16 PM
So, does our being woodenboat heads mean that we should vote for the guy who looks more like the raw material

or should we quarter saw him and use the straight parts for planks

making hanging knees out of the crooks . . .

Beowolf
11-06-2000, 03:10 PM
I'm voting for the incumbant. President Bartlett. I just love the job that him and Josh, and Leo, and Toby and the rest of the gang are doing there in the west wing.

Greg H
11-06-2000, 03:57 PM
Which one would you want to stand watch in a gale, while you step below to sleep.....

Well she's not running, so how about the one that can read a compass.

[This message has been edited by Greg H. (edited 11-06-2000).]

rickprose
11-06-2000, 04:47 PM
well, one of 'em's got a wooden head, and one of 'em's got the personality of a locust stump, and one of 'em probably wooden let us sail unsafe old boats, anyway, so there's plenty of choice for all of us...

Steve McMahon
11-06-2000, 06:35 PM
This is sounding a lot like an US of A only forum. Just make sure you vote for whoever is going to be friendly to your northern neighbors. Oh yea - please ask them to stop shipping the acid rain from New Yerk up the coast. http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/frown.gif

John058
11-06-2000, 06:39 PM
Just so you remember to vote early (and vote often) http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Smacksman
11-06-2000, 07:19 PM
It's now the day in question here and you have still 5 hours to wait. I've been watching the coverage here with waneing interest - the media overkill is proberbly a tenth of the strength with you.
Make use of your right to vote - in many places of the 'democratic' world I know you have ...
One man, one vote, once.

May the best man win.

Kermit
11-06-2000, 07:48 PM
In my grumpy moments I think the best man hasn't even run since the last time Norman Thomas was on the ballot! Nonetheless, I've yet to miss an opportunity to vote, and unless I get hit by a bigger truck than mine on the way home tonight, I'll be there when the polls open in the morning.

When and by whom will the inevitable national quadrennial discussion get started concerning universal voting hours? I'd still like to see a 24 hour period set to GMT instead of this stupid system that allows the press to report exit polls while we left coasties are still at work. Who votes last--is it in Alaska? Hawaii? Guam?

Tom Galyen
11-06-2000, 08:09 PM
John058
I saw your reply about voting early and often and belive that you must live in the great city of Chicago where that is there motto. It is the only place in the U.S. of A. where you can live your entire life as a Republican and when you die become a Democrat!

McMichael
11-06-2000, 08:23 PM
I try to frequent this forum to get away from the hum-drum catatonic effects of that which
other media forms choose to deluge me with. Anybody built a boat lately?

thechemist
11-06-2000, 09:46 PM
That's in the Building/Repair Department. They get fried when we talk politics or religion over there, but we can usually get away with guns or scotch if it is on a boat....

PatCox
11-06-2000, 10:44 PM
I do dearly love a decent single malt, I do, and I have been thinking, I need some kind of liquid tranquilizer for tomorrow night, for I have strong and probably misguided feelings about this thing, so, thank you, chemist, tomorrow I am going to buy a bottle of fine single malt, deciding which one will be part of the pleasure of it, and I will, in order to render this post acceptable, drink it on my boat in the driveway as I either lament or celebrate the election returns.

PatCox
11-06-2000, 10:46 PM
Oh, and by the way, that hoax is absolutley ridiculous, everyone knows, it is the democrats who vote Tuesday, the republicans Wednesday.

ACB
11-07-2000, 05:06 AM
Good luck to you all, and of course I hope that the Best Man For the Job wins!

I would respectfully suggest voting for whoever seems to you to be best suited to dealing with the economic recession which has in fact started, rather than paying any attention to tax cuts which probably will not occur. In the UK, back in 1988/9, That Woman and her then chancellor, Lawson, were observed to speculate on what should be done after she had repaid the National Debt.

Guess what...within months we were talking of the end of the Lawson Bubble and the effect of negative equity on domestic housing and credit card overspend in delaying the recovery....

John058
11-07-2000, 06:15 AM
Tom,
Chicago didn't invent voter fraud, they just perfected it http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif
Here in Atlanta, the revelation that multiple-thousands of voters were pulling a Lazarus to do so, was yesterday's front page story in the local fish wrap. The ploy even extends into rural Georgia.

Oh, and my elixer for this evening will be E&J VSOP brandy and I'll build a boat someday, I promise!

Scott Rosen
11-07-2000, 08:38 AM
ACB, you are a very wise man.

Why is it that almost no one ever notices that the greatest momentum for tax cuts usually occurs right at the top of the economic cycle? There's no worse time to cut taxes, as the slowing economy will naturally reduce revenue and increase the demand on government services. If government really wanted to help, it would have reduced spending and increased taxes as the economy moved upward, and would now be in a much better position to respond to worsening economic times. But in this election, it makes no difference whether your candidate promises to cut taxes, or to pay off the national debt. Either way, there won't be enough money.

Ask yourself this: which candidate will be more likely to provide you with old-growth timber to build your boats and plentiful oil to run your deisels? LOL


[This message has been edited by Scott Rosen (edited 11-07-2000).]

jeffery
11-07-2000, 08:49 AM
Kermit
I would guess that alaska votes last because it is west of hawaii and Guam is west of the international date line

If you wish to feel insignificent remember the election of 76 when Jimmy didn't get a single vote ( except for texas) between the missippi river and hawaii

writting from the colony of the west
Jeffery

Greg H
11-07-2000, 09:41 AM
You Know what I would like to on the ballot? A box for 'none of the above', which would then require another vote within say, 30 days with differnet people....repeat as necessary.
Suppose we'd have to get rid of the electoral college first though.
vote- Inga

Jim Hillman
11-07-2000, 09:42 AM
Read this moring in te WSJ that California sent out 3.2 MILLION absentee votes...

SailBoatDude
11-07-2000, 11:37 AM
Ian McColgin has a point. Gore is stiff as a board and Bush looks like lumber left in the Texas sun too long. I'll vote for the least amount of rot showing. Gore will get the nod, but I was only paid to vote one time this year. Now I still get a sawbuck for each additional county I score a vote in as well. We call it "tax relief" here in the South.

Ed Harrow
11-07-2000, 12:24 PM
"Ask yourself this: which candidate will be more likely to provide you with old-growth timber to build your boats and plentiful oil to run your deisels? LOL" Looks like either an oxymoron or perhaps hobson's choice?

"Vote early and vote often" can, I believe, be attributed to Boston's own Mayor Curley.

scottek
11-07-2000, 01:54 PM
I am confused, which canidate is "WWF" and which is "WCW"? LOL

-YF Scott

PS I got to vote yesterday! (Monday, Nov. 6)

sigridt
11-07-2000, 01:54 PM
the wood-boat party
could be our best candidate?
drank CPES

Scott Rosen
11-07-2000, 02:38 PM
Ed, no Hobson's choice there. One candidate says he will protect the old growth forests and remote oil fields from human hands. The other candidate will let us cut down the trees and build boats with the wood and will drill for the oil.

Save it. Or use it. That's the choice.

How's this for an approach to the use of old growth woods. I try to imagine myself a big ole tree, say Southern Yellow Pine or maybe White Oak. I've been growing for well over a hundred years deep in some forest where no human being has set foot. I'm just at the peak of my strength and beauty. As I look into the future, what do I want for myself? Should I choose immortality or should I choose death?

I choose immortality. So the first thing I'm going to do is find a good sawyer who will fell me when my heartwood is at its prime. Then I'll have him sell me to a boatbuilder and cut me up for use in a finely designed yacht. With a good varnish job, my beauty will live on forever in that boat. On the other hand, if I choose death, then I will stand alone in the forest until some strong wind blows me down. I'll then be decomposed by fungus, insects and worms and become the plant food for some weeds or poison ivy or something. I wouldn't wish that fate on a fiberglass tree.

Any of you folks having a slow day, too?

wandiwise
11-07-2000, 03:43 PM
Having spent most of my life in the Central Time Zone (but NOT central in my political thoughts, I find it amusing to be living here on the 'almost last to vote' West (Left?) Coast. But, the amusing part is that I voted last week, via the absentee ballot route which apparently is being pushed here in Washington State. I like it, rather than having to run the gamut and gauntlet of political signs and glad-handing politicians at the polls on election day.

How I voted is my own cotton-pickin business, but will note that the country seems to be on a downhill slide, and neither political party, in office or without, has done anything to stem the flow of jobs and military hardware and bodies in all directions except our own.

So, suffice it to say that I'm darned unhappy with the way things are going, and, in general I will admit to voting to throw the rascals out. I know, more rascals will come in, but next election thrown them out, ad infinitim. At least that way they won't be there long enough to settle in.

Enough yet. That single malt sounds fine, but hanged if I'll waste time watching the returns, as the wailing chair in the shop suits me better.

Luck to us all. We are going to need it.

www

Ian McColgin
11-07-2000, 03:57 PM
Takes me back to '68 when we radicalhippy you know what's figured there was not a nickle's worth of difference between the two parties. It's still 3 1/2 hrs before I get back to Hyannis to exercise my franchise but I sure don't plan to listen to the results either.

Though it'll be hard to miss them since I'll be at a party for the guy I hope will by my next state senator . . . At least I'll have access to all the wee drops I want and within walking distance of my berth.

Kermit
11-07-2000, 06:00 PM
Yes, luck to us all. What a civil wish on election eve. I'll lift my glass to that. One thing that does please me about how we do political business in this country is the way we accept political loss and then just get on with building that boat. Here's to you; here's to what we make of tomorrow.

ishmael
11-07-2000, 08:32 PM
"And no one knows what's gonna happen to anyone, 'cept the forlorn rags of growin' old." Kerouac

Not Kerouac, I might add.

jeffery
11-08-2000, 08:38 AM
Scott
Slow Day? :) talk about a slow nail biting night I'm thinking of an old benny hill skit starts out... well actuallly it is rather a tragic and morbid vinnette so will not go into it.

The though if 4 more years with no improvement at best or civil war at worst is almost more than this one can take... vision getting to Lake Powell with just finished boat. Jersey barriors acrost the ramp and large sign " Closed to Humans, Lake powell to be drained, Your Pres. Gore at work"
then grafetti next to it " and after all that work peddling your bycycle all the way down here.

I truely wish us all luck make that good luck
Jeffery

Scott Rosen
11-08-2000, 09:22 AM
WOW! It's the morning after, and we still don't know who the winner is. What seems likely is that Gore wins the popular vote and Bush wins the Electoral College, making Bush our next president. Those of you who watched tv last night, saw the media declare Gore winner in Florida, then retract and declare it too close to call, then declare Bush the winner, then retract and again declare it too close to call.

Regardless of whom you supported, I think this is the best thing to happen to America in very, very long time. We all got to eat a piece of humble pie. This is the best antidote for political arrogance that I can imagine. I especially enjoyed watching the various television networks reluctantly having to admit their mistakes, and then having to admit their inability to predict the outcome. The winner, whoever that will be, will have an overwhelming mandate to pursue the paths of compromise and moderation. How the mighty have fallen.

ishmael
11-08-2000, 09:40 AM
Scott, I hope you're right, but I'm not so sanguine. Winning with a plurality twice didn't keep Clinton from arrogance. Will winning/losing have much effect? Assuming that's what happens? It surely ain't the same as a landslide, I'll grant ya that.

Ian McColgin
11-08-2000, 10:13 AM
More people stayed home to watch whoever shot JR than ever voted for RR and they called his win a mandate for somethingorother, so . . .

Whatever. We had a party for the first D to be state sen from Cape Cod. In real life he's a history prof at Mass Maratime, & he still managed to remark that in the early 1800's there were no D's, only Whigs. Oh well.

steve van pelt
11-08-2000, 10:50 AM
So I fall asleep last night waiting to find out who's the next prez, only to awake with the same problem! I found both candidates lackluster and opted for plan "C" as a protest vote...my thoughts being that I'd rather have a clean body of water to sail my (yet to be purchased wooden) boat than cheap and plentiful supplies of boat building materials.

In a year, we'll ALL be wishing Bill was back in the White House!

Alan D. Hyde
11-08-2000, 10:50 AM
As has been common for some time, we are reduced to supporting the lesser of the evils.

History teaches us "when in doubt, decide for liberty."

Let us hope that we won't be fooled again
(or at least, not this time).

Alan

ishmael
11-08-2000, 11:07 AM
I'm with you Alan. My hope all along has been that--no matter the outcome--the hands of zealous advocacy government be tied. Hope it doesn't lead to something worse. http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Strikes me that our European members scratch their heads at this attitude, but ya know what, let them. We've got Pierce Brosnan now, and with Bond on our side how can we lose?

No major flippancy intended. Okay, a little absurdity around the edges. But then, I don't have any children and can afford tongue in cheek.

"The center cannot hold" Yeats

htom
11-08-2000, 11:29 AM
Wisconsin's vote was determined by less than 6,000 votes (at least as of this morning.)

Nadar, Buchannan, and Browne each got more than 7,000 votes there. Third party voting does make a difference.

Ed Harrow
11-08-2000, 11:34 AM
"Fortune brings in some boats that are not steered"

Scott, I figure the bad guys'll get the diesel for their stinkpots and the wood for junk mail if we go one way - if we go the other way maybe we'll find our waterways more like the Boden (sp?) Sea (Hardly a stinkpot to be seen) and as for the wood, well hopefully it will be used in a conservative manner just for the builders of wooden boats and similar articles.

Last night I finally broke down, had a toast to our future with my good friend Jack, and went to bed. Who'd have thunk it.

Mike DeHart
11-08-2000, 11:43 AM
I had a guy tell me that he would not vote because he didn’t like “either guy.” When I suggested a third party, he replied with the typical “thrown away vote” line. I did not save the article so don’t quote the numbers exactly, but only about 40 % of the people who could vote do vote (if I remember correctly). It is a fair guess that this group will be evenly split. The result is that 20% of the voters get to decide what the other 80% have to accept. If the 60% of disgusted potential voters would vote a third party “protest” vote, the system would get a much needed shake-up. No vote is ever a wasted vote. If enough people vote for an outsider, even if he has no chance of winning, then the big players will have no choice but to take notice and change their ways. Make no mistake, the two big parties want desperately to perpetuate the wasted vote mentality. It guarantees that they will both maintain power and money. If you are fed up with the two party system, they don’t give a darn. If you are fed up to the point that you don’t vote then they both love you more than anyone else since you volunteer to be harmless to them both. If you care anything at all about your future, please vote for someone. Vote for anyone. Just vote. When you don’t vote you say that whoever I (and others) choose for you is fine by you. You should then take everything you get with a smile and no complaints.

Ken Hall
11-08-2000, 01:27 PM
A vote made with held nose is the only wasted vote...

Scott Rosen
11-08-2000, 01:33 PM
Of all the Constitutional rights we have in this country, the one that gets exercised the most is the right NOT to vote. In my opinion, there's no good excuse. Period.

The political scientists will tell you (or at least they told me when I was in college) that poor voter turnout means one of several things.

1. Alienation. People don't feel as if the candidates represent their views and their interests, so they don't bother voting. The extreme form of this would be neo-nazis, for example, whose beliefs are so outside of the mainstream that there is no possible way for them to use the existing system to put their politics into action. Isn't that why such people resort to violence?

2. Indifference. "Both candidates are the same, so I don't care who wins." Under this theory, there's no difference between the candidates so there's no point in voting. You're content to let your neighbor decide who will occupy the White House.

3. Apathy. "My vote doesn't make any difference, so why should I vote?" These folks don't think they have any effect on the outcome so they don't make the modest effort to register and vote.


All in all, these excuses are the signs of a prosperous country in which many folks are too fat and happy to care much about the political process. I suppose that one way to view this in a positive light would be to say that if someone doesn't know enough to appreciate the importance of voting, then they shouldn't be voting anyway. Think of the negative effects it would have on our system if 100 Million people who didn't care about the election and didn't even try to understand the issues were forced to the polls. But that's just elitist drivel, and I don't buy it.

Do you Brits ever feel like Dr. Frankenstein--as if you're watching Mary Shelly's story come to life in politics?

PatCox
11-08-2000, 02:15 PM
For those who complain about having to choose the lesser of two evils, I have to ask, since when in your life have you ever had the chance to choose pure, unalloyed virtue? These are people, they have huge flaws, though not necessarily the flaws that the press has publicized. But everyone has flaws, its always the least evil. As far as theseguys, one appears to be a good at politics, which is the art of getting elected, but doesn't seem to have the slightest interest in policy, the science of running the government. To me, he seems a nice enough guy, though he gets a little too gleeful whenever he talks about the death penalty, but mostly he seems well meaning but out of touch with the way ordinary poor folk live. The other seems to be good at policy, in an academic way, he has at least read about poor folk like me, even if he's never been one, but he's a pretty bad politician, can't seem to give off good vibes, not likeable. So, well, what do you do? What do you want? Think Colin Powell is somehow perfect? He gives me a pain, his foundation takes in huge amounts of money, but does next to nothing, while he has lived his life off government paychecks, and now gets a salary and a pension while he tells us we need to volunteer to help people, presumably so the government will have more money to buy shiny things for the military. We all know Kennedy had issues, same ones Clinton has, in part. Nobody's perfect. I think its healthy, a sign of intelligence, if you think its a lesser of two evils choice, only narrow partisans ever think they are voting for a saint. Democracy means compromise. In law we have a saying; when people settle a case, we say that it must be a good settlement if both sides are unhappy with it. Maybe its a good thing when you are unhappy with both candidates, for similar reasons.

ishmael
11-08-2000, 02:23 PM
Well spouted Pat, but if we knew what Kennedy (to follow the icon) was really up to, would we have elected him?

A difficult issue. Is it possible for a "King Arthur" figure to selflessly give purpose and direction to a populous? Seems to me the selfless don't get elected these days. Ever? Why? Why not? Maybe we should look at that? Best, Jack

Scott Rosen
11-08-2000, 02:44 PM
Well said, Pat. I agree with your observation on the death penalty thing. But Gore is for it, too. I don't see any real difference in their views on that. And I sure don't see how killing anyone can be a cause for celebration. If you were to spend some time in a prosecutor's office after winning a death penalty case, you would be sickened to know that the prosecutors and staff actually celebrate gleefully.

Since we're spouting off lots of useless b.s., I might as well add a few more shovelfulls to the pile. I don't understand how anyone who has practiced law and tried a couple of cases, civil or criminal, could possibly support the death penalty. (Remember, most national politicians were lawyers once.) Wrong results occur more frequently than you would like to believe. Lots of courts can't even get the EASY stuff right, so their odds of properly deciding a complicated capital case are not so good. I don't necessarily dispute the government's right to take life, after due process of law and all that stuff, but I can report first hand that the system for determining guilt and innocence and meting out the punishment makes plenty of mistakes. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Kermit
11-08-2000, 03:10 PM
At the risk of sounding oxymoronic, the only vote thrown away is the one not cast.

Did anyone else get the sadistic kick I did out of all the pundits and talking heads having to blather on to fill the dead air as last night's events dragged on? Whatever you do, don't say that there's just nothing to be said. I got the feeling that they just HAD to try to call the election for someone so they could look brilliant, end the endless coverage, and go home and unplug the phone.

winslow
11-08-2000, 04:08 PM
Lifted from salon.com and reuters.

In Palm Beach County, Fla., Wednesday morning hundreds of voters are complaining that they were confused by the ballots and accidentally voted for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Vice President Al Gore, according to wire service and TV reports.

According to the Associated Press, some voters called in about the ballots, which "placed the names of Gore and Buchanan across from one another." MSNBC showed the ballot, and it was clear that while Gore was listed second, the second hole punch on the ballot coincided with Buchanan's name, which was listed opposite Gov. George W. Bush's and Gore's. While Gore carried the area comfortably, Buchanan tallied more than 3,000 votes -- much higher than was expected.

Palm Beach County Commissioner Bert Aaronson, who represents the West Boca and West Delray areas: "I don't think we have 3,000 Nazis in Palm Beach County."

(Bush appears to have worn FL by fewer than 2000 votes.)

In addition to the ballot confusion, CNN reported that a "stuffed ballot box" was discovered in a church in Dade County. It was immediately turned over to authorities, the network said.

Another panic swept the state when television networks reported that several ballot boxes had gone missing in heavily Democratic Broward County, reports that state and local election supervisors denounced as "totally incorrect."

Broward County Election Supervisor Jane Carroll said the ballot boxes were in the hands of sheriff's deputies, who were waiting to collect them all before delivering them to central counting stations.

"They were never missing," Carroll said. "They were waiting for the last case and then they were on there way here. Somehow this story got embellished to where they were missing. They weren't missing. We were never worried about it, we knew where they were."
----------------------

Interesting, at least.

The denials coming out of Florida have that 'sameness of language' that often appears during coordinated deny & cover efforts.

Southern deputies have some history serving the interests of entrenched power and money. (I'm thinking here of the civil rights movement...)

...and George W's brother is the governor.

George Sr. creeps me out. His CIA years were during some very...umm...interesting times.

Folks talk about how farout California is, but it's Florida that has me wondering...strange political/business/criminal things seem to flourish inspite of an abundance of sunlight. Or have I just read too many Carl Hiaasen books!

Anything to all of this? I like to think I'm not prone to conspiracy theories....

And Kermit, I always liked this quote from Norman Thomas: "If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it." Pointed yet hopeful.




[This message has been edited by winslow (edited 11-08-2000).]

BrianCunningham
11-08-2000, 04:13 PM
Anyone else hear about the uncountedballot box they found in the church!

... and I called up my mother at 2:30 to talk about the election ( we always stay up )

Under 2,000 votes separate the two.
So much for your vote not counting!

Art Read
11-08-2000, 05:17 PM
Yeah... I heard about it... Full of pencils when they opened it. (Reminds me of Geraldo's Al Capone vault...)

Scott Rosen
11-08-2000, 06:03 PM
One of the news services carried a facsimile of the "controversial" ballot. To my eyes, it was clear and not at all confusing. Plus, it was pre-approved by the Florida Registrar of Voters, who happens to be a Democrat.

Funny how some folks go sour grapes. I had lunch today with an otherwise rational guy who insisted that the Florida election was fixed. He thought Buchanan couldn't possibly have gotten so many votes in Palm Beach, because Jewish old ladies wouldn't vote for Buchanan. He said anyone who was Jewish would know THAT. Judging by the condescending tone of his voice, he must not have gleaned my religious affiliation. Talk about arrogant! Since when was Palm Beach populated exclusively by Jewish old ladies? Anyway, I know a few Jews who support Buchanan, and I think that one of the top people in his campaign is a very religious Orthodox Jew. Granted, Buchanan scares the daylights out of me, but I don't necessarily think all of his supporters are nazis. It's amazing the extent to which some folks will go to place the blame on "the other side."

Kermit
11-08-2000, 06:56 PM
I'm trying to recall the old saw about living in interesting times...

winslow
11-08-2000, 07:07 PM
My dog isn't a part of this fight.
I just report and ask questions (OK, maybe a bit of commentary).

Given who the principals are, whining and pettiness are the minimum I would expect. Lying and cheating would sadden, but not surprise, me.

Art Read
11-08-2000, 07:11 PM
Seems to me that "old saw" is actually an ancient Chinese curse... Seems appropriate.

PatCox
11-08-2000, 09:01 PM
Okay Scott, what about the fact that in Volusia county, the socialist workers party candidate was recorded to have received 9,800 votes, 50% of his nationwide total? Or the fact that in Palm Beach County, 17,000 ballots were discarded, thrown away, because people voted for more than one presidential candidate, and the supervisor of elections circulated a memo long before the polls closed warning poll workers that people were very confused about the ballot. There was a problem. The Limbaugh line on this, now repeated by all the sheep, is "they must have been stupid, they should be more careful." My response is "the ballot should not be a trap for the unwary." This stinks to high heaven. And there's one other thing that stinks, that is the timing of the counting last night. I believe that Jeb tried to help his brother by sitting on results favorable to Gore in order to bluff Gore into conceding. It almost worked. Statistically, it should have been impossible for Gore to make up a 75,000 vote deficit with over 90% of the vote counted. Then Gore calls Bush and says he's going to concede, and suddenly the Dade county votes come out. Tonight Dan Rather asked a Bush staffer a question which implied this theory, and the guy blanched and stuttered like nothing I have ever seen in a professional press spokesman. I don't think everything is out there yet, which would explain why the Bushies look like they are walking on eggs right now.

winslow
11-08-2000, 09:46 PM
PatCox, Jeb announced he'd "deliver Florida." Maybe he just failed to say, "by any means necessary."

jeffery
11-08-2000, 10:20 PM
I thought the curse " May you live in intresting times" was jewish or possable irish

Pat it seems to me the pinnical of chutba for the dems to speak of iregularities when in the year before 96 election Clinton pushed INS to naturalize 1.5 milion with out proper background checks and it is estimated at least 50,000 would have not become citizans due to felony or other reasons. Old b-one bob in anahime california lost his house seat by 1100 votes B-one in his investigation proved 938 votes for sachez were fraudulant but the dem gov would launch a full scale investigation dispite reports sanchez's people were bussing ileagles to the poles. Neworlens sent a rep to the hose with so much voter fraud it wasn't even denied and the goviner of mariland was elected by a bunch very questionable ballot counts from the city of baltimore though he was far behind in the rest of the state

Maybe those statisticly impossable catch up numbers from dade county were from stuffing the ballot box ( you really thing the Cuban Ex patroits) are going to vote for the adminstration that is taking the screws off castro?

remember the greatest election in liberia the vote was 125,000 to 85 thousand in a country with 15,000 voters.

Best wishes to you Pat and what kind of law are you practicing ( also wonder what is your favorite boat?)
Jeffery

Scott Rosen
11-09-2000, 09:53 AM
There is evidence that suggests some voters were confused about the ballots in Palm Beach. So far, I haven't heard anything that suggests actual election fraud, which would be a grave matter. I do not think there is a remedy after the fact for confused voters, except to change the procedures for the next election. It's not hard to see that once you open the doors to those kind of claims, you could never lay any election to rest.

If there were fraud, then those responsible should be prosecuted, the election remedied, and the candidates should accept the new results with grace and dignity.

So far, the vitriolic rhetoric by some Democrats like Wexler of Florida, have done nothing but further divide us and make it even more difficult for the candidates and voters to grant legitimacy and finality to this election. Those who threaten to tie up the election, without solid evidence of fraud, are putting their own interests above the interests of the nation. Any such action would create a power crisis, the likes of which we haven't seen since before the Civil War.

I confess. I like Gore. I also like Bush. I think either of them would make a competent president, although each with different strengths and weaknesses. But the strident and defiant tone of Gore's advisors scares me like nothing else in American politics since the behavior of Nixon's people during Watergate. I'm not a big adherent to conspiracy theories, but I think it's just as plausable that this was engineered by the Democratic Registrar of Voters in Florida, in collusion with Congressman Wexler and his cronies, to delay the results of this election for years so Clinton can keep the White House for a while longer. Sound ridiculous? I can assure you it's no sillier on its face than the other conspiracy theories being thrown about.

Gore and Bush should tell their advisors that the interests of the nation come first, and sometimes you have to take one for the team. The loser should swallow hard, smile for the camera, and pledge his support to the winner.

[This message has been edited by Scott Rosen (edited 11-09-2000).]

Ken Hall
11-09-2000, 11:12 AM
I agree, Scott (except for liking Bush & Gore, I don't hate 'em but I couldn't bring myself to vote for either so I voted Libertarian but that's just variant mileage, my friend http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif). Let it end today, with the recount. A legal challenge will just whip up the fringers who at some level almost want a coup d'Clinton just so they can shout they were right all along while brandishing Kalashnikovs on the barricades. More seriously, it would foment a Constitutional crisis.

Let it end today. The beauty (and sometimes the frustration) of this republic is that it really doesn't matter that much. The sun will rise, the bills need paying, boats need sailing (and/or varnishing) and my son needs a hug. http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Ken

[This message has been edited by SelfSinkingFlatiron (edited 11-09-2000).]

winslow
11-09-2000, 11:18 AM
The interests of the established parties of power carry no weight with me. Put the team/country/community first.

**nullify the election results (and send the principals - one insufferable, the other insufficient - home to live quietly on their trust funds)

**bag the Electoral College (and actually have one person - one vote)

**install proportional respresentation (and welcome into the process/government all those excluded by winner-take-all)



[This message has been edited by winslow (edited 11-09-2000).]

htom
11-09-2000, 02:51 PM
If you don't like the mess we're having now, think of having it in every precinct of every district of every state as EVERY ballot is contested. EVERY TIME!

Are you really sure you want direct election?

Ian McColgin
11-09-2000, 03:40 PM
My great great grandfather, Benjamine Harrison, was the last R to loose the popular vote and take the Electoral College vote. His Wall Street favorable term is tucked in between Cleavland's two terms.

From the D's point of view, even though my ancestor tried to give away the country to the very rich (and in terms of some rail way schemes actually did effect a transfer of public to private wealth) it was still not a bad time for the D's to have lost. Let them blame the R's for some bad stuff that probably would have happened anyway and gave Cleaveland 4 years to solidify a really effective campaign and subsequent leadership style.

Maybe at a time of a close race between a couple of second and third rate clowns, you want the other side's clown to take the prize and take the subsequent fall.

Anyway, I'm not really a liberal, more a radical, and Gore's not really a liberal either - more an Eisenhauer republican, so I shed no tears for him.

jeffery
11-09-2000, 04:52 PM
While the bills have to be paid there is a faint hope posibility even the chance of a snowball on a hot stove with bush that" the height of bad manners of asking a gentalman the contents of his purse" (in the words of the head of the IRS) that we could get rid of the income tax. with gore he'd be too busy working on getting rid of the internal combustion engine.

By the way what is the proper sail area per pound of boat weight?

My only attempt was 60 squarefeet sailarea to 300 pound boat IT NO GO

Jeffery

Ian McColgin
11-09-2000, 05:16 PM
Like answering, "How much horsepower per ton?" In fact, exactly that quesion. No one answer.

The SA/DISP is an interesting ratio but by itself not very informative since you'll also be interested is SA/LWL etc etc.

Also the ratios of what's high powered in relation to displacement vary with the gross size of the boat - it doesn't just scale up or down - and hugely depending on whether the designer is going light or what.

A ULDB sled has a lot of length and beam for it's displacement, not so much sail as you might think. A Wianno Sr has a lot of sail for her length and pretty much alot but not extreem for her displacement. Etc etc.

Combining the motor and the sail. Grana at 55'x10'x6' and 20T has a little less sail than the more conventional Goblin, an Alden at 43lod (33lwl) x12'x4'6" and about 12T. Goblin could really power along, but Grana can move faster if it's blowing hard even though her rig is fundamentally less powerful. At the motor end, Goblin needed all 45 rusty hp she sould get out of her Perkins. LFH had in mind powering the Marco Polo's pretty high & I may one day get a 70hp engin in Grana (I'm driving a rusty MD) but right now she moves ok and very economically on a less than 20 hp Deutz.

Harmonies are as infinate as dissonances.

winslow
11-09-2000, 05:21 PM
Yup. Direct election. Proportional representation. Polls open for a full week. Voter registration available at the polls. Uniform national ballot. Fully trained & paid poll workers. Nation wide restoration of the voting right of felons who have served their sentence.

Oh, and no police cruisers with flashing lights sitting in front of the polling places.

Scott Rosen
11-09-2000, 06:02 PM
You could call me a fervent moderate. (You could probably think of a few other things to call me too http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif) You always accomplish more good for more people by building consensus than by adversarial means. (Extra! Extra! You heard it here first.) I can't help thinking that if both candidates would act like patriots and gentlemen (as opposed to genital-men), and put the interests of the country above the interests of their parties or themselves, then we will be though with this in short order and the potential for crisis will pass. On the other hand, if they let the hotheads and the litigators call the shots, it's gonna be a long, cold winter. Anyone notice how the international finance markets have been dropping over the last couple of days of uncertainty? If this doesn't resolve soon, we're gonna be wading in some deep, deep doo doo.

Ian Wright
11-09-2000, 07:58 PM
Patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel it's not likly that a Gentleman would find the need for it. I'd look for Honesty. (Ha!)
Who said when asked to choose between country and his friends, "I hope I am Gentleman enough to choose my Friends." ?

IanW.

John058
11-09-2000, 09:13 PM
...and all this will soon pass so we can get on with our lives of instant gratification...too bad most won't savor the drama of the moment in their quest for cloture..

thechemist
11-09-2000, 09:17 PM
Ian, I believe that was Kim Philby.

Winslow, I'm with you.

jeffery
11-10-2000, 09:14 AM
Wondering if there be anysuport for the senete option 1 state = 1 vote. and imagion how differnt it would be in only property owner could still vote or wards of the goverment could not vote?

Drama of the moment? My wife a democrat and never voted till she met me is talking to the CNN page " 66 of 67countys counted? why did you keep on working and get the 67th county done..."

Ian thankyou for your observation but alas in an to uneduicated to know the sail area of the vessels mentioned. just thinking are not the sailboards about 80 pounds plus rider and 60 foot sail?
thankyou
jeffery

PatCox
11-10-2000, 09:22 AM
Scott, I too am a fervent moderate. As such, I have developed a taste for gridlock and divided government. Whenever political arguments arise, I try to promote compromise, I am quick to suggest that in a Hegelian way, the clash of opposite ideologies produces the best policy. I would not want to live in a world controlled by Ted Kennedy, and I hope most conservatives would not want to live in a world controlled by Jesse Helms. We are fortunate, we have both, they fight it out, and only the relatively moderate measures they can both agree on become law. Limited government conservatives should be happy about this; heck, last week the "liberal" president vetoed a republican spending bill that was absolutely filled with pork, in an effort to protect the surplus and keep paying down the national debt, a conservative position; the fact that he did something conservative for blatantly political reasons doesn't make it less conservative. By the way, someone tell George, the debt is "the people's" debt, I'd prefer he use "the people's" money to pay of "the people's" debt.)
Anyway, I like divided government, and since the republicans kept the house and senate, I desperately hope Gore wins the presidency. The house managers flat out said they are mad at the american public for not supporting them in the impeachment; I fear their revenge. My reasoning wopuld not change even if the democrats had a slight edge in congress, democrats never vote together, they fracture much more than the republicans, something to do with free thinking or something.
But anyway, I fear a constitutional crisis, but I fear Trent Lott more. I honestly beleive that the majority of florida voters voted for Gore, but there ballots were thrown in the garbage, literally thrown in the garbage, for what amounts to typographical errors. That ain't right. Now Bush hangs on a 300 vote lead that fell in his lap because of a mistake. Morally its like holding on to a wallet you found on the sidewalk on the grounds that "whoever owned thjat wallet had a responsibility to make sure he knew where it is and keep it safe." Thats not right. If he would just agree to let that one county hold a new election, it wouldn't take months, it wouldn't go to court. Whats he afraid of, an accurate count? By the way, this happens all the time, all the time, when elections aer this close, there is nothing the least bit unusual about it, its just that there has never been a presidential election this close. There's my two cents.

Peter Kalshoven
11-10-2000, 09:45 AM
One person, one vote... well, let's think about that. Given that the electoral college is the current game in town, and given that the popular vote went to Gore, should we be so quick to throw away the electoral college? I've been seeing pundits suggesting that Bush should arrange "for the good of the country", to give up his victory so that the "popular vote will be upheld". Hogwash. The current system influences the popular vote count.
See if my logic follows. In some states that are seen as strongly pro-D or pro-R, the candidates give up on the process locally in order to focus limited money and resources on the so called swing states. The consequences would seem to be lower voter turnout, and therefore, a lower popular vote count, because the electoral vote is a DONE DEAL. For example, I didn't see any advertising here in SC for the presidential race, because it was (rightly) assumed that Bush would carry the state, and therefore the electoral vote. Some folks might not have voted just because of the fact that they knew that SC's electoral votes were in the bag, an assumption given the weight of truth by both parties and by the media. If, however, the popular vote was the yardstick, then I'm sure more advertising would have driven more voters to the polls.

One more note on the electoral college. It carries with it the safety net that the hugely populated states will not rule the country. Although many of the little states have only 4 votes (Maine) compared to FLorida's 25, the population ratio is not 4:25, but in fact 2:23, as electoral college votes are based on the total of Representatives from the state (population based) plus 2 Senators. This gives the people who feed the country some say versus those who merely consume.

Then again, I could be wrong.

Pete

Maguire
11-10-2000, 09:52 AM
The Electoral College system is working exactly the way it was intended, and I am always surprised when people suggest doing away with it.

You cannot separate out the way we elect the president from how we elect other federal offices (and how the federal judiciary is appointed). It is a system. Each state gets equal representation in the Senate, representation by population in the House and the executive is voted by the EC.

If we did away with the EC, most of the country could stay home. We would always be forced to accept the will of those who live in the 4 or 5 major population centers of the country.

Look at the national map and notice that Gore carried the typically Liberal northeast (with the exception of typically conservative New Hampshire) and California, New Mexico and Washington. The entire center portion of the country was carried by Bush. This offers a striking visual image of why the electoral college system works.

While we have spent (so far) 3 days with our eyes on Florida, it is interesting to remember that if Gore had carried just ONE more state with 10 or more electoral votes (like, the 11 votes he lost from his "home" state of Tennessee), the Florida vote would be irrelevent.

Maguire

ishmael
11-10-2000, 10:13 AM
Okay, here's the solution to the current dead-lock.

There are currently about three hundred votes separating Bush and Gore.

Let the Dem's recount by hand the votes in their Florida stongholds.

Wait for the absentee ballots to be counted, along with all the votes yet to be counted in the other close states.

Both Bush and Gore come out of their lairs TODAY, and say they will abide by the final vote counts, and that neither of them will pursue any other recounts unless mandated by state election laws. Also, neither of them will pursue legal action unless good evidence of actual fraud arrises.

Who ever wins, wins, period.

As interesting as this whole thing is, it's also disconcerting. If it continues I fear a constitional mess that could be avoided with a little good old fashioned statemanship. In the end, the legislature is so evenly divided it likely won't matter which of the two is president.

Yeah gridlock!!!

Jesse Jackson go home!

Boy, am I a dreamer, or what?

Keith Wilson
11-10-2000, 10:44 AM
The trouble is that the vote count in most elections is not very accurate - plus or minus half a percent or so is about as accurate as they get, particularly over a whole state. There are always a few votes that get lost or mishandled. There are always a few cases like Palm Beach County where the ballots are badly designed and people get confused and vote for the wrong person by mistake. This is not fraud or conspiracy, not even intentional, just ordinarly human screw-ups. The system is just not designed to be that accurate. Most of the time it doesn't matter, because the margin of victory is greater than the inaccuracy of the count. Now it matters.

Maybe we should admit that we can't really tell who won, and just flip a coin? ;) Unfortunately, the lawyers on both sides are now warming up, and it looks to get ugly.

PatCox
11-10-2000, 11:45 AM
I'm not saying that anyone did anything wrong,the ballot situation in florida is clearly the result of incompetence, pure and simple. And the lost wallet is often the result of incompetence, that doesn't give you the right to keep it. The funny thing is, the exit polls that evryone thinks got it wrong, resulting in the media "mistakenly" calling Florida for Gore, those polls were actually correct, if you assume that the 100,000 votes statewide (22,000 in Palm Beach County alone) broke the same way the other votes in their respective dictricts broke. Ironically, the exit polls may be more accurate than the ballot counts, because the exit polls reflect who the people thoiught they voted for. Now, as to the usual margin of error, I make a distinction between Palm Beach and the rest of the state. The 80,000 disqualified votes in the other 65 counties, about 1,200 per county, probably represent the normal rate of screw-ups. But 22,000 in one county, that is a statistical anomoly, that is above and beyond the usual error rate, and for that reason, because I honestly believe that the majority of Florida voters tried to vote for Gore, I think a re-ballot, in Palm Beach alone, is the right thing to do, and do it quickly, for the good of the country.
One more observation. I do not listen to left wing nuts, and I do not make stuff up to win arguments, this is verifiable and I will get cites for this if anyone wants to see it. Prior to the election, Bush campaign officials told the press that they would not accept a situation in which Bush won then popular and lost the electoral. They said they had a game plan to fight and force Gore to concede. They planned to blitz the issue on talk radio and get america riled at the un-democratic electoral system, in hope of forcing Gore to concede. Tim Mathews, clearly in favor of this, implied he agreed with this when he said, again prior to the election, that Gore is just the kind of person who would selfishly insist he had won even if he lost the popular vote. Now, to everyone's surprise, Gore won the popular vote. What does Bush do? Call on him to concede, and amazingly, what does Mathews do? He calls on him to concede. Oh all I want in the world is a little consistency so I know whats what.

Art Read
11-10-2000, 12:59 PM
I think we all agree that had the people of Florida realized the consequences of their actions on election day, the results would certainly reflect a much larger turnout if not what the ultimate result would have been. To suggest that the voters of just one county, known to lean favorably to one party, be allowed to re-cast their vote with this new knowledge is patently absurd. The ONLY possible "solution" would be to allow the entire STATE to vote again, and even then with only those who bothered to register for that right BEFORE Nov. 7th. Even this is grossly unfair to the rest of the nation. There is no way the results will in any way reflect the true nature of the Florida voter's will or determination as it existed at the time that ALL of us where allowed to express our own. Its very easy to look at the final numbers from the real election and realise that allowing one district to recast their votes will alter the result for the whole state and thus, the nation. I seriously doubt this "solution" would be entertained if the county in question was one of the one's that the republican's carried.

[This message has been edited by Art Read (edited 11-10-2000).]

ishmael
11-10-2000, 01:11 PM
What a bloody mess. Whither goest thou America? No solution I can think of is completely fair at this point. The best I can think of is the one I said above, but new bit's and pieces keep dribbling in. Just heard that some "absentees" receivied two and three ballots. Anyone looked at their IRA today?

Actually, I think Klinton ought to go the joint chiefs, declare marshall law, and crown himself Emperor, ala Napoleon. LOL Think the military's strong enough? http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif

htom
11-10-2000, 02:15 PM
I lie to exit pollers. Always. I doubt that I'm alone in this practice.

I frequently lie to other pollers, and if I have a coin handy, I use it to make selections.

Palm Beach County had nearly as many, or more, ballots discarded in the previous election, it appears. Minnesota has forbidden the use of this kind of voting machine ballot because it's hard to use, count, ....

The Electoral College seems to be doing its job.

Those whining about the unfairness of their representation there should look at what happens if the Electoral College does not produce a majority winner and it goes to the House of Representatives -- one STATE one vote, and it can't be divided!

jeffery
11-10-2000, 02:17 PM
Ishmael
I'd go with you idea when the emporer Klinton attacks the people to enforce his thrown he leads from the front and is backed up by the army rangers. then we'll be argueing weather there were more entry holes from the front or rear just like his hero JFK ;)

now how does one get those smilly faces here?

Alan D. Hyde
11-10-2000, 02:20 PM
Buchanan polled 8,000 votes in Palm Beach County during the 1996 Primary Election. Why should we be surprised that he received about half that many in the recent General Election?

16,000 ballots were invalidated in Palm Beach County during the 1996 election, 19,000 during the most recent election. The ballot in question was prepared by a Democrat, widely circulated and posted, and objected to BY NO ONE prior to the election Tuesday.

By the way, this ballot was promoted by "senior rights" activists (mostly liberal Democrats) as more fair to seniors because of its larger, more readable, print.

Every voter was told that a spoiled ballot could be exchanged for a replacement ballot, and that, if he or she felt confused, assistance was available upon request.

Jesse Jackson has alleged minority "voter intimidation." If there were intimidation, it was not effective. Fifteen percent of the county's residents are black; sixteen percent of those who voted were black.

I have been a precinct polling official for twenty years, and it has been objectively established that there is FAR more election fraud by the Democratic Party, than there is by the Republicans.

It is not necessarily that Republicans are more moral; it is more a matter of the constituencies involved. This is not to say that Republicans have not, for example, done a certain amount of gerrymandering: clearly they have, as have the Democrats.

The classic case of election fraud(acknowledged as such by liberal Democrat historians) is, ironically enough, that of Richard Daley's 100,000 fraudulent votes in Chicago which give John F. Kennedy the 1960 win over Richard Nixon.

Nixon knew of the fraud, but conceded "for the good of the Country." Gore's spokesman, Daley, is of course that same Richard Daley's son.

Also ironically, the most massive documented election fraud effort in all of American history was undertaken by Albert A. Gore, Jr. in 1996, at the request of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

One and one-half million recent immigrants were unlawfully made citizens prior to the election; normal requirements were bypassed: 50,000 of these individuals were convicted felons who NEVER would have been eligible for citizenship.

It is an ancient maxim of jurisprudence that "he who seeks equity must do equity." This is sometimes referred to as "the clean hands doctrine."

Mr. Gore's claims are without substance, and his hands are dirty. If the certified recount, and the absentee ballot results, do not change the results, he should promptly concede.

Alan

Incidentally, right after Gore published "Earth in the Balance," he got lost on ten acres of woods in Tennessee, and had to be found by the Secret Service. This is also the individual who walked into Monticello, looked at the busts of Jefferson and Madison, and asked "who are those guys?"

But he knows what's best for all of us; just ask him.

"How small, of all that human hearts endure,
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure." Oliver Goldsmith

Back to finding the right piece of CVG Fir for a skeg.

ishmael
11-10-2000, 02:33 PM
New reports of "widespread" voter fraud in the Haitian precincts of greater Miami. Apparently, many recently naturalized Haitians were led into the polling places and "shown" how to vote! By....? Democrats.

Fox just interviewed a handful of folks who said they were told to vote a straight Democratic ticket by "helpers" who came into the polling place with them. They also quoted a local minister who said he'd received dozens of complaints to that effect from his parish.

Hmmm. Do we, as a country, really want to go down this road? Personally, this starts to look like a slow speed train wreck. I'm with Alan. Best all, Jack

PatCox
11-10-2000, 04:39 PM
Check Kennedy's electoral lead, Chicago would not have made the difference even if Nixon challenged. Buchanon did much better in 96 than 2000. Buchannen's current Palm Beach county campaign chairman said no way he got that many votes. No-one is alleging fraud, but I guess we are a mean spirited country, if they were too stupid to do it right, the heck with them. The stupid can look out for themselves. Not my job to look out for the weak. If I can get this stupid guy to pay too much for this car, good for me. If I can talk this backwoods rancher into leasing me his oil drilling rights for a fracttion of what they're worth, good for me, not my job to help the stupid. I am not sure business ethics are the appropriate guide when we are talking about running an election. The purpose is to ascertain the will of the people; the government did a pretty poor job of ascertaining the will of the people, and now its the people's fault. The thing is, these people aren't even told they screwed up, they wait until they leave the polls and then when they run their ballot, if a flag comes up, they toss it. At least they should be told, hey, did you mean to hit two punches? I mean I will say it again, this is callous, to say the heck with them, they're dumb, its mean spirited. How would you like it if you can't get a license if you make a mistake filling out that simple, easy drivers license form, I bet noone has ever done that, how about it you had to wait four years and re-apply for a license? Forget politics, I am talking simple human kindness, where did this "the heck with them, they had their chance" attitude come from? The ballot isn't a slot machine, you don't go their to have the "chance" to vote, mauybe, if you are lucky. Its not a pop quiz, its not supposed to trap people, and then not even tell them they screwed up, just throw their ballot in the trash and say "ha ha, you had your chance, dummy, and by the way, because you were stupid, you cost your candidate the election." Wow, thats cold. Who's the one hanging on a legalistic technicality here, Bush or Gore?

PatCox
11-10-2000, 04:46 PM
Hey, if I can't type my diatribes here I wil drive my wife crazy, thank you all for preserving my marriage, but, one more thing, after the 1969 election, the republicans demanded a recount in Illinois, and several other states, and when the recount didn't succeed, they brought a lawsuit in federal court in Illinois, which wasn't dismissed until mid-December. Nixon conceded, but he participated in these efforts. Thats the only difference. Constitutional crisis?

ishmael
11-10-2000, 04:56 PM
My prediction.


Gore is gonna win Florida in the hand recount, and Bush is gonna take it to court. I wish he wouldn't. If that's the way it swings, I hope Bush concedes, after, of course, all the other states and the absentee ballots are sorted out and counted.

At a certain point, all the wrangling really isn't good for the country. I don't like it, but the country projects it's leadership image on to the presidency, and a long wrangle cheapens, or calls into question, the office itself. Even more than it's already been.

After all, Scott Rosen of all people was putting forth conspiracy theories here. What is the world coming to? http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/wink.gif

One other comment. If what I suggest happens, and Bush decides to concede, I hope the Left in the country will respect the inherent dignity of that choice. Boy, as one with strong libertarian leanings I guess I imagine the world does cut me some slack in the dream department. ROTFLMAO (I just learned that today!)

Why is Gore playing Kennedyesque on the White House lawn. Is the fix in all you conspiricists?

[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-10-2000).]

Alan D. Hyde
11-10-2000, 05:27 PM
Pat-------

We live in an imperfect world. People do not always govern their actions by high moral precepts, but rather by self-interest. The beauty of free markets is that they can help convert self-interest into public good.

Free markets do not turn evil men into good; Heinrich Himmlers are bad men in any system. But for the most who are in the middle, susceptible of being influenced to be better or worse than they now are, it helps.

Beyond the form of our economic system, the law is our ultimate protector(on this earth, anyway). See "A Man for All Seasons." Sir Thomas More says at one point, talking with his daughter, that the law gives him a place to hide, a place of safety.But if the laws are hewn down,no man will able able to stand in the winds that blow then.(A paraphrase: Robert Bolt said it much better.)

In the matter of this election, no one can know with certainty what "the will of the people" is. Our law instead provides for set procedures, which must be adhered to for an election to be legitimate.

The Rule of Law has been far more shaken and shattered under the Clinton administration than under any of his predecessors. Babies have been shot and burned, political enemies have been hounded into bankruptcy by the IRS,the Justice Department has become a personal political tool of the President, etc.

Albert A. Gore, Jr., has been a part of all this,and has promoted it to promote himself.His reaction to the election results is of a piece with his previous conduct.

Talk to someone who grew up in Bulgaria, or Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany. Gore's current proceedings scare the hell out of them. He asks us to substitute feelings for judgment,and men for laws. No one in Germany in 1932 expected what followed; no one here expects something like that could happen in the U.S.

But the veneer of civilization is far thinner than most of us are willing to acknowledge.

Those who trade liberty for security obtain, and deserve, neither liberty nor security.
(Paraphrased from Benj. Franklin.)

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan D. Hyde (edited 11-10-2000).]

winslow
11-10-2000, 07:04 PM
Ishmael, "the Left in the country"?

Did I miss a meeting or not get a memo? Don't lay this mess on us. The Left in this country is marginalized. Clinton (both ov'em), Gore and the entire Democratic Leardership Committee crowd are, at best, centrists and, if honestly evaluted, actually to the right of that. Dismantling of the social safety net, economic policies set by advisors plucked from Wall Street, irresponsible/ineffective and punative military actions, lip service to environmental causes with no action, sell-out of workers in favor of muti-national corporations, etc. etc. I don't see any of these things on the policy/platform page of my Official Lefty Handbook.

I look at the current political landscape and see a few Democrats who fit the historic profile, ie. Wellstone, Defazio. One of the few Lefties in national office is Vermont's Bernie Sanders.

I will not accept the people who currently populate the Democratic Party being called The Left. They haven't EARNED that label.

ishmael
11-10-2000, 07:40 PM
Interesting Winslow,

I'm always open to being wrong. Well, almost always.

So, just so we have it clear, how would you characterise the ignored Left? What are the left's proposed policies, agendas?

I've come to wonder often if traditional labels still fit. I find myself wishing for a laying bare of corporate abuse, as well as governmental nosiness/corruption. Is it good to leave either of them alone, by reason of corporate and hence governmental laize faire, what with the corporate owned media propagandizing the population about both? Not for me, or you, or most of who post here I suspect.

But, do the traditional labels do ANY good? What new labels, and hence ways of looking can we come up with?

Given the current situation, what could be done, by people who have many interests in common, to shift things away from the centers of power? That may be what we are talking about here.

All that said, I think to characterise Al Gore as toward the right is a misunderstanding of the term.

Both left and right, in their bastardized forms either want, or aquiesce to, more power for the government. Is there another way? Nader? I doubt it.

"When in doubt, decide for liberty." A bow to Alan. Best, Jack

PatCox
11-10-2000, 08:31 PM
Ishmael, the left is marginalized, believe me; Al Gore is a moderate republican, so is Bill Clinton, die hard democrats are disgusted by them. Their economic policies and military and international policies are indistinguishable from modreate republican policies, Unfortunately, since Lowell Weicker is gone, there are no moderate republicans anymore. I personally believe that Bill Clinton is hated by the hard right for his social policies, which are anathema to the right; you know, those liberal policies like the abolition of slavery and free public schools. Please, "liberal" is a dirty word, it has not always been thus.

PatCox
11-10-2000, 08:54 PM
Alan, I do not wish to argue with you, I want only to find common ground. We both love wooden boats, so there is that to build on. I truly believe the world needs both sides, that moderate consensus is built from the clash of opposing ideas, just as the invisible hand increases the common good as a result of all the individual acts of self-interest. Now, may I discuss the latest in the florida situation, and ask what you think. First, the democrats appear to have dropped the idea of lawsuits. From the reaction today, they know the public would not like that. Assume that is true. However, they have asked for a hand recount. Now florida law permits that as a standard procedure after a close election. Most states do, they are doing one right now in my state because a congressional race was close, though it was not as close as Gore and Bush in Florida. Now please let me explain why the hand recount is so important. The florida ballots in question are cardboard punchcards. You punch a hoel in the appropriate place with a little tool, then a computer card reader reads the holes and tabulates the votes. Errors happen, sometimes the hole is slightly off, sometimes the perforation does not go all the way around the circumference, it is hanging by a thread. The machines cannot read these cards (they are like an old IBM punchcard reader). A handcount, however, can read these cards, they can tell that someone tryed to punch a spot, they can see that clearly. Okay, this has just come out, in addition to the nearly 20,000 votes in Palm Beach County that were disqualified for voting for two presidential candidates, there were 10,000 which voted for no presidential candidates. Noone. The Gore people believe that perhaps a hand count would reveal that these people did in fact vote for someone, and the machine just didn't read it. Okay, there we are. At this point, the Gore people, motivated by their own self interest, and in your philosophy their is nothing wrong with that, want to see if a hand count will get them any votes. After all, if the 10,000 ballots break the way the rest did in that county, Gore will gain about 1,000 votes on bush, maybe enough to win takling into account the absentees. Now, again, this is standard procedure undern Florida law. So, I must ask what is the problem with this? Because the republicans are opposing it vehemently. Again, your beliefs would of course admit they are opposing out of their own self interest, and there is nothing wrong withn that, because self-interest leads to the greatest good for all. Now, interstingly, the republicans say That if their is a hand count, they will appeal to the courts, not to mention demanding a hand count of every ballot in the US (I exaggerate a little, but hey, they make it easy). But seriously, why is the democrat's self-interest contrary to the rule of law, while the republican self interest is noble and pure in all respects? Is there really a way to honestly and legitimately oppose a simple hand recount as permitted under Florida law? Is it because the phrase "the rule of law" is a meaningless catchphrase used to oppose all thing the democrats want to do? Is it because Gore was standing their next to clinton, urging him on in the burning of all those babys? (whatever that meant, you said it, I'm asking) Please tell me you were kidding when you said Clinton burns babies. Wait a minute, are you talking about Waco? You think he did that? You don't think that was an example of an out of control macho law enforcement culture? Gonna blame him for Ruby Ridge, too? Many people do, even though it happened while Bush Sr. was president. Just wondering.

ishmael
11-10-2000, 08:57 PM
Pat,

With all due respect, you seem to be working out of a fevered, "election crisis", pitch. That's okay, but what does the abolition of slavery, or the institution of public schools have to do with anything just now? Was Abe Lincoln a liberal in todays terms? Are you supposing, like Algore rhetorically implied, that anyone wants to re-establish slavery or do away with public education? No me gusta la problema?

I ask again -- just so we know what we are talking about -- for someone to define the Left and its agenda. Give me specific policies, that the Left engenders. Speak to how they are marginalized in our politics or anywhere else. Then, maybe, we'll have a discussion.

I'll start, Universal Health Care. Voted down in 94, but given Hillary's senate victory, hardly marginalized. Best, Jack

[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-11-2000).]

winslow
11-10-2000, 09:19 PM
Ishmael, you're right, labels really aren't very telling or too usefull. And I wouldn't presume to lay out the "Official Left Agenda." But I feel safe in saying no leftist agenda is going to include GATT, NAFTA, the WTO or some wacky Star Wars thingy dreamed up by the deseased brain of some old Republican. Anyway, the interesting and important question is this one...you asked,

"what could be done, by people who have many interests in common, to shift things away from the centers of power?"

I don't know.

I'm active in a couple of issues important to me and volunteer at a community radio station (not to be confused with NPR). An interesing thing is, if you look at the political positions as being points around the circumference of a circle, rather than points along a line, a couple things can happen. One, those on opposite sides can at least "see" each other. And second, as one moves in one direction, he/she is bound to eventially bump into someone coming from the other way.

This is what happens to me at the radio station. (For lack of another way of doing this, let's give me a label. I accept "Responsible Anarchist.") I keep finding that as I move around the circle to the left, I'm in less agreement with the big government, big business A$$ kissing Democrats and seem to be bumping into Libertarians coming from the other way. It's the liberty, stupid! Where we (R.As & Libs) run into problems is foundational. Community Responsibilty and The Commons vs Individual Rights and Private property.

So what now? I usually turn to the Andy Griffith Show for moral guidance, but I can't find an exact fit for this situation. The closest I've found is a quote from Briscoe Darling, patriarch of a family living up one of the hollows. Turning to Andy, seeking a diplomatic resolution to a frustrating problem with a fellow who doesn't see things his way, Briscoe remarked, in a flat tone, "We thought about killin' em, but kinda hoped it wouldn't come to that." http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by winslow (edited 11-10-2000).]

ishmael
11-10-2000, 09:37 PM
Winslow,

That last remark is one I'll remember! He Hah hoo ho ho.

Pat,

As I predicted, what you envision is what is going to happen. Gore is gonna win this. May he have a singularly unsuccessful presidency in terms of his legislative agenda, and may all the current supreme court justices live long and prosper. Gridlock forever!

[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-10-2000).]

PatCox
11-10-2000, 09:53 PM
Ishmael,
I believe that free market capitalism inevitably results in greatly disparate levels of wealth, that this creates class conflict, and ultimately, no civilization can survive with a few immensely wealthy and a great many desperately poor. That is in fact the condition of the thrid world today, it is arguably why we are third world. Therefore, I believe in redistributive taxation and government regulation of industry in order to promote competition; note I don't want regulation to replace competition, I want it to promote competition, look at the SEC, what a success story. Internalize externalities, optimize the market. I do believe competition results in efficiency, but not after the point of monopoly. Microsoft is big enough, its dangerous to let it get bigger.
My beliefs are Rooselvelt Liberal. No mainstream politician today will openly espouse these beleifs. Many here will curse me for them. That is what we mean by ther marginalization of liberalism. And I am hoppin mad about the election, and you wouldn't believ the effort it takes to keep iit as polite as I do. The comments to abolition are hyperbole, I hope, but I have a sneaking suspicion there are in fact mainstream politicians from certainareas of this country who secretly wish slavery could be reinstated.

noquiklos
11-10-2000, 10:31 PM
I have tried for 8 years to understand the Clinton haters, but I just cannot. Is it because a "liberal" (insert horse laugh here) president stole the conservatives thunder? You know, balanced budget, including a record surplus, the strongest economy in the history of the world, low unemployment, the first increase in real wages in 25 years, an effective use of military force, with very little loss of (US) life? I could go on and on. I agree with earlier posters. Clinton is not a classic liberal. He's socially liberal (just barely. He supports the death penalty, and opposes same sex marriage) and fiscally conservative. He seems to fit the label of a centrist Democrat, as does Gore.
My former boss sounded like you, Ishmael, always spouting allegations that he apparently heard from the Big Fat Idiot of hate radio fame, while staying completely silent on the subject of REAL crimes committed by his favorites, the Sock Puppet, and his CIA crony, W's daddy.
Let's do the right thing, OK? There is legal precedent, in, of all places, Massachusets, for performing a hand count, which changed a Democratic Primary result in 1998. Unplug the machines. Even the head of Texas elections states that hand counting is by far the most accurate method with punchcard ballots.
Yours,
a real liberal,
Roy

ishmael
11-10-2000, 10:50 PM
Pat,

I think I understand your fervor and concerns. I think I even share some of them. Where we likely differ is in what to do about them.

I had a friend who had a succesful wooden toy business. Maybe thirty employees. He also happened to be a Quaker. He shared the wealth of his company, which was moderately substantial, through health insurance, profit sharing, and generous vacations. The point is, he did these things because they were right, not because of legislation. Was he a free market capitalist? Yes, he just wasn't overly greedy. And, he had a rich life: A nice home in the hills of southern New Hampshire, and a summer cottage in Maine.

My point is that for all the very real examples of corporate greed out there, there are also other examples where capitalism in the marketplace is very fine and humane.

So, again, like I said to Winslow, some new images have to come forth here, along with new ways of dealing with very different realities than were extant through the thirties. To harken to Roosevelt is to live in the past. Seems to me that the greed you and I rightly fear hasn't changed, but given all the legislation passed since 1900, is the situation the same as it was in 1930? Aglomeration of power, in spite of all that legislation, coupled with the fact that we don't have the same sort of poor we once had, points to some different issues and solutions. Winslow's alphabet soup of WTO etc are all new. Something else has to happen.

My radical solution has been, so much as in my power, to stop consuming. Not for everyone, apparently, but if more did it the world would be better off. Beyond that, I don't have any specific answers, only questions. Call me fatuous, it's likely true.

My grandfather, who was a small businessman in central Ohio, came home one day in early 1945, very excited.

"The old bastard's finally dead," he proclaimed to my grandmother, and mother (my father was in the South Pacific).

"Who," they asked excitedly, "Hitler?"

"No" he bellowed, "Roosevelt."

True family myth.

Best, Jack




[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-11-2000).]

ishmael
11-10-2000, 10:57 PM
Whoa Roy,

What allegations am I supposed to be promulgating, and from what maven of "hate" radio?

winslow
11-10-2000, 11:15 PM
Ishmael. Voluntary Simplicity, it oughta be the law. http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif ...And negative population growth would sure ease the pressures on this little blue rock.



[This message has been edited by winslow (edited 11-10-2000).]

ishmael
11-10-2000, 11:45 PM
Winslow,

Just so you know, I didn't ignore your image of a circle of different viewpoints. I'm just contemplatin' its interesting shift in persepective.

One part of the rhetoric that came out of most of the independent parties this election cycle pointed to just such a need, if not to that specific image.

We get caught in certain images, of ourselves, of others, and of the process. They are like styles of architecture, or uses of language. What we become used to -- comfortable with -- is what we do...usually without thinking much about it.

Interesting corollaries go off in many directions. Best, Jack

noquiklos
11-11-2000, 01:39 AM
My apologies, Ish. It wasn't you who was sounding like Rush Limbaugh. I can only beg your forgiveness for confusing your Klinton comment with Alan Hyde's and Jeffery's tirades. Personally, I wish the Republicans had gotten their wish in '88, to abolish the 2 term limit. If Ol' Bill (my hero!) had run this time, we'd have 4 more years!
What I do resent is "evidence by anecdote." Your Quaker friend sounds like a good man, and, by the way, a Quaker who lives by his dogma, but I would like to remind you that Nixon was a Quaker, too. As Pat Cox has pointed out, unregulated Capitalism leads to a huge disparity between the rich and the poor, which is my biggest beef with our current administration. They have allowed the merger-mania of the '80's to continue almost unchecked, to the point where the top 1% possesses nearly 50% of the wealth in this country. I'm sure you can find historical examples of what happens when a tiny minority disenfranchises a huge majority. 1917 Russia comes to mind, or France in 1789. I love my country, and don't want that to happen here.
Which is why we must allow our system to do what it does best, slog along slowly and innefficiently to a close approximation of the correct result, which is to reflect the will of the people, and not bow to threats of disruption in the interest of expediency.
Anyone notice that the Republicans are getting shriller and more irrational as the truth comes out?
A hand count is provided for in Florida election law, according to the lawyers on the tube, so do it, and get this over with!
Peace,
Roy

jeffery
11-11-2000, 02:13 AM
A three point program.
1 change to a 10 percent national sales tax on retail products only ilimating the national IRS have the states colect it with their tax comissions forward 4 percent to the federal goverment and then 3 percent to local and 3 percent to state goverment with the ability of the local and state goverments to lessen the tax as they see fit to compete. (this would definitely put goverment on a diet)

2 rebalance the nation into 50 equel sized senatoral districs lined up with existing counties. start in the north east newengland and long island could be the first distric alaska and the north west corner of washington would form districs 43 through 50. equelize the size of states by spliting california into three Texas into five ect and finaly limit the salary of any member of the goverment to the average income in the US.

3 get rid of all laws passed since 1900 and require all new laws to be passed singley. ie a governing body could not pass an ordencance saying we adopted the uniform building code. insteed they would have to go through each line item argue and debate it and face the responsibility of explaining each indivual action to the voters. It is hope that all new laws would be judged on the basis of right and wrong and every one treated fairly.
let the idea of stealing for one citizan for the benifit of another be a repudnent as the wilful distruction of one citizan by another

Pat though I disagree with you am glad you may speak your mind here and not unduely try your wifes soul. I also belive that you have a fine mind so I'd like to ask you specificly and any one else who would like to comment

Is it possable for a country as large as ours with so many consumers who are unable to in fact be self suficent that freedom may return/be maintained?

in other words can a nation with out a majority of small freeholders as jefferson advocated maintain the good public mannor needed for a free socity?

thankyou
Jeffery

ishmael
11-11-2000, 02:15 AM
No offense taken Roy. I admit to resembling your remark a little. Very little! I pride myself, maybe too much, in being pegged into various camps, and hence no camp at all.

I think my contention is that in this strange world, where few absolute theories seem to hold, we might as well try relaxing our strong opinions a bit, and look for purpose and justice springing from our own souls as opposed to from some external authority. If enough people do it, it might even spread.

Ghandi said, "In the presence of one who has perfected non-violence, no violence can occur."

Guess he wasn't there yet. But, what an interesting attempt. Best, Jack

noquiklos
11-11-2000, 02:47 AM
I am relieved, Ishmael. (I Love your handle, btw) I didn't want to offend, at least by mistake. LOL
Now, speaking of being offensive, why, Jeffery, do you want to make draconian changes to a system that has, by and large, worked, if not perfectly, at least better than any other, for over 2 centuries? There are several good reasons for the Electoral College, and they have been noted on this thread. We may not all agree, but a certain inertia was built into the Constitution to prevent "fads" from becoming law. Toss in the Supreme Court, and the difficulty in amending the Constitution, and you have glacial change, with numerous opportunities for all sides of a particular issue to convince their fellow citizens of their moral superiority.
Good luck!
Re-elect Bill Clinton! We never HAD it so good!
Peace,
Roy
PS. Ghandi freed the second largest country, and, thanks to him, the largest democracy in the world. It works.


[This message has been edited by noquiklos (edited 11-11-2000).]

Art Read
11-11-2000, 05:18 AM
Wow... We are a "third world country"? Legislation is the best avenue to "promote competition"? Free markets are a hinderence to the advancement of all our opportunities? Redistubution of personal wealth will cure all? I've lived in "third world counties", I've seen government "regulated" industry and I know just how hard I'd be willing to work on this boat in my basement if I wasn't going to be able able to enjoy the full and unfettered enjoyment of my labor, time and expense. As for Microsoft getting too big for you... Buy a Mac. But don't go crying to the justice department because not enough people agree with you to provide a market environment that inspires the variety and utility that Mr. Gates' company has. Try it. (Oh yeah... our current administration already is...) Who decides?

Will
11-11-2000, 05:43 AM
Maybe it would still help if Clinton resigned ? He drives his opponents so crazy . He could declare " I am not a crook " , flash the V for victory sign, and be wisked off the White House lawn by hellicopter . Then no one would feel the need to slay Al Gore , as a surragate for slaying Bill Clinton , as payback for Nixon being driven from office . I wish he'd done this last year .



[This message has been edited by Will (edited 11-11-2000).]

PatCox
11-11-2000, 09:33 AM
Jeffery, you have a point there about agrarian freeholders. I think however that that original dream envisioned by some and not all of the founders died around the time Jackson was elected. Yes, some of our ideals are connected with that perfect world of small farmers, but that ain't the world we live in. I have a question; do you think the founding fathers ever thought there would be huge mega-corporations? So big that there wealth could squash any competition from less well-off individuals with new ideas or inventions? Here is another question: does everyone think corporations are part of natural law? that we are endowed with our creator with the right to form corporations which have a naturalk riught to grow to enormous size? Corporations are created by state laws, they do not exist apart from the statutes authorizing their existence. What the State can create, it can regulate, it can impose conditions. As far as government regulation being good for competition, please, look at the securities exchange commission, the SEC; this is a huge, complex regulatory body. And you know what? because it imposes some degree of honesty on the securities market, we have a stock market that is the envy of the world. Nowhere on earth does there exist an un-regulated securities market, and the more well-regulated, the more succesful such markets are. I say it again, ours is the richest on earth because it is the most well-regulated. It is, yes, time for directness, it is insane and in denial of basic facts to say that regulation is bad for business.

jeffery
11-11-2000, 11:54 AM
Pat
Hope you don't mind my ducking your question for a day because I have never considered that exact question any it needs and deserves thought

Roy
When you speak of working for 200 years. it implys some resemblance between the origional system and the system today. If I may illistrate how I feel it is changed please do not be offended.
Jefferson ironicly tossed a bit of a change of direction when he bought louesanna no biggy. Jackson's era... Davy Crocket only gave three speaches in congress but one spoke of how he learned from a constituant that there is nothing in the constution allowing individual welfare to be given in the guise of general welfare.
In Backwoods home magizine [ archived on their web page] John Silveira wrote praising Polk highly worth a read
Then came Lincoln. In his zeal to maintain the union he bypassed idgnored and corupted much of the constution. he instuted an income tax ( illeagly ) that was repealed in the early 1870s but worse he was the first president to really turn away from following the constution.
Rosevelt has been mentioned asuming FDR but teddy had his own impacts because he was a "Moderate Republican" between him and taft a growing trend of intervention and individual welfare from the goverment grew. public schools replaced comunity based schools weather church or parrent driven. when did taxing land start? Utah statehood 1896 constution directs 100% of property taxes go to schools but I'm unsure if that was there origionaly or occured after 1906 when public school acts were passed.
Incometax had been tried in the early 1890s [1893] and overturned because it was unconstutional. the entire debt of the civil war had been paid off with out it but the spending increase started in 94 in antisipation of the new flow of money put the country into debt and added pressure for the 16th amendment.
FDR rode ruffshod over the suspream court telling them go along or I'll add 8 more justis and you 9 won't have any say anyway.

the social security program is somply the bigest pyramid scheam in history sooner or latter it will die of its own size ( Unless you belive the people will stand 80% taxation needed in about 25 to 30 years) and it has become so commonplace. so many people look to the goverment to be their babysitters through life that very few now relise it wasn't always this way

Was it Tom Pane Or John Locke who spoke that laws are the result of goverment trying to force people to do which is right. I can agree that corperations are the creations of the state and therefore regulatable by the state the SEC has done fairly well yet what about its use in the Tucker case to prevent the very compition many say goverment should promote. If you read Dick Francis novels have you noticed the governing board is populated by people who do it not for money but for the love of the sport. maybe if a class of similarly self actuated people could be given the goverment... like a Ted Kennedy but with the firm morals not to spend others resourses for charity.

A privet question in the last few months I've had kids breat into my old home steal a toy colection and spraypaint inside. had a tiller stolen from my field and a skidsteer machine vandalized. pumps pushed into the creeks. how has this come about? I can understand greed and stealing but distruction for its own sake? I had a theory that people brought up with out chores like maintaining a garden or property as would happen with small suberban lots or apartments condos ect fail to value others rights but I just don'y know

Best wishes to all
Jeffery

Don Olney
11-11-2000, 12:41 PM
I'm not trying to be flippant, but what's up with GW Bush??? Before the "pre-election" campaign (as opposed to the post-election campaign) I took it as a joke when people said that GW would probably hit the bottle in a crisis. He's had a couple of stressful days and he looks like he's been on a two-month Wild Turkey bender! Gore is out playing football, tanned and fit. Bush is slumped in a chair in some hotel suite, ashen faced, breaking out in boils, napping and getting reassurances from Poppy's old buddies. Looks frail. This guy does not seem very energetic or healthy. This from today's NY Times:

"Mr. Bush seemed utterly spent and got confused about the name of a reporter whom he knew well. There was a large adhesive bandage on his cheek, covering what his campaign's communications director, Karen P. Hughes, said was a boil-like infection that was not a serious condition."

What do you make of it?

Greg H
11-11-2000, 05:48 PM
That bandage on W's face is the result of Baker giving him the back of his hand.
"...shut up kid, we put you here"
http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

Peter Kalshoven
11-11-2000, 10:18 PM
Voice of reason time (kindof). What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't have a problem with a hand recount, as long as it is applied in every county in Florida. Why just the 4 most populated, urban areas (perhaps because they are most traditionally Democrat?) Do it to them all, and get the real count, and be done with it. As to why the Republicans don't like Clinton, it is because they see him as a slick talking snake oil salesman who is more concerned with building a "legacy" than with governing a country. Because they see him as someone who would lie under oath, cheat on his wife, lie to the country (I did not have sexual relations....), wants big government, confiscates land under the antiquities acts to protect it from the citizens who use it, and basically is not the kind of guy you'd want to date your daughter. (By the way, before you flame me, please know that in his last 3 years in office, I've had to come to agree with this point of view, even though I voted for the SOB twice. (I didn't like my other choices any better.)) And I'm a life long democrat. The trouble with Al Gore is he comes off as a clone of Clinton, with the charisma left out. Frankly, I feel he will say or do anything to get elected. What ever happened to statesmen, instead of politicians? You know, the kind of guys you could respect, even if you disagreed with them. I truly believe that this election is one of the best things to ever happen to our country... because by now, hardly anyone is happy with the choices at hand. It's time for some plain talking candidates with guts to step up to the plate. (Case in point... John McCain badmouthed the tobacco industry when he was stumping here last spring...in SOUTH CAROLINA! Now that takes big brass ones.)

Then again, I could be wrong.
Pete

Ed Harrow
11-11-2000, 10:35 PM
When, reading this I wonder how it is that some of us are able to respond in an intelligent way to prior comments. I'd have to print the whole mess and contemplate it with a glass of Jack D.

I wonder, as (if) the two parties continue in their drift towards the greatest common denominator, if this event will become ever more common.

With respect to free enterprise, the man himself (Adam Smith) in his seminal work, The Wealth of Nations, singled out the New England fishery, as an exciting example of how an economy could flourish if individuals were given an unrestricted commercial environment. Where is the fishery today?

The above is a near paraphrase of a paragraph in a book entitled simply Cod, written by Mark Kurlansky. Good book.

Well, whatever happens, we'll continue to stumble over the truth whenever it gets in the way. Someone or another labeled the business of government akin to the making of sausage. Cheers to all...

noquiklos
11-11-2000, 10:48 PM
Jeffery, my implication was not that the system has remained unchanged, but that it has evolved, as planned by the founding fathers. The numerous examples you gave are only the first salvo, in their historical contexts, for the changes that were yet to come. Frankly, I'm not very concerned with how our government finances it's programs, (SS a pyramid scheme? It seems to have worked for 65 years, so far, and according to the best experts, is pretty much guaranteed for 50 more) but with so many people's desire to accept government protection for their rights and freedoms, without feeling any responsibility to pay any part of the cost. I know the history of how our tax system came into being, but who cares? I wasn't alive in 1864, or 94 or 1934. I live in the now, and am forced to deal with the system as it exists now. If I don't like it, by god (note the small "g") I can vote for the people who may change it.
I have no idea who Dick Francis is, but even if I did, I certainly wouldn't base my politics on fiction! I agree that the Tucker case was bogus, but we've moved on! Where would Bill Gates be if Apple had that kind of influence?
What I'm trying to say is, times change, and our democracy is constantly evolving, to, hopefully, closer reflect the beliefs and philosophy of the people.
You have my sympathy about your vandalism problems, and I have my theories about why they happen, although you may not agree, but we are probably closer than you think in finding solutions to it.
Peace,
Roy
PS. Don, Greg, while I agree with you in principle....Oh, hell, I agree. LOL

htom
11-12-2000, 12:30 AM
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, pure and simple. Money is taken from the "investors" and directly paid out to the "payees". If any company or individual tried to establish such a thing they'd be shut down. Such schemes work only as long as new suckers can be brought in to help pay.

This is Social Security's big problem -- the suckers are not breeding like they used to, and there are not going to be enough suckers to pay the future bills.

India has its problems, including a low-grade uncivil war where groups of thugs from one party beat up on other parties. http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/frown.gif Mostly they do not shoot each other, I will admit, but I'm not sure why this is -- I suspect it's because guns are noisy.

Hand counting punch card ballots after they've already been through the machines a couple of times is pretty futile. I've done it.

Kermit
11-12-2000, 12:31 AM
I continue to marvel at this forum. I appreciate you all.

Roy--well said. As my wife often says, "My sediments, exactly."

As for the "good of the country," what's the almighty rush? There's a process, it has rules, let's see what it yields.

If nothing else, this Great National Experience will provide fodder for political scientists (say what?) to ruminate on for years to come. And if there is a crisis, political, economic, whatever, it'll be time to point fingers at the nearest mirror, and not at R's, D's, Nader, lawyers, Floridians, or whomever. Pogo was right.

It's not easy being green...
Kermit

thechemist
11-12-2000, 12:01 PM
Ed, that was Bismark, as I recall......"two things people should not watch being made: sausage and legislation."

ishmael
11-12-2000, 12:44 PM
I was all for both sides being able to have a hand recount till I got a look at the process. What an absurd joke. I hope this federal judge calls a halt, and Al Gore comes to his senses. Let the first recount stand, count the absentee ballots, and declare a winner. Period!

PatCox
11-12-2000, 01:19 PM
The reason some people look at social security and see a ponzi scheme is that they think of it as a retirement savings account or a retirement fund. It is not. It is INSURANCE, not investment. Here's the difference: if you have an investment account, you pay in, your share is measured, and then its paid out, hopefully having earned income. But, if you happen to live a long time, guess waht, if you didn't save enough, you run out, and you starve. Social Security is an insurance policy, not a savings account. And everyone knows that with insurance, what you get out has nothing to do with what you put in. You buy a policy today, become disabled tomorrow, you will get back a thousand times what you put in. Buy a policy today, and pay for year after year, but you are blessed, and nothing happens to you. You never get back what you paid in. But nobody complains, because at least they knew they would be taken care of, or their family, IN CASE soemthing happened. They had SECURITY. as in Social Security, which will support your children, not much, but its something, if you die, and it will support you in your old age if you have nothing else. Its not a ponzi scheme. Please, the only reason there's a problem is the demographicbulges in our population.

Here's a modest proposal, by the way,and it imposes responsibility in everyone's choice, we are all in favor of individual responsibility, right? Anyone who wants to can opt out of social security. However, there should be a consequence. Since social security takes from one generation to support the older generation, anyone who opts out, their parents get kicked out and they have to suppoort their parents. Perfectly fair. After all, why should thoise of us who stay in have to pay to support the parents of those who selfishly opt out? This is a conservative, moral position, it imposes the consequesnces of ones actions on those who want to act. And anyone who's parents were supported by social security foir years and may have passed on, it would certainly be unfair to let them opt out, after they got the benefit. What I am saying here is that the young do get a benefit from social security, and that benefit is that they don't have to support their aged parents. So really, we do revere our parents here in america, just like in traditional cultures, we do it by letting them be independant and proud, so they don't have to lookato anyone for support. Shame on anyone who runs down the greatest social program in aerican history. Of course, I could be wrong.

Kermit
11-12-2000, 04:03 PM
Not on this one, Pat. Perfect.

Ross Faneuf
11-12-2000, 04:05 PM
One of the most wonderful things about this election is a demonstration, well captured here, that many Americans remain passionate about the country and its political process. It validates the feeling I get every time I vote - I get a little choked up about participating in this democracy, and I feel a certain affinity with everyone else there, even when I know many of them will cast a different vote than I do.

I was interested to learn (from an interview with a man who supplies voting machines under contract in NH and MA) that punch card machines are not especially accurate - between 99% and 99.9%, depending on condition. For that reason, they are illegal in both NH and MA, and in each case they were made illegal by statute after disputed elections which had to be resolved by a hand count.

I, personally, voted for Gore (in ME). Initially, I intended to pick him as the lesser of two evils. But a lively discussion on a local community web site prompted me to do a lot more research on both candidates. The result was that I voted for Gore feeling I made a good choice; all the research I did made him look better, and Bush worse. And it made me despise the campaign rhetoric on both sides even more than before. From my point of view, the worst thing about Gore's campaign was that he ran away from his record in Clinton's administration so hard that none of his positive achievements came out, and downright untruths could become commonplaces. And in Bush's case, nobody much called him on his downright lies about his record.

Anyway. It seems clear, at this point, that neither of these men will win a meaningful victory, or even a clear-cut one. Neither can claim anything like a mandate, and neither will have any political coin to spend in any attempt to get a very narrowly divided congress to do much.

We can complain/pontificate about who wins Florida, but it seems to me that the margin there is less than any reasonable expectations of accuracy in the voting process. Now it's just high stakes nit-picking, although I have a suggestion; whenever it looks like the advantage may swing to the other side, the campaigns & lawyers should just exchange rhetoric and lawsuits; maybe they could even replay videotape of their opposite numbers and say 'just pretend it's me saying that now'. I don't see either party behaving differently if the shoe changes foot.

I've often said to friends that I'm most comfortable in (relatively) good times with a deadlocked government; it reduces the potential for mischief (so I agree absolutely with the intentions of the Founding Fathers). And it looks like I'll get my wish.

thechemist
11-12-2000, 07:17 PM
I am really tempted to suggest that Gore and Bush call it a tie and agree to share the presidency. Half a cake is better than none....and if congress is gridlocked, well....why not.....sort of like two heads on one body giving the best of both worlds...and with modern biotechnology they actually could be grafted together....

But seriously, one of my co-workers stated to me that the electoral college representatives are required to vote their party on the first ballot in most but not all states, and that Florida is one which gives those representatives the option and the privelege, to freely choose. Does anyone know whether this is true?

htom
11-12-2000, 08:25 PM
Depends on the state's laws. It's about half and half, IIRC (if I remember correctly) Florida is a "free choice", that is, there is no penalty for being a "faithless elector", state. Long ago some of the other states had petty penalties ($5) for not following the public vote; in Minnesota I think it's now a $1000 fine.

The distinction about investment / insurance was correct when Social Security was sold as an insurance program, I suppose. Now the politicians call it investment, the recipiants treat it as such, and I call it a Ponzi scheme. I don't have to help support my parents or my siblings (thank you, Lord) but I would if they needed it, whether or not the state said I should.

PatCox
11-12-2000, 08:34 PM
I have not heard what the rule is in Florida specifically, but I have read that in 15 states there is no law requiring the elctor to vote as "advertised." There is a lot of talk about electors defecting. Now this will sounf partisan, but I do not mean it to be, I am merely passing on press reports which even if partisn are probably accurate. First, both Tim Russert and Chris Mathews, the newscasters, or what ever they are, prior to the elction (at this point it was believed to be likely that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the electoral), they both stated that they believed in those circumstances, Gore should concede to Bush becauise he won the popular vote and it would be wrong to win the presidency on an old, anachronistic techinicality. Amazingly, now that Gore has won the popular vote, (and he may even have won the electoral vote, if not for errors on Florida ballots) they have both called on Gore to concede. Big time liberal bias, huh? Major league. Be that as it may, yes, chemist, electors from I believe 15 states are free to vote for whoever, although they would be drummed out of their party if they did. Chemist, you are a good guy. When you know something, you are not shy about telling us, and when you don't, you are equally unshy. Just to put that inperspective, I am convinced I know some, but knowing stuff doesnt't make you right. I think its Witgenstein who speaks of true, false, and meaningless statements. A lot of what we say is meaningless; opinions about facts are meaningless, is the basic example. Most of what I say is meaningless, but its fun. Where's Ishmael?

ishmael
11-12-2000, 09:37 PM
I'm still checking in occasionally. Just tired of arguing.

I'm wondering how soon the country is gonna tire of this and tune out.

John058
11-12-2000, 09:59 PM
good night jack

Alan D. Hyde
11-13-2000, 11:39 AM
Pat-------

The reason for objecting to a recount in the small number of pretty much pro-Gore counties is that in statistics, if you selectively clean up one portion of the data, and not another portion, you will skew the results.

The strongly pro-Bush counties are not being recounted; hence it is Gore who will pick up votes.

The Gore arguments against accepting the election results which do not reflect the "true" will of the people are diabolically clever P.R., but they look a lot like what the Bolsheviks (means "majority" in Russian, actually, they were a minority) did to the Mensheviks (means "minority" in Russian, actually they were a majority) in 1917.

Look at any map of the electoral vote distribution. You will see that most of this country, geographically, does not wish to be governed by Mr. Gore.

As to why so many people like me don't like Mr. Clinton, it's just that we're petty, small-minded, bigoted individuals who have low tolerance for purjurers, sexual harrasers, rapists, and (possibly) murderers in the White House.

Consider how the Clintons treat the little people in their own lives; review the evidence on travelgate. It is not a pretty picture.

The very least that can be said about the death of Mr. Vincent Foster, is that the circumstances surrounding his demise, together with the disappearance of his files, and the very unusual murder investigation (not by the FBI, but by the Park Police!) are suspicious.

We now have (effectively) 50% of the Navy we had when Mr. Clinton took office. This(lack of tankers), and poliical intervention by Clinton operatives eager to push his "legacy" effort, led to the loss of life on the Cole. In a similar way, we lost 18 of our land forces in Somalia.

We couldn't do effective bad-weather bombing in Bosnia because our A-6 Intruders (used effectively in Desert Storm)are at the bottom of the Carribean, as a reef, thanks to Mr. Clinton.

Those within the military (and of course elsewhere) who have opposed him have been viciously personally attacked, and often ruined.

Ask people you know who currently serve in the armed forces what they think, off the record. I suspect you may be surprised.

I have a friend who lived in Fairfax, Virginia during Clinton's first term. His neighbor was a life-long Democrat who worked in the White House, and came into daily contact with the Clintons. This man's one- word description of them: "pigs!"

I could be wrong, of course. But consider, when comparing Bush and Gore, the words of Aldous Huxely: "The means are the ends in the making."

Alan

Scott Rosen
11-13-2000, 12:16 PM
Alan, a man after my own heart.

I've heard Gore compared to a lot of different things, but never to Bolsheviks. It's a good comparison in some respects. The Gore camp's clever and agressive lawyers seem to be well trained in the methods of propoganda used by demogogues everywhere. They must figure that if they repeat a lie enough times, eventually it will be taken as truth. The lie: constant recounts and close scrutiny of ballots are necessary to determine the true intention of the people. The truth: as Alan said, a partial recount in Democratic areas is likely to skew the vote in Gore's favor.

The only way to be fair about the process would be to recount every county in every state in which the results were close. That's the nightmare scenario that the Gore camp doesn't want you to know.

ishmael
11-13-2000, 12:36 PM
I'm feeling sadder and sadder about this whole process. Whoever ends up winning is going to be considered illegitimate. I've heard comparisons to Kennedy's lack of mandate pointing to how he was still able to inspire, but his legislative record was a miserable one. And, this is turning into something other than a lack of mandate. And, the country is much different than in 1960.

As I said before, legislative gridlock doesn't bother me at all. In fact the main reason I favor Bush over Gore at this point is 'cause I think he'd be less likely to appoint activist right wing Supreme Court justices than Gore would be left wing ones.

Let's hope and pray the nightmare outlined by
Scott doesn't happen.

"Whither goest thou America, whither goest thou?"

Ed Harrow
11-13-2000, 12:57 PM
"There's small choice in rotten apples". I guess what I'm finding the most intesting at this point is that it (the recount) is not being (given the amount of attention I've paid to it) driven by Federal regs but by state regs. If we assume the current position held by be republicans is one approximating state's rights, then it seems to me that those regs in the state(s) should drive the process and the republican party should be in agreement. If the regs are by county (based upon closeness, not by request and that, at least, is the case here) then that's how it should be done.

Since most regulations are reactive (after the horse is out of the barn) perhaps these re-count laws will be re-examined and changed. It is not for us, or anyone else, to argue not to adhear to the existing law. If it's a bad law, let's change it, but that can't/shouldn't happen until this is resolved.

Ian McColgin
11-13-2000, 12:57 PM
On Saturday we departed Chelsea Creek for Hyannis. Once clear of Boston and headed south we had the wind, maybe 25+, at our back and a confused sea coming from three different directions and lumping, when all combined, to very abrupt rises and drops of about 6'.

We also had my Republican friend along and were amiably trading Florida voter jokes.

Hard to say whether it was the East Boston greasy spoon breakfast of the sea state or the vote state but we soon got to a competative hurling contest.

I hate to have a republican trump me in such a matter but he made a clean trajectory from helm over the rail - looked like somthing out of The Exorcist - so I guess that says it all.

Keith Wilson
11-13-2000, 01:03 PM
Oh, come now, a rapist and murderer? I'm no great fan of Mr. Clinton; I'm sure he's personally quite a disagreeable character (as are, I suspect, most of those who like power enough to run for president), but his private life has been investigated with a degree of thoroughness that very few of us could withstand. The result was scarcely exemplary, but on a much smaller scale. However, the last time I checked, Bill Clinton was not on the ballot in any state. Please don't confuse Mr. Gore, whatever his virtues or vices, with Mr. Clinton.

Mr Hyde: Geography has nothing to do with it. People vote, not land. I looked at the same map, I think, and what it shows is a surprisingly complete rural-urban split - cities for Gore, outer suburbs and towns for Bush.

The problem, alas, is that the election was so close that we are trying to measure gnat hairs with a yardstick. Our election mechanisms are not accurate enough to tell who really won in Florida. There may be a little incompetence and a little fraud - more of the former, as always, and just about equally distributed between both sides. I don't have a good solution. There is, however, no dispute that Mr. Gore won the popular vote.

ishmael
11-13-2000, 01:19 PM
Is there no dispute about who won the popular vote? Last I heard the margin was less than 100,000 with a million absentee ballots uncounted in California alone. Should we, given the true statement about our process not being accurate enough for these close situations, order a recount across the country?

At some point soon either Bush or Gore, and I'm fairly ambivilent over which one, should swallow his ego/pride and put an end to this. Either one would go up a couple notches in my estimation with such a move.

[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-13-2000).]

Art Read
11-13-2000, 01:27 PM
Speaking of jokes about the Florida vote... Jay Leno gets my "vote"... Saying they had film of the Gore campaign's legal team arriving in Florida, (could have been EITHER side...) he cut to a snipit of Paratroopers filling the skys... (I thought it was pretty funny anyway....)

G. Schollmeier
11-13-2000, 01:43 PM
Well it seems this is one time when the process is greater then the results. For the ones that voted, we are a part of history. To those that did not, I hope your happy with the results.
Gary

Alan D. Hyde
11-13-2000, 02:13 PM
Keith-----

Our liberties have been protected by a government "of laws, not men."

Presidents are elected by electoral, not popular votes. People do not directly elect Presidents, states do. Those who have a philosophic problem with this balancing mechanism erected by the founders will, if consistent, have to object to the existence of the U.S. Senate as well.

There is clear and convincing evidence that Juanita Broderick was raped by Bill Clinton.As to Vincent Foster, I don't know what happened. I do, however, know several experienced forensic pathologists who say the facts don't look like those associated with a suicide. It could take many years, but the truth may eventually out. Foster's death was certainly, at the least, exceedingly convenient for Bill and Hillary.

It is likely, in my view, that if we were able to subtract fraudulent votes from the vote totals nationally, the total number of legitimate popular votes cast for Mr.Bush might exceed those for Mr. Gore. With all absentee ballots counted, it may end up pretty close anyway.

It has been noted, however, that popular votes do not elect a President, electoral votes do; and, both candidates' campaigns were premised on winning electoral votes.

Immediately before election day, a mass-mailed letter from Bill Clinton was sent out, in Spanish and in English, to recent immigrants asking for their vote. A preprinted "voter registration card" was included. These individuals were told it was their duty to go to the polls and vote. Many of the letter recipients were non-citizens, ineligible to vote.

Only time will tell what mark Mr. George W. Bush may make as President. I cannot say that he is the ideal candidate. But God help us all if Mr. Gore were to gain office. We would then have a corrupt President, corruptly elevated to office.

Alan

P.S. Read anything by Solzenitsyn. Remember that our liberty is our most priceless posssesion. It enables us to protect all else which we hold dear.

Remember, too, that we are a historical oddity, a rare exception. People in most places and in most times have not been free.

The heinous history of slavery does not tell of African Americans alone. A thousand years back, it is the story of all our ancestors.
In the interim, it has been the story of most.



[This message has been edited by Alan D. Hyde (edited 11-13-2000).]

PatCox
11-13-2000, 02:55 PM
Clinton did all those things, yet a 50 million dollar 6 year investigation could only come up with lying when asked if an intern gave him oral sex? I suppose he committed all those other crimes by assuming the form of a vampire bat and flying out of th white house on moonless nights to terrorize the countryside. That would explain why an army of prosecutors couldn't find any evidence of this stuff. By the way, there's aliens at Wright-Patterson, and the Illuminati secretly control the world. The A-6? When did that enter service, about 1965? retiring them had nothing to do with age or obsolesence? Oh, thats right, Clinton forgot to change the oil in them, they got run down. I also know that if you are an old pilot, and you're plane is phased out, its bad for your career. Sounds like a bunch of bitter, involuntarily retired A-6 pilots must have been making the talk show circuit, explaining to the nation that clinton has sold all of our military hardware to buy crack cocaine. I don't like Clinton, myself, he's pretty darn flawed, but hooo boy, I'm a little taken aback at finding the truth out after all these years with scales over my eyes. I give up, you're right, Clinton is satan himself, and Bush, Jr. is saintly and pure like Sir Galahad, Gore is evil and was probably watching during the torture and murder of Vince Foster, even if he didn't pull the trigger. I have been so foolish.

Hey, how bout them Gators?

ishmael
11-13-2000, 03:36 PM
Hoo boy.

This points to issues that were talked to at some length on another political thread some time ago. As Pat is fond of asking, how do we know what we know? Seems to me, given that the various branches of government have demonstrated, over and over again, that they are untrustworthy, we choose to believe those things that fit our personal views. Seems to me that this is one area where our media has fallen down. Too often, to get detailed discussions of controversial issues one has to go to specialized parts of the press that often have their own axes to grind.

Was Juanita Broderick raped by Clinton? She says she was, and corroboration exists from friends she spoke to at the time. I don't know, I wasn't there. Seems like enough evidence exists to have brought it before the courts at the time. There certainly is enough prima facie evidence the man is a sexual hound dog that I found no end to irony with the people who came to his defense over these being merely personal matters. Many of the same people went after Justice Thomas tooth and claw over allegations from a woman who was offended by some off color remarks. A woman who, by the way, followed in Thomas' career wake for years after the incidents were alleged to have occurred. Who knows what the truth of either case is? We weren't there. But, the hypocrisy of some very loud voices on the left is disconcerting.

Call me cynical but, just because a bevy of prosecutors couldn't pin anything on the Clintons doesn't mean much to me. Who knows what kinds of political considerations, obfuscations of evidence, etc. factored into those investigations? Same with the Lawrence Walsh investigations of the Reagan/Bush era.

How do we know anything about the truth behind the curtain of this political system?

Pat, you're telling me there aren't aliens at Wright Patt? Who Is it I keep picking up on my dental fillings? Hmm...must be the C.I.A.

Best all, Jack


[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-14-2000).]

Alan D. Hyde
11-13-2000, 03:43 PM
Pat-------

I am not sure why my replies, which appear to me at least to be civil, are met with such sarcastic responses from you.

I am a sane, cautious, middle-aged writer and management consultant, trained as a lawyer. I do not think most conspiracy theories are credible, nor do I suppose that Mr. Clinton transformed himself into another creature.

[That sort of suggestion was, however, believed at the time of the Salem witch trials, and led to the deaths of several convicted individuals. A close parallel to that type of prosecution was the spate of false child abuse/satanism cases which Dorothy Rabinowitz so brilliantly exposed in the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, rose to public notice on the back of such cases. This is perhaps a telling detail.]

Pat, I sincerely hope I am wrong about all this; I have been wrong before. I fear, however, that those who carefully examine the evidence may agree that it does tend to support my conclusions.

The evidence of which I speak will be found in the Wall Street Journal, and, here and there on less prominent pages of the New York Times. Much of it has been "spun" by Clinton/Gore and their allies, but never directly denied or controverted.

Liberal Democrats have been, with respect to these matters, reluctant to believe what they see. And human nature is such that nothing is so true or so false that our vanity cannot cause us to see it otherwise.

Pat, I assume that you are a reasoning and responsible individual. I do not suppose you to be deluded by conspiracy theories or by other junk food for the mind. I offer no paint-peeling sarcasm. I only ask you to dispassionately review the facts.

Although I am part Irish, it may fit the circumstances to quote Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, believe it possible that you may be mistaken."

There IS something to be said for humility, and for good manners, too.

Fair winds and following seas to you,

Alan

P.S. 26,000 ballots were disallowed in Republican Duval County, but Mr. Gore does not wish these to be recounted. Perhaps (as George Orwell noted) "some animals are more equal than others."



[This message has been edited by Alan D. Hyde (edited 11-14-2000).]

noquiklos
11-13-2000, 04:33 PM
Alan, I believe Pat's response could rather be construed as irony, rather than sarcasm, although there is a fine line.
We so called "Liberal Democrats" have heard so much bile coming from the Ditto-heads, based on speculation and and conspiracy theories, with little regard for facts which don't support their position, that anything they say, or gets parrotted by their titular supporters, we take with more than a grain of salt. Perhaps Mr. Clinton is the encarnation of Satan on Earth, but the constant small minded sniping we've been forced to hear for the past 8 years has become the moral equivalent of the boy who cried wolf. The various "think tanks" and right wing organizations trying to unseat Mr. Clinton have shot themselves in the foot with numerous fraudulent, but well paid, witnesses to his supposed crimes. We are forced, as left wing pinkos, to consider the source, and have found it safer to consider ALL the facts, as much as we are able, and come to the conclusion that somebody's blowing smoke up our skirts, and it ain't Slick Willy.
I think it's because he out-Reaganed Reagan.
As for the vote in Florida, am I the only one who sees the irony? Bush runs on the slogan "I trust the people" and then files suit to insure that at least 20,000 people's votes are not counted. Apparently he only trusts the people who voted for him.
Peace,
Roy
PS, let's toss the whole election, and crown Bill king!

ishmael
11-13-2000, 07:09 PM
Roy et al,

I think what I'm trying to say is that the only way to have some modicum of understanding of these complex issues -- including scandals and allegations, but not limited to them -- is to be a faithful and open minded student of a variety of sources. I don't know about you, but I'm not there. Shame on me, perhaps. Let's face it, most of us watch the tube, and listen to the radio, and maybe read a daily newspaper. I don't think the New York Times is that much less biased than Rush Limbaugh these days. I certainly don't think the Times is the same bastion of journalistic integrity it was perceived to be when I was a wee one.

Maybe it's always been this way, and my chastisement of the mainstream media is incorrect. Maybe we are just more cynical consumers, given the last forty years of our history.

Something to ponder. I traveled last week and had occasion to tune in "Alternative Radio" on NPR. Clearly a right wing redoubt in the culture war. The speech I heard was by an obviously aging professor of journalism from U.C. Berkley. I liked him very much. The one factoid that stuck in my mind was that the vast majority of the mainstream media in the country, print and electronic, including the three formerly main networks, are owned by five corporations. Is a free press free if the vast majority of the people are exposed only -- by reason of market dominance by a literal handful of corporate interests -- to a strongly filtered reporting of the news?

Is this the new slavery Alan and Pat rightly fear? Is the dark yearning for human dominance and control sneaking up on us little folk out of the bushes (no pun) of an entirely new human landscape? "It" would certainly improve "its" chances by dividing the genuinely well meaning amongst us with essentially fatuous arguments.

I'd like to see the discussion divide less along lines of Left and Right. How much has the agenda for these divisions been set by the news we watch, and the talk we listen to?

Best, Jack


[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-14-2000).]

Scott Rosen
11-13-2000, 08:13 PM
Phew!

While there are a lot of differing opinions in this thread, the posts, taken as a whole, do provide clear and unambiguous guidance on one very, very important point, a point that is relevant to us all:

Now is the time to stop banging on your computers and go sailing or build a boat.

Where the hell are the leaders when you really need them?

ishmael
11-13-2000, 08:17 PM
He He. I'm with ya Scott. Would that it were so easy.

noquiklos
11-13-2000, 08:42 PM
Ishmael, you have made an excellent point. I won't go into who caused it, but the fact is that most of our media is owned by a very few huge corporations, and there is no doubt that these interests color the coverage of numerous issue, and, in fact, select which issues get any coverage at all. If I might, I can recommend 2 sources for seemingly objective coverage of these issues; Brill's Content, and Free Inquiry. I have the web pages here somewhere, if you're interested. Let me know, OK?
"An informed public is the best defense against demagogery(sp)"
Peace,
Roy

PatCox
11-13-2000, 08:55 PM
Alan, your response is very gracious and gentlemanly in light of what was in fact sarcasm on my part, I am humbled and reminded that I should temper my tongue sometimes. You should just refrain from accusing Clinton of murdering Foster, without that, the rest of your statements are nowhere near "flying saucer" level. Broadrick, yeah, that troubles me. Funeralgate should trouble you. I am not being sarcastic now, just trying to be brief which I have noticed makes people sound not too nice, sometimes. You are dead on about the ritual sex abuse witchhunt, crazy. It amazes me that large numbers of people can believe such odd things. Peace. meant in the christian, not hippie (though there really is no difference) sense.

Gib Sosman
11-13-2000, 09:50 PM
OK... I can't resist getting sucked in. I have to put in my two cents .
Well, this is an amazing, intense, and very intelligent forum thread above. I'm sure of that much, and not much else.

As for the the Clintons, Gores and Bushes, I have no way to tell true from false except from my own native perceptions of heart and mind. And half the time I can't even trust my own judgment. I'm just another fallible human... not that I'm really stupid, but I fall for all kind of tricks very easily.

I have no law training and know zilch about politics. I don't have the education to really evaluate the truth or falsity of any of the above claims in this thread, or the claims of the candidates for President.

I remember really trusting one President:
Eisenhower. I was a kid, things were good for me, and my mother was a daughter of an Army Colonel, and she had grown up on Army bases from Manila to Panama to Leavenworth to Fort Dix. She said she had been to a ball in D.C. and met the Eisenhowers and danced with their son when she was a teenager. So I was a kid who Liked Ike. We kids used to sing
"Whistle while you work/Stevenson'a a jerk/
Eisenhower's got the power/so whistle while you work." Later on I came to believe that Mr. Stevenson was not a jerk, but I still like Ike. I have been reading his memoirs and I tend to believe today that he had more true integrity than any President who has followed since. Just my opinion.
With this latest election, I am inclined to just say to myself, "Scum always rises to the top" and go to work and start whistling again.
By the way, I trusted the government until 1970 when it gave me four options for my life: go to 'Nam, leave the country of my birth, hide out in the Underground, or else risk a 5-year prison sentence and a 10,000 dollar fine (in 1970 dollars that was a lot of money!)-if I didn't have on my person at all times that little piece of paper that made me legal meat for the meat grinder. At that point I realized that the people who were running the government were- to put it bluntly- insane. I still am more or less of that opinion. Maybe it is I who am insane. I keep hoping that we will get truly honest people at the top of the government. I don't know if that has ever happened, or if it ever will.
I would not be at all surprised to learn that the FBI was watching this thread and taking names. I am not saying they are. They are probably too busy right now watching other people besides a bunch of opinionated boat folks. I don't know what the hell is going on at the federal level, and how to separate the true from the false. I can't even understand the intricacies of whatever political corruption exist right here in so-called River City, in the heart of America, where some historians claim the Civil War really began: in Bleeding Kansas.
Now it seems this latest election, and all the lies, manipulations, distortions, prevarications, and fibs, that are most likely coming from both the Demo and Repub camps, is almost like the Civil War all over again. Very different, of course, from the actual, historical War Between the States. But the whole shebang- the whole political process in America and the rest of the world- is just so wierd. Why? Because around the nation and across the world, so many people have come to accept, and expect, lying from political candidates and elected officials. I mean, lying is just factored in. We expect it. I heard as a kid about the value of truth for its own sake. The story of Georgie Washington and the Cherry tree. That's the kind of stuff I took to heart as a child. I wonder what the children of the year 2000 think about their government. To my mind, whoever wins this election, the Presidency will forever be suspect. I wish my kid could grow up in a world where he could believe what he heard.
I think this whole election is one more very vivid example of why Moses had to climb the hill to get those stones with the ten rules. God help America. Well, this country has survived corruption in politics since the very beginning. But there seems to be an accelearating downward trend. All my life, the old-timers (a status I am approaching faster than I would like) have been saying "The country is going all to hell." Seems to me that the real problem is that no one with real integrity- no one who believes in truth for its own sake- can make it anywhere near close to being elected President. Something or someone will stop that from happening. So you have to be a liar and a manipulator and one who uses and abuses others to even get close to high office. This is just my personal opinion. Makes me sad to think of it that way. All I can do is try to have some integrity in my own life, and that is damned hard enough. And then vote for the guy I think is the best, and hope for the best.
By the way, the petition I linked this Forum to on the thread I started has gone from 6200 signatures to over ten thousand in less than 48 hours. If the Dow average moved like that it would be world news and there would be dancing in the streets. The petition is like an ant in the path of a steamroller, but
I think the people who sign it are hopefully at least sending a message... that they want
integrity in government. The petition happens to be asking Mr. Bush to concede, but it might as well ask Mr. Gore. The point is, it is democracy in action. The wonderful thing about this whole series of posts above the one I am writing now is that it is also a kind of example of democracy in action. I don't know who is right, who is wrong, it is all beyond me. I am not smart enough to balance my checkbook correctly, so who am I to determine what is going on in this election? But the great thing is that despite the craziness in politics, I am able to write this and it is published on-line.
I hope that that freedom will be maintained no matter who is elected. In some countries, as we all know, someone who makes waves just disappears. Even in this country, that has happened many times, no doubt. But maybe there is still a lot of good in the U S of A. Still, I fear the knock on the door, sometimes. And that's not paranoia. It is realistic. Things could be a whole lot better in this country, and they could also be a whole lot worse. I hope they get better, not worse, but experience has taught me to be a skeptic, or a cynic. I would like to be that kid again who had the "I Like Ike" button. Who was taught those kindergarten moralities that are now so regularly ignored by so many human beings.
Who believed in America the Beautiful, and the land of the free and the brave, and all that. I'm a dreamer. That's why I wanted to build a wooden sailboat. I like to sail and dream and see the beauty in the world. And whistle while I work. And I want to say, "God Bless America"- not as a stated fact, but as a request.
I would like to see a Constitutional amendment requiring anyone who wants to be eligible for nomination for President to have
to live for a year in the heart of an inner city, among the crime and filth, with no credit card, no health insurance, nothing but a low-wage job- if he can find one- for one year. Sort of like in that wonderful Mel Brooks movie, "Life Stinks". That kind of thing. We have multimillionaires running against multimillionaires, and they all claim to care about "the common man". Meanwhile, the area around Capitol Hill and the White House has some of the most desperate, poverty-ridden, crime-threatened
neighborhoods in the whole nation. This election is all about power, and power is money, and money is power, and the best liars get the most money and the most power- as a general rule. Let the candidates live by the efforts of their own hands in those neighborhoods for a year, with no outside help. And if they survive it, then give them the chance to run for the office of President. See? I told you I was a dreamer.

ishmael
11-13-2000, 10:40 PM
Nice Gib,

A piece of folk art, if I may be so bold. May I be so true.

If the Feebies are watching here I hope they're gettin' hazardous duty pay. Long hours with nuthin' but simple American patriotism of free speech to report!

Nothing would suprise me. My brother refused induction in '68 and went on to work in the anti-war movement in Ann Arbor. I remember distinctly, talking to an FBI agent, when I was twelve. They called our home and wanted to know where my brother was. I was alone, and said, truthfully, I didn't know.

I remember feeling like I was talking to an unbelieving vice-pricipal at my junior high school. Stern, like he wanted me to confess something. Unctious, like he could cajole something out of me.

My brother WAS associating with communists at the time. I think at 23 he prob'ly wasn't thinkin' 'bout it. Driving a peace mobile and working toward the end of the war in zelous ways.

It's time the "left" ackowledged, as my brother has long since, that "the movement" was heavily influenced by the communist party. He's told me, after a few beers, that his bosses were in the level of organization just below Angela Davis. Good evidence eh? Having lived it, I believe it.

"I condradict myself, very well I contradict myself, I contain multitudes." Whitman

Look, it's just another facet in the history of the war. Doesn't mean the war was more or less just. More enigmatic perhaps, but welcome to the party. Just was, like so much else.



[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-14-2000).]

jeffery
11-13-2000, 11:15 PM
Pat I'm still pondering your question and I belive that in some ways you have me. I belive the founding fathers knew about the greedy and power hunger that drives some people. There was the east india company that was so huge it ran the sub-contenant of india for the british empire. On the other hand they were not perfict and clairvoyant enough to forsee how to stop the cancer of the central goverment from growing.

Does any one know how many members the house of representives had in the first Comgress?

Land doesn't vote people do. actually many of the founding fathers felt those with a stake in the comunity, ie the land owners, would vote more responsibility.

Roy I tried an off forum Email but it retunred undeliverable. In part I thanked your for your reply and asked for you to expand on what you said on getting near to solving problems like vandalism. I apreciate hope for I have rather little

If I may add my two cents on Clinton criminality. I do not belive Vince foster was murdered by billy ( I've a idea he had a stroke while sharing a romantic afternoon with Hillery, also wonder if Chelsey father was Vince ) there are about 35 to 40 misteriously dead people in arkansaw that were conected with clinton. but no absolute proof. On the other hand have heard the police servalence tape where Bills half brother said " we got to get some stuff here. bills got a nose like a vacume cleaner" Whitewater ah whar a stange tale 50 % equity with a 19% investment. getting a $300K loan on $30K salery in a job that could end in a few months. statements that hillery had very little to do with whitewater when it turns out she billed 65 hours durring the time the main partner was in the hospital Hillery investing $1000 in cattle futures and at about 5 trilion to one odds coming out with $98K with a broker who has in other case been convicted of double investing and crediting thew wins to one acount and the losses to another. ( also have a theory that the whole monica scandal was a smoke screen to cover espenoge activities with the red chinesse, I also am somewhat impressed with how much bill gets away with and think that Monica is infact a rather pretty woman)

but then there is Gore for get all the silly exzagerations. just go back to the fundraising scandle of 96. he said he didn't know the budest temple meeting was a fund raiser even though a memo exists he should have seen describing how much the event was expected to raise. as a congress man he knew that the office phone was ileagle to use for fund raising yet he made 22 to 30 ileagle calls and explained there was" no controling leagle authority"

also as to sources Rush is intresting somewhat bragodoshus and some times extraplates (... more trees to day than in 1912 [truth] gets blown into more trees today than when the pilgrams landed [laughable] ) G Gorden Liddy when he says something I feel 90 percent sure you can trust it. Michael Reagan I suspect is as close to 100 percent truthfull because he is very carefull.
good wishes to all
Jeffery

noquiklos
11-13-2000, 11:54 PM
OK, Jeffery, I modified my registration to reflect my new e-mail address. Should have done it sooner, I guess.
Now, as for Rush...well the 1912 quote is probably close, but dodges the biological truth that in terms of bio-mass, there was far more wood growing, and still in the ground, in 1912 than today. I live in Washington, and live among the re-planted forests that Rush is using as his reference. Yes there are a lot of trees, but none are older than 50 years, and none come close to approaching the size of the trees standing in 1912. I've seen photoes of a 5 piece band, and 4 dancing couples on the stump of a tree within 10 miles of my home, cut around the turn of the century. Now you're lucky to find a Doug fir bigger than 4 feet thick.
Perhaps we'd understand each other better if we would all do the research ourselves, instead of trusting our chosen pundits to get all the facts, which will never happen, because they all (on both sides) have their own agendas.
Frustrating, isn't it?
Peace,
Roy

ishmael
11-14-2000, 12:34 AM
Part of my point is that the fourth estate, the journalists, should be doing the research for the country. That's their job, not working to get glamour and fame in infomercials about how we need to worry... but not too much. Granted, they've always been publicity hounds, but...

A big part of the problem, as I just begin to see it, is that the people who pay the bills don't want in depth reporting, and the independent invesitgators can't go forward in any strength without support, without money, without the reasonable expectation they will be published.

Who needs byzantine plots when you control the information that gets to 90% of the populous simply by right of ownership?

Churchill said, "during the war, the only thing that frightened me was the U-Boats."

Just now, I've had an epiphany.

noquiklos
11-14-2000, 12:57 AM
Ish, check out http://www.brillscontent.com or do a web search on Noam Chomsky. Your fears are well founded.
Peace,
Roy
I'm having trouble getting this to work, so you can type it into your location bar, and it comes right up.
[This message has been edited by noquiklos (edited 11-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by noquiklos (edited 11-14-2000).]

ishmael
11-14-2000, 02:16 AM
How do ya do it Roy?

All good information is worthy, but somewhere it comes down to what Ghandi said about non-violence.

I'm with the merry pranksters.

CAUTION, WEIRD LOAD.

The sign on the back of their bus,



[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-14-2000).]

Paul Frederiksen
11-14-2000, 02:20 AM
Remember back when the govt was shut down for a while due to that budget battle which the republicans lost... anyway everyone was so up set on both sides and blaming each other and all... meanwhile I as laughing my arse off. No one noticed that life went on as usual without the feds or at lest without a lot of them. Personally I am pleased as punch that these two clowns who were having a contest to see who could give away the bank (read your and my money) the fastest, ended up in what can only be reasonably described as a tie. Consider the, what is is now, 17 vote diffeence in New Mexico. It is a tie... and I believe that the reason is because they both suck. There was all this talk about record turnout and it turns out that the turnout was the second lowest of all time. Most rational people are just sick of the whole bunch of lying, clowns we refer to as our federal government.
There is a cartoon floating around somewhere which shows a man and his wife sitting in front of the TV. On either side are big picture windows looking out upon a typical american neighborhood. You know, a tree, a doghouse, a bird singing on a branch, the mail man walking up the sidewalk. On the TV is a man chasing another with a gun. The man turns to his wife and says, "Things sure have gone to hell in a handbasket!"

Now all of you need to get up from your computers, walk out the front door and look left and right. Then come back in, sit down and try to tell me how bad everything is. This election nonsense is really just a tiny sideshow compared to what really matters in our lives. I say, stop paying attention to the politicians, it just encourages them. What you do in the first hour when you wake up tomorrow will have ten times the effect on you life's outcome than anything they can dream up in Washington DC.

NormMessinger
11-14-2000, 08:57 AM
I should remain a lurker, but....

I suggest the two principles get together with their seconds and flip a coin. The winner gets the presidency but the looser gets to appoint Secretarys of State, Defense, Education, and Interior and half the judges.

Re Congress: Be pessimistic and avoid dissapointment.

--Norm

Don Olney
11-14-2000, 09:10 AM
Flip a coin? It would take weeks of wrangling by lawyers to determine what type of coin should be used, who should toss it, how it should be tossed, where it should land, and then what happens if it lands on the edge?

Pistols and coffee on the Capital Mall at dawn.

jeffery
11-14-2000, 09:18 AM
Paul
as to the effect there is a little matter of proterty rights. were this a free country when I woke Up I could go out and start building the wing of my home. insteed its sit at this computer drawing up a third set of plans then going to the city and saying "daddy may I..." to a bureocrat who is just playing CYA with my resourses and the part that sticks in my craw is I can see both sides in that by being so narrow and restrictive there is almost no chance of structural failure. yet there is a slow strangulation of the quality of life when there are so many intent on saving every one f from them selves. and talk of mixed feelings this third set of plans may be more productive to my goals but not sure if the cost in time has been worth it

Imagian if we had to go to the coast guard and the state departments of natural resourses and submit our plans for our boats, wait for them to aprove and then have them come back and inspect to see we didn't think of any improvements half way through. ( Yes I know for comercial vessels this is exactly the procedure. but to use that as ustification would be the same as saying there is no free speach in china so its ok to have no free speach here.)
Jeffery

Gib Sosman
11-14-2000, 09:21 AM
Thanks, Paul, for the post above mentioning the cartoon. It really made an impression on me. I'll try to explain why I was so affected.
It's almost dawn here in my part of the Sunflower State and I just woke up and the first cup of coffee should kick in any minute and make my brain work. Meanwhile there are a jumble of things rattling around in that brain and I am going to try and make sense of them all and try to make some connections.
Just before I woke up, I had a nightmare in which I was being chased around by people who were shooting at me with guns, shooting at me with bows and arrows, throwing spears, running towards me with swords and clubs. I was in a field, alone, unarmed, and absolutely terrified. So afraid that one bullet or one arrow would hit me. It was just a dream, of course, and probably more related to personal-life stress than anything. But in that dream I felt nothing but raw fear.
I woke up, shaken, made the coffee, looked outside, and all is calm and peaceful. There were no men with guns or swords or anything like that. I can feed the dog, turn on a tap and get hot or cold water, eat breakfast, get in my truck, and drive to work and make a living wage today as a carpenter. I don't need to carry a rifle with me. I can just go to work and live my life and 99.9999 percent of the time no one will try to harm me in any way if I behave myself and don't try to harm anyone else. Because I live in this country. And most of the time I just take it all for granted.
In my post above I said I was a dreamer. Of course, what I was realy meaning was that I was a cynic who was a frustrated idealist. And then I had that frightening dream, a real sleep-dream, woke up and turned on the computer and looked in on this forum first thing, and saw the comment about the cartoon up above. And I felt humbled and a little ashamed of myself, because of all the cynicism I expressed in my last post, the words having to do with liars, politicians, money, and power.
I felt humbled because whatever may be the faults of men seeking political office, at least they have the courage to stand up before the community, or the nation, or the world, and state their convictions. That in itself is admirable. Also, above (in Ishmael's post) is a mention of Gandhi. Then I thought of men like JFK, his brother Bobby,
Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and all the others who paid for their courage- thier willingness to take the risks of becoming public figures, with their very lives.
Some time back I happened to come upon some film on TV- maybe it was on the History Channel or somewhere like that. All I remember of that TV show was an archival film segment- I suppose it was from U.S. Navy archives- filmed right after a kamikaze had hit the flight deck of a carrier in one of the sea battles of the Second World War. In the film, the whole flight deck was in flames, gasoline flames, and sailors were running up to, even into the flames, with fire hoses, to save their comrades. Tears came to my eyes, realizing that these were men, of my Dad's generation, just four or five years before my birth, who were showing a courage that I have never had to show- because in my lifetime, I have never had to face anything like that.
Also, I mentioned Viet Nam in my above post. I managed to avoid going there. I thought I was being brave by standing up for the courage of my convictions, which were pacifist and anti-war in general, and anti-Vietnam War in particular. Now, three decades later, after speaking at various times with men of my generation who actually were in combat in 'Nam, and hearing first-hand accounts of the fighting there from men who were survivors of situations in which their buddies were blown to bits before their eyes, I have to admit that back in 1970 I may have been motivated as much by cowardice as by pacifist convictions; that the more I learned about real war from men who had really been to one, I knew I had been afraid (and still am, as my dream last night has shown me) of going to a real war where real bullets and real bombs were maiming and killing real people. I have never had to face anything like that. I wasn't born until WW2 was past, and I managed to avoid Vietnam, but as time has past I have come to see that I can look out my front door today and see a peaceful, quiet, neighborhood, in large part because of the courageous sacrifices made by the men (and women) who have literally laid their lives on the line in wars from Vietnam back to WW2 back to WW1 back to the Spanish American war and the Civil War and the War for Independence- and of all the mini-wars in which soldiers, sailors, and airmen have laid their lives down for this country of ours. So I want to say, I honor those people, who, one might say, sacrificed their own lives so that I might never have to.
I have managed to collect, through annual library book sales, quite a few old hardcover volumes of American Heritage- back from the times when Bruce Catton was Editor and frequent contributor. These books are editions from the mid-fifties up through the mid-seventies. There are lots of remarkable articles about the Revolution, and the Civil War, and the two World Wars; in many cases the articles were either written as first-hand accounts, or quoted extensively the writings of the men who actually participated. A story about George Rogers Clark; an accoount from contemporary writings of the battle of Breed's Hill; various writings from soldiers and officers who were veterans of the Civil War, veterans of the Great War, articles by General James Gavin about WW2- the Huertgen Forest campaign, the siege of Monte Cassino. And many more stories taken from throughout the history of the United States, about the sacrifices that were made, and the suffering endured, by the people who lived through various times in our history when the bombs and bullets and swords and arrows were a reality, not a video game fantasy. Because of all those men, and many other men and women who preceded me in this life, I am now able to look out my door and see a peaceful neighborhood street.
My stepfather was on the Piper, a fleet sub which participated in the Pacific War during the latter part of WW2, and he has told me some tales of what it was like to really be there.
Another friend of mine has three purple hearts from 'Nam (two of them, according to his story to me, from "friendly fire") and he and I drove from Kansas to Washington D.C. several years ago to go to the Wall for Veteran's Day, so he could meet with men of his platoon that he had not seen since 1969. It was a long drive east, and he told me hours of blood-curdling stories from his personal Vietnam experience in the real in-the-field battles he had survived.
So when I woke up this morning, and saw Paul's mention of the cartoon, and thought of some of the things I have just mentioned, I felt I had to write another post to say that I do greatly honor all the men whose efforts and sacrifice had much to do with the fact that I can now walk outside my door and not fear that I will be shot down, or bombed, or burned up, or captured and tortured, or shot with an arrow or hacked with a tomahawk or run through by a bayonet or a sword. I have been spared these things. It took me many years, some growing-up, and quite a bit of reading history and talking to real veterans to begin to appreciate that my youthful idealism of the Vietnam years was as much naive as it was sincere. I have grown up in a more or less peaceful country, as a result of the sacrifices of those who came before me. And if need be, I suppose I would fight and lay down my own life if I believed it would save my own son, who is now seven, from ever having to do it when he is a man.
As I write this, the sun is coming up and all is peaceful except for an annoying dog barking down the street. Also, at this moment, I have a relative- sort of a relative, actually a granddaughter of a relative-by-marriage, who is in Israel married to an Israeli Citizen, and the last I heard, she was trying to find a way back to the U.S. because she is amidst the very real recent fighting in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I feel very lucky to live where I do and to have the freedoms I do. Sure, this country has a lot of flaws, and the politicians probably tell a lot of lies, but I have to admit my admiration for people like Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore and others who have at least tried to stand up and show their convictions before the world, and take all the risks, from slander to assasination and everything in between, that taking a stand in running for high public office entails.
One last comment. As a result of a death in the family, I gained access to some old family papers, photographs, and books that had been saved for decades- some of these papers go back into the eighteenth century- and it has been fascinating to have the opportunity to examine some of them. Among other things, I learned that one of my great-grandfathers had worked as a physician at a missionary compound in China in the two or two and a half decades preceding 1900. Among his papers was an old book, from 1902 or so, called The Tragedy at Paotingfu. Paotingfu was a village or town in the vicinity of Peking where the American missionary compound was located. When the Boxers went wild and began to attack Western diplomats and missionaries, there were several of my great-grandfather's assistants, American and Chinese, who were taken by the Boxers and beheaded or speared to death outside the Walls of Peking. One of these was a young woman, a nurse or missionary/nurse, from Maine, by the name of Annie Gould. There is a story, taken directly from letters sent to the States by people who were in China directly affected by the Boxer Rebellion, and recounted in the Paotingfu book, of Miss Annie Gould's last days and hours. She was one of those who were captured by Boxers and taken prisoner. According to the book, at one point Miss Gould was in a room surrounded by Boxer soldiers with their swords or machetes or cutlasses or whatever their weapons were called. One of them said to her: "Look upon us! Are you not afraid?"
Annie Gould replied, "I am not afraid of you;
you are only a Man." A short while later she was taken to the place of execution and killed. I wish I had that kind of faith and courage. And I hope that whoever becomes our President will also have that quality of faith and courage- to follow the dictates of conscience whatever the cost.

Alan D. Hyde
11-14-2000, 09:45 AM
Jack (Ishmael) makes a good point. As terminology, "left" and "right" are not very helpful. Often they confuse things.

Hitler and Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin and their successors, Mao, were all totalitarians. Their people did what they were told to do (with no complaints), or they disappeared. The only difference was the flavor of their excuses for domination and control. To say that Hitler was rightist and Mao was leftist doesn't illuminate much.

It helps our discussion more, I think, if we talk about totalitarianism versus individualism. These terms more accurately describe the systems competing for dominance.

In two hundred years, the twentieth century may be called, among other things, "the totalitarian century."

Alan

Ken Hall
11-14-2000, 10:49 AM
This has been suuummm kinda civics lesson. I don't advocate another election, but if that came to pass I'd take my cue from the folks in Missouri who elected the late Mel Carnahan (RIP) to the Senate.

I'd vote for Abe Lincoln. In fact, I'd campaign for him. Think of it! Who's with me? "Mudsills, greasy mechanics, and sawdust-covered wretches for A. Lincoln!" http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/biggrin.gif

On another 'nother aside, I wish I could remember who wrote the op-ed piece I read a few days back. The writer advocated making Ralph Nader ambassador to North Korea so that he could (1) hang out with Kim Dong Il, ina meeting of like-sized egos, and (2) get a first-hand look at what a country looks like under a Naderesque economic regime.

Okay, enough silliness. I also read (the day after the election) an "Open Letter to the President-Elect" by Jack Kemp. And I wondered, "what's wrong with us, that we can't elect this guy?"

But then, based on what I know so far, Kemp is da man. He was a 'compassionate conservative' (remember turning public housing over to resident management and eventually ownership?) before the spinmeisters coined the term. Life, liberty, property.

Regards,
Ken

htom
11-14-2000, 11:49 AM
OK, we settle it with Bush & Gore, Texas vs Tennesee, naked mud wrestling, best of three falls. Loser's wife has to be President, winner's wife gets to be VP.

http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif

ishmael
11-14-2000, 12:05 PM
http://media4.hypernet.com/~dick/ubb/smile.gif too. Don't you think the fellow portraying Gore on Saturday Night Live is great! Bet he's hoping Gore wins!

This is, and "lets be perfectly clear," a tie. What do we do? Grumble, grumble, whine, whine... well geeze, there has to be a "winner."

I just hope if Gore takes office that the supreme court justices are all taking their vitamins.

Let's not lose our sense of humor over this. Best, Jack

Don Olney
11-14-2000, 12:13 PM
Maybe a coin toss is the best solution, but since I voted for Gore, can we make that 2 out of 3?

ishmael
11-14-2000, 12:21 PM
I always do 3 out of 5 Don.

Where is everybody? It's lunch time in the east.

[This message has been edited by ishmael (edited 11-14-2000).]

Ed Harrow
11-14-2000, 01:02 PM
Reading, reading, reading. Free Inquiry (actually, can't remember if that's the title) and Skeptical Inquirer are both interesting reads.

No comments re Adam Smith and the resultant no Cod? Maybe too off the main topic, tho it was in response to comment along the way.

Why do people do these things (run for public office) I figure there's two reasons that will make up 95%, Money and, ahhh, oh, money. An individual gets elected to some position, leaves, but takes the knowledge and connections gained for personal wealth. Oh, maybe there's a third reason, power.

I do know an exception (I think). She was our local state rep for probably ten years or so. Got to the power center of the house, and then quit within the year. Interesting.

Heard the other day that Gore was handing cigarettes to bums on the street up in Wisconsin if they'd go vote for him. Anybody believe it? That's the kind of crap that both sides a dishing out, not certain of the source on that one - Limberger maybe?

Well it is interesting, and you're an interesting group to spend it with. Now about my tool box...

noquiklos
11-14-2000, 03:40 PM
Gib made some excellent points. There is no crisis. The system, as slow, inefficient and messy as it is, will determine a winner, and, if I may make a prediction, the ultimate outcome will be an overhaul of the balloting system to insure that this never happens again. As a friend of mine in Liverpool told me last night, "Yours is the most powerful, richest country in the world: the most technologically advanced, you put men on the moon, and you vote by punching little holes in a piece of paper? Bloody insane!"
The fact that the margin of error in the machine counts far exceed the difference between the two candidates seems to neccessitate a manual recount, if for no other reason than to insure the legitimacy of the president elect.
But what do I know? My candidate won, handily, in my state.
Peace,
Roy

noquiklos
11-14-2000, 03:44 PM
Ed, two excellent magazines. I'm subscribed to both.
The best way to inform yourself is to read a wide variety of viewpoints, and filter what you read through critical thought. Objectivity rules!
Peace,
Roy

John058
11-14-2000, 09:20 PM
Jeffrey,
I'm with you on your "This Old House" post. Here in Atlanta metro area they have numerous Home Depots and Loew's. They sell us all the accoutrements but, due to county and city ordinances, the average homeowner can't use most of them legally. I can't even replace a defective electrical outlet without having a master election pull a permit. All this 'cause of tradesmen's lobbying and too many legislators with too much time on their hands. This might even be acceptible if it weren't for the constant revelations of shoddy construction and downright criminally fraudulent work done by some of the very tradesmen protected by the statutes. No one can convince me I'm free. I'm only free to conform.

Ross Faneuf
11-14-2000, 10:58 PM
Excellent column: http://www.msnbc.com/news/489925.asp

Ross Miller
11-14-2000, 11:55 PM
The real story: http://www.theonion.com/onion3641/nation_plunges_into_chaos.html

Ed Harrow
11-15-2000, 08:49 AM
ROTFLMHO. That's a nice piece.

Chris Lasdauskas
11-16-2000, 02:40 AM
In the interests of promoting intelligent discussion of this important issue (translation into 'Strine: ****-stirring), I offer the following, which I got from a mail list --

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the
same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed".

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen" but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "****".

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Art Read
11-16-2000, 05:50 AM
LOL! Hey... How did he get away with "****"?

NormMessinger
11-16-2000, 10:25 AM
A few days ago, NPR reported that Castro offered to send observers to oversee the recounts in Florida. Before that, Doctors to Louisana. I'm not so sure we couldn't use his help.

--Norm

Andrew
11-16-2000, 10:53 AM
Art, **** happens. (I'll have to type faster if I want to remain timely);

[This message has been edited by Andrew (edited 11-16-2000).]

Art Read
11-16-2000, 03:39 PM
Anybody seen the the cartoon picturing "Mainstreet USA" with municipal workers stringing Christmas decorations, trains running on time, people window shopping, garbage being collected and a pair of young lovers walking hand in hand, obliviously, past a row of newspaper vending boxes with headlines screaming "NATION IN CRISIS!!!"?

Alan D. Hyde
11-17-2000, 01:05 PM
Anybody read a small book written almost fifty years ago by longshoreman Eric Hoffer? Its title was "The True Believer," and what it has to say touches on the conduct of Mr. Gore and his followers in this election.

Remember Gore's comments to Newsweek a couple of weeks ago?

If Bush lost, said Gore, Bush's life would go on pretty much as always, but if he, Albert A. Gore, Jr., lost... well, he couldn't lose; he'd do WHATEVER WAS NECESSARY to win.

I don't have the magazine in front of me, but I think that this paraphrase is pretty close to his words.

That comment alone should cost him the election (though there are those on this Forum who think that we individualists "...snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze...").

Alan

Ross Faneuf
11-17-2000, 01:52 PM
I have Eric Hoffer's book, which I consider must reading for anyone interested in the behavior of groups. But I see the same behavior on both sides; indeed, the Republicans of my acquaintance fit the description better than the Democrats. I don't think I'll draw conclusions from what I see in the media - it's even worse than anecdotal evidence.

I'm really struck by the role reversal and ironies in the Florida situation. It was the Bush organization which swore do whatever it took to reverse an electoral decision in Florida (or the rest of the nation) when pre-election predictions suggested that Bush might win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, rather than vice versa. Based on the same predictions, the Gore organization swore that attempts to revise the results should be strenuously resisted.

The Bush organization is generally credited with favoring states rights over Federal, and the Gore organization the opposite; yet it is the Bush organization attempting to get Federal courts to intervene, and the Gore organization sticking to state courts in this bar fight.

I have a true believer in my family - my sister-in-law is a hellfire Democrat. For her, Bush is the devil incarnate, and his inauguration will land the nation back somewhere around 1870. I don't like Bush myself, but I know perfectly well this is pure hysteria.

We shouldn't forget for a minute that everything that goes on now is pure politics, on both sides. It's mostly not very pretty, but we should expect politics to be pretty in this country. While Alan and I probably are on opposite sides of the political fence, I certainly agree with the idea of 'least government'. And for us in the US, that is ensured by messy, dirty, divided government which is the practical and political expression of the division of powers set up by the FF.

I've seen posts in other forums wishing we had a parliamentary system, so that deadlock wouldn't exist. I most heartily and fervently pray that that never happens; deadlock is our way of making sure the government isn't too efficient/interfering. And we've just ensured it will happen again, whoever takes the oath.

thechemist
11-17-2000, 02:07 PM
I have some vague recollection from a high school civics class, of the teacher showing us a quote from Alexis de Toqueville, sent over here to investigate and report back on this new form of government called Democracy, who said [something like] that it ensured that the worst candidate would not get elected to the office. It also ensured that neither would the best.

Ken Hall
11-17-2000, 04:01 PM
Ross--

In support of your point, wasn't it Will Rogers who said, "The American people should be thankful they don't get all the government they pay for?"

Best regards,
Ken

Chris Coose
01-30-2003, 03:13 PM
To your credit, it does appear that you guys were much more civil a while ago.
Even with Pat C. around!

Jim H
01-30-2003, 03:45 PM
Yes, it was a pleasant place then. I'd forgotten that funny post by the other Chris. I printed it this time. :D :D