So much for the $500 Al Gore bill... (NT)

(No text.)

It ant over till it's over. Their still double checking stuff. This one's to close to know for sure untill the Electoral colledge votes.

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

It ain't over. Florida is having a mandatory recount!

Fen Phen wrote:

That sounds familier. It's great! Dan Rather is slowly going goofy from lack of sleep. I dont care who wins this is great!!

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:00:35 -0500, "Fen Phen" wrote:

Plus there is another ballot box in a strong Democratic district in FL that was not counted.

Plus plus there was a call of shenanigans in West Miami over a approximately 4000 votes that registered for Pat Buchanan many of which may have been intended for Gore.

Since Bush is only ahead by 1785 votes, either of these could flip the score.

But an exception to the exception, there are still a large number of overseas absentee ballots. They can come in for up to 10 days. Many of these are from the military, which the republicans expect to go in their favor.

But an exception to the exception to the exception, while the military does tend to go republican, this time, Gore has a better record in military service than Bush. Although he was a reporter, Gore was in Viet Nam and faced gun fire. Bush was in the Texas Air Guard and did very poorly. The Republicans may get a much narrower edge than they expect.

If I had to place a bet, I would say Bush will probably win the race, although Gore won the popular vote. But, it could go either way.

As for the Al Gore's $500 bill. There's still 2004, 2008 etc.

--Larry

There were 9 missing boxes reported last night, all since found.

This is legit. It was West Palm Beach county. For some reason, the ballots in WPB were different from the ones the rest of us used. The presidential candidate list ran down the left side of the page and continued on the right where Buchanan's name appeared at the top, directly across from Gore's name. People were punching the card next to Gore but it was registering as a vote for Buchanan. Obviously the results were flawed, WPB has an extremely high Jewish population, it's not exactly a hotbed of support for Buchanan. Of the approx. 4,000 suspect votes, around 3,500 were supposed to go to Gore.

After 2008, they may consider putting Hillary's picture on the bill. (Or do presidents have to be dead first before they can appear on money?)

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

Take a look at them? As I saw them on CNN, they had a friggin' arrow going right to the punch hole. They had ONE old lady who I wouldn't trust to know shite from shinola explain how she was confused by the thing. Gee, the sides were staggered. I can't even believe that made the news, it sounds like Gore is a damn sore loser. What kind of twit would retract his congratulations? Bleh, I hate'em both.

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:[email]...

going

know

Apparently, the weird ballots were enough to cause 19,000 voters in West Palm Beach to punch more than one hole for the presidential vote. The ballot looks pretty straightforward to me too, but give those 19,000 people the benefit of the doubt that something was funky about the different ballot they were using combined with the sample ballots they were shown. (There is even a quote that a poll staffer didn't know which hole was which.)

Gore, in fact, did not retract his concession until his campaign staff paged him when he was two blocks away from where he was about to make his concession speech. He retracted the concession because Florida state law requires a recount, meaning the election isn't over. Gore would be a fool if he didn't retract his concession. If you look at the numbers, he is currently winning the nation-wide Popular Vote by 192,638 votes. In Florida, lots of bad things happened to the election ballots, and that state determines who gets to be President. If Gore loses, what does he have left? His state (Tennessee) does not support him and he doesn't have a lot of friends in the Democratic Party. If he loses, his political career is pretty much finished. If you were him, would you just roll over and die to concede to George W. Bush (a questionable President) simply based on a thousand questionable votes in Florida? Would you concede when you are actually leading the nation-wide vote by 200 thousand votes? Gore's no sore loser. After all, he himself did not demand the recount and he did call Bush to congratulate him when the /networks/ told him he lost. If anything, Gore almost threw in the towel too soon.

In article ,

I think it should be a requirement that you have to win your own state to become president. Obviously that doesn't work if the candidate is not a congresscritter, but still, if his own people don't want him, why would the whole nation?

Paul

Paul Tomko wrote:

Because everyone is just drooling over promises that can't be kept and money they will have at their disposal.

Hasn't anyone ever understood, that there is _nothing_ for free!

Hans

Paul Tomko ate a baby:

Oh, i wouldn't say his political career would be over, not by a long shot. If it does turn out that the electoral votes do put Bush in office, he'll have enormous public sympathy... after all he *won* the popular vote. Plus, it's somewhat likely that we'll hit an economic slump in the economy within the next four years. Stock market's already been getting cagey. So, picture this scenario... in four years, people are quite probably not feelin' quite so optimistic about the economy (this may or may not happen, but i'm inclined to think it will), they look back to the election, and see that Gore was the Choice of the American People, but the constitutional process got Bush in on what could be percieved as a technicality. Massive sympathy for Gore, and a fairly likely win by a large margin should he run in '04.

Based on historical comparisons, this is an election either party would *not* want to win. Two candidates, neither one very exciting, one wins by a slim margin... happened in '76 with Ford vs Carter, the nation hit an economic slump, the other party gets a two-term administration four years later. Happened in '88, Bush vs Dukakis, neither candidate particularly excited the voters, Bush wins by a few million votes, economy slumps, and we get an 8 year democrat administration four years later.

Nixon lost to Kennedy but was able to come back and win later on. If Gore plays his cards right, he could be remembered as a candidate who was unjustly robbed of the election, and could win by a landslide in the future.

*blink* *blink* I dunno, but apparently it does if he won the popular.

"Fen Phen" wrote in message news:8udm6t$fuf$[email]...

people

ballot

is

The 19,000 was something else I'm pretty sure. My point about those ballots was...there are freaking LINES ON THEM FROM THE CANDIDATES NAME TO THE HOLE TO PUNCH FOR THEM. My honest opinion is throw them out, they're too friggin' stupid to vote if they can't figure it out. It's a 1st grade IQ question for crap's sake. Ok, so most of the people in the county in question are in their second childhood...If Gore pushes too far, it's gonna be a bad scene. Oh hell, we're poofed 6 ways to sunday.

No, it's acually 19,120 and they were all double-punched ballots. On the news last night, they said approx. 90% of them were double punched for Gore and Buchanan.

There's your election right there. If the ballot in one little county wasn't so confusing, Gore would be president elect right now.

People see two names, they see two holes, they want the 2nd name, they punch the 2nd hole.

LOL! Gore did *much* better among college educated voters than Bush did. If your going to suddenly make intelligence a requirement for voting, Bush wouldn't stand a chance.

They teach 1st graders to punch election ballots?

No shit. Bush is gonna screw this country up so bad, it'll take another 50 years to get back to where we are right now. Except the national debt will be higher. But who gives a shit, gotta get that tax cut, right?

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

That's right. I was distinguishing between the Buchana mis-votes(?) and the double punched ones.

Have you seen the ballot? http://www.wrko.com/ballot.htm Nothing confusing about it. ARROWS for crap's sake.

Last time this country ran a surplus more than 4 years in a row was 1919-1930.

Oh hell, I say we go have our own election, with blackjack, and hookers. Crap let's just skip the election.

But then again there is that little matter of how the ballots weren't fitting quite right in the machine so even if you thought you were punching the third hole and instead punching the second hole.

Dave wrote in message news:[email]...

Eh, I don't want the tax cut. I even fall into the class that would benefit from it, but I'm doing fine. I don't want it. The people who need the tax cut, the lower class, won't get it with Bush. That's a shame.

-Fraggler?

In article ,

I was under the impression that the tax cut would benefit everybody. Gore said that 50% would go to taxpayers making more than $300,000. Well, surprisingly, 50% of the taxes come from taxpayers making more than $300,000. I guess in a sense, it wouldn't benefit the poor. Since they don't pay taxes, I guess a tax cut doesn't help them, does it?

Paul

In article , [email] (Paul Tomko) wrote:

We built up a massive national debt over 30 years. Before we have a tax cut to return surplus funds to the taxpayers, we should pay that off. It's stupid to pay the interest on credit cards, and this is stupidity on the trilions of dollar level. We pay as much on interest on this debt as on the defense budget. Think of the tax cut that could *follow* a debt payoff.

Bush's plan would insure we almost certainly don't manage to pay off the debt.

David Z Houston, TX

I agree. Granted, we should pay some interest on credit cards (otherwise the companies that supply them wouldn't make very much money to keep supplying them) but not at rates as they presently are. But yeah, Buush's plan would only make the debt situation in this country worse.

-Fraggler?

www.reality-syndicate.com

David wrote in message news:[email]...

debt.

In article ,

That's a good idea. So the next three generations can be taxed to pay off the deficit that the last generation worked up so that four generations from now can be debt free. Makes me wish I was born 30 years earlier.

This is going to sound strange coming from someone who usually sides with Republicans, but I don't agree with spending so much money on defense. Fine, they can keep the money they've already extorted out of us, but why don't they cut the defense budget and stop sending our kids off to die in little scuffles that have nothing to do with us.

Paul

"Why should I give a crap about the state of the country after I'm dead and buried?"

Unfortunately, too many people think this way.

Now that's just bad business. Why build a $50 million jet if you're not going to get it destroyed to create the need for the next $50 million jet?

"David" wrote in message news:[email]...

Never gonna happen. The last time the US ran a budget surplus for more than 4 years in a row was 1919-1930, and we all know what happened then. The problem with paying off the debt is that it's still money in the public sector, as opposed to being money people can use to buy things like food and shelter. To oversimplify, think of what it would take to pay off the debt in a one time "national debt" tax. Then consider every penny from that tax would be money transferring from the private sector to the public. You might get a hell of a tax break, but only because you wouldn't have any money left to tax.

In article ,

What is the national debt up ton these days? I think it was something like $3 trillion a few years back. To pay that off, it would take about $12000 per PERSON, meaning my household would have to pay off $36,000. I suppose our family could pay that in about 3 years time. However, there are families with one wage earner and 5 or 6 non-earners. I would think it would take most families a lot more than 3 years to pay off their portion of the national debt.

I also don't think it is a good idea to do such a one time tax thing, because when they see all that money come in, they will be itching to spend it on more bombers that won't be used or some such thing rather than spend it on the debt.

Paul

"Paul Tomko" wrote in message news:3a100dbc$0$56655$[email]...

families

I got the idea out of an article I read somewhere. Basically the one time tax thing was an illustration of the effects of paying off the debt. The main point being, if you paid off the debt you wouldn't need to tax anyone anymore, because they wouldn't have any money. And it wasn't a fixed amount per person, it was proportional.

I got the impression that the national debt is a sort of investment in growth of the country, not flatout debt. Take away the debt, the country whithers and dies. But then I'm not an economist.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:03:35 -0500, "LooseChanj" wrote:

The national debt is basically bonds sold by the government, with the promise to pay them back, with interest, at a later date. The money is then used to support important programs, like paying off the bonds that are coming due.

The debt can be taken away, by paying it off, with no problem. Take away the government's ability to issue debt and it will be in serious trouble as soon as expenses exceed tax revenue.

Currently, the third biggest expense in the federal budget is interest on the national debt. As the debt is retired, the funds freed from interest can be used to pay off more debt, or fund other programs, or give incremental tax breaks etc.

Much of the money currently invested in Treasury bonds would be invested in stocks and venture capital. This would stimulate the development of new businesses and boost the stock market.

A large tax break would stimulate increased spending. Lacking a similar boost in productivity, the net result will be inflation. Inflation tends to cause more inflation. The inflationary cycle, once started, is very hard to stop. The most noted cure is to crash the economy with a series of recessions. Kennedy pushed for and got a big tax cut in a growing economy and it started an inflationary cycle. The cycle was finally ended when Reagan put the national debt through the roof and created a deep recession.

The huge tax surpluses in the past couple of years have been largely driven by huge jumps in capital gains taxes. These were generated by the jump in stock prices. Since stock prices aren't jumping this year, the surplus will likely be much smaller.

If you lined up all the economists in Washington D.C. end to end they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

Which is exactly the problem. Expenses exceed revenue. To pay off the debt you need to increase revenue, and how do you do that? Raising taxes, or spend less. Raise taxes, and the people have less to spend. Spend less, and the people have to pick up the slack themselves.

Take away those interest payments, and I bet you still wouldn't end up with revenue>expenses.

Of course a tax break stimulates spending. People have to buy more things the gov't is saving money by not providing them.

The dotcom bubble is bursting, and along with it those surpluses. What happens now is a recession caused by Clinton, and blamed on whoever wins*groan* this election.

Of course not, have you ever tried to get an endless line of people to come to a concensus? Maybe if you stuck'em around a table.

In article ,

To follow up my own article, I found a site that has our current estimated national debt recalculated continuously. It is currently over $5 trillion and each persons personal responsibility toward this debt is about $20,500. Although, I don't think each citizen should be held responsible. After all, we didn't tell them to spend the money. Anyway, It would take my family an awfully long time to come up with over $60,000 to pay back our part of the debt, especially since we are already taxed at more than 1/3 of our income as it is.

Paul

But the problem is staples required for survival still cost the same amount, regardless of who's purchasing them. If I made several hundred thousand or more, I could much more easily afford to be taxed at a higher rate without it affecting my ability to subsist. As an extreme example, taking only 10% from a guy who can barely afford to feed his family would essentially ruin him. But taking 50% from a guy who pulls in millions a year would only mean he can't buy that third Lexus he had his eye on or maybe that the summer home in France will have to only have two guest rooms.

The poor pay taxes, just like the rich. The difference isn't really in the amount that's paid, it's in what that tax money would have gone towards if it wasn't sent to Uncle Sam.

Gore's political career is far from over if he loses this election, I think. There's no doubt at this point that he won the popular vote, and if history tells us anything, it's that if a candidate loses the election but wins the popular vote and runs again in four years, he's pretty much a shoe-in. If Gore loses this year but runs again in 2004 (and both parties know this pattern so the Democrats would likely nominate him again) chances are good he'd win.

-Fraggler?

www.reality-syndicate.com

Fen Phen wrote in message news:8udm6t$fuf$[email]...

sounds

people

ballot

is

paged

state

left?

to

sore

anything,

In article , "Fraggler?" writes:

There's huge doubt at this point. The lead is less than 100,000 with up to 2,000,000 absentee and overseas ballots still outstanding. Which, historically, have tended to be more Republican than the population as a whole. I still expect Bush to win the popular vote, albeit very narrowly.

and if history

Wow. Historical illiteracy on a staggering level. It is true that Cleveland won in 1892 after winning the popular vote and losing the popular in 1888, but the only other candidate to have that happen, Samuel Tilden in 1876. never ran again...

If

The only way that Gore ever runs for the presidency again is as an incumbent running for re-election in 2004. If he loses now, he's done. The Democrats will never, ever, nominate him again. No chance.

Anyone here remember a guy named Richard Nixon? Lost a very, very close election in 1960. Everyone said his political career was cooked. After losing another election for governor or senator (?), even he himself said he was through with politics, said "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore". Richard Nixon won the presidential election in 1968, eight years later, and was re-elected to a second term in 1972.

OmegaMan wrote:

And a third term in 3001. And were BACK ON TOPIC!!!!:)

That's good. Mike, if I could give you a cookie, you'd get it right now. That had to be the funniest post I've seen on this newsgroup.

(I'm not being sarcastic either, that was classic!)

-Fraggler?

www.reality-syndicate.com

Mike Zaite wrote in message news:[email]...

death car

The

would beat

Fraggler? wrote:

It took me a week to get this. Thanks.

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

Technically, it wasn't a 3rd term. His first two were as President of the *United States*, not Earth.

LooseChanj wrote:

True, but one of the reporters brought up that he had already served his two terms in office. I think for some reason Earth became an extension of the USA just look at the flag.

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

two

USA

Which would be typical american elitism, or a goof on it. Besides, the constitution doesn't actually say no"body", it says no "person".

LooseChanj wrote:

Let's see It's a show that uses satire....

Yea there's so many things wrong with that and many other scenes on the show.

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

show.

Thank god it's a cartoon eh?

LooseChanj wrote:

Cartoon?

"OmegaMan" wrote in message news:[email]...

I do believe the "You won't have..." quote was part of his *presidential* resignation speech.

Nope, this was sometime in the 60's when Nixon said that. It was a few years before he decided to run for president again. I'm thinking he said it after an election in 1962. I suspect it was after he ran for governor of California.

Right now it looks like Gore's going to be a sore loser by taking legal action over some Florida irregularities, trying every thing up for months, and alienating and annoying a lot of people.

OTOH- You don't have to be a dead President to be on a bill. Look at old Ben Franklin. Maybe Gore's "inventing the internet" is looked on more fondly than Dubya being lame.

DGH

The ultimate goal of an election is to find out the will of the people. Those who claim Gore is trying to steal the election need to look at what is happening. No one is claiming these misplaced ballots were for Bush. Buchanan has even said that those votes weren't his.

If the Republicans want to win on the technicality that people didn't understand the ballot, then they are not acting according to the wishes of the American people.

Do the honorable thing and RE-VOTE!

In article ,

If either Gore or Bush is put in the White House, then they are not acting according to the wishes of the people. Neither one is a clear majority. The majority of eligible voters did not vote at all. This pretty clearly indicates that the majority wants neither Bush nor Gore.

Paul

Paul Tomko wrote:

That's what I think is the sad part!!!! 53% voter turnout!!! Only half the people. What's up with that??? Don't the others care or matter...???

Hans

100,000,000 out of 135,000,000 people of voting age voting is 74% voter turnout, not 53%.

In article ,

According to www.census.gov, there are 205 million people 18 and over in this country. According to Yahoo, about 103 million people voted, which is about 51%.

Paul

Some states had an amazing turnout. Whereas 40-45% is typical, colorado for example had over a 75% voter turnout.

The census doesn't care if you've been convicted of a felony or are otherwise ineligible to vote, it only cares that you exist.

If I want to pick nits, Omegaman did say 135 million of voting age, not eligible to vote. But I won't pick that nit. Instead, I'll just say that most of the 205 million over 18 are eligible to vote as only a small percentage have been involved in a felony. The percentage involved in a felony is probably even less than the percentage that are not eligible because they are illegally in the country.

Paul

:

One last group of people not eligible to vote - by INS estimate there were about 10 million legal permanent residents in '96. Granted, it wouldn't change the turnout percentage by more than a couple of percentage points, but every little bit counts.

Arnoud

Voting age is 18. The US's population is 270,000,000. I doubt half the country is under 18.

Where does 74% rank amongst turnout totals in previous presidential elections?

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm

I can't seem to find one that includes 2000. It'd be a statistical anomaly tho', looks like turnout's been averaging around the 50% mark. But then this election is full of anomalies. Not to mention I'd expect an election this close to have more turnout.

Not to mention that voter turnout was no where near 74%. The logic used to get this number was extremely flawed.

Hans Hafner ate a baby:

Actually, that's not a bad turnout at all. As for whether or not they matter, if they wanted to be counted, they could've voted. Unless they're from palm beach, in which case they could do their duty as a citizen and get tangled up in the drapery.

Actually, it's a majority that wins an election. Meaning one vote makes a difference. Voter turnout was very high for this election. Nothing is clearly indicated.

In article ,

Voter turnout was higher than usual, but lower than it should be. 26% said they favor Bush, 26% said they favor Gore, 1% said they favor one of the other candidates. 47% said they don't prefer any of these candidates.

I think a presidential election won by only one vote is most definitely not an indication of who the public wants. It indicates that the public doesn't really care between the two candidates. But if 47% don't vote, then they should get two new candidates and try again.

Paul

Paul, Are you a part of this disenchanted youth I hear so much about?

I agree that voter turn out is lower than it should be, but 47% never said they don't want either of these candidates. Most are just too lazy to get off the couch. Most would rather be entertained than think.

In article ,

I think they should make voting mandatory, but allow you to vote none of the above. That would be a better indicator of what the populace thinks.

Paul

The only problem with that is we are a free country. The government cannot force you to express your opinion anymore than they can stop you from doing the same.

Now I'll probably get all sorts of responses regarding how "the man" keeps us all from truly expressing ourselves.

Where are you getting this from? 49,059,929 voters voted for Gore. 48,858,333 voted for Bush, and 2,694,640 voted for Nader, plus several hundred thousand each for several other candidates. That is over 100,000,000 people voting. The US population is somewhere around 270,000,000. And about half of them are children, under 18, and can't legally vote. So that leaves around 135,000,000 people old enough to vote. 35,000,000 not voting is hardly the majority of voters. More people wanted either Gore or Bush than didn't bother to vote.

In article , OmegaMan wrote:

Really? I confess I do not know the precise demographic breakdown by age, but 0-18 = 50% 18+ = 50% (roughly 18-90)

strikes me as unlikely. We would be one of the youngest nations on the planet.

David Z Houston, TX

In article ,

You're confusing the U.S. with some African countries. Half of the population is not under 18 here. We live in the country where 17% of the population is 65 or older. The percentage of under 18 is about 20%. The vast majority, 80% is old enough to vote.

Paul

But if indeed Gore is the actual winner, how is he a sore loser?

You guys love to talk football here in this newsgroup. If the referee makes a bad call, the coach has the right to have the ref's call reviewed. And if this results in a touchdown the other team made being overturned, and his team then wins, is that coach a sore loser for asking to have the call reviewed?

:-) In a manner of speaking, yes.

Excellent analogy.

To me, Bush is like the team that just benefitted from a crappy call by the ref, and they want to start the clock and snap the ball before the opposition questions the call and demands a replay.

To me, Gore is like the team who loses a close basketball game, but starts arguing that he should win because he made more baskets.

It seems to me that Bush may have scored a few 4 point baskets.

Dan Rudolph wrote:

Well.

If that's what you think you should do some research and find out what is going on if it it's as easy as you seem to think it is.

Do the work.

Hans

I say Clinton for president on 2004.

In article , OmegaMan wrote:

It may hinge on the next few weeks, true, and if ultimately the election goes to GW Bush, I say he concedes graciously. Bush serves a four-year term of partisan discord, the 21st Century Rutherford B. Hayes, and absolutely nothing happening (Supreme Court justices hold out 4 years, on machines if necessary). Bush serves as perhaps one of the least happiest presidents ever. Gore runs in 2004 and wins with 55-65% of the popular vote and an electoral college victory.

Either one works with his party in Congress to introduce an amendment abolishing or substantially altering the Electoral College system.

She has already said she plans to serve out a full term as Senator, and she will be wise to do so. Two years in the Senate as a junior in the minority is hardly enough time to build up national momentum. At an *absolute* minimum, the earliest she should run would be 2008. Election 2012 after 2 complete Senate terms would be a better scenario. Assuming she wants it then or now.

If you refer to WJ Clinton, he is barred by amendment from running for a third term, consecutive or not. My guess is he spends retirement as an activist negotiator for mideast issues and his other interests.

David Z Houston, TX

Man, you're a smart guy David! You really have this figured out. I gotta tell you, that sounds like a VERY realistic model of future elections.

-Fraggler?

www.reality-syndicate.com

David wrote in message news:[email]...

think.

history

wins the

If

this

good

I have ABSOLUTELY no idea whether this was sarcasm or an honest response.

Really, it reads both ways equally well.

Sorry about that. I know, it's hard to tell when it's writing and you can't hear voice inflections. That wasn't sarcasm, though, I really think that's what'll happen. It's scary how accurate that scenario sounds.

-Fraggler?

www.reality-syndicate.com

Dave wrote in message news:[email]...

gotta

"David" wrote in message news:[email]...

Ah, his "other interests." What with Hillary being so busy and all and him having so much free time... and free desk space.... ;)

David:

But what if he gets a robot body?

Yer Pal Nathan Not back on that Rip Off Paul's Sig kick, still on it

"Max Speedness" wrote in message news:[email]...

The constitution actually says "person", NOT "body". So he's still ineligible. Nixon in 3001 is a different story. It's possible he'd served two terms as President of Earth also, and that the United Earth's constitution said "body".

Max Speedness ate a baby:

If he gets a robot body, i want a robot body.

In article , OmegaMan writes:

Hillary? I'm with you.

On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:49:56 -0700, OmegaMan wrote:

Go Hillary!!

--Larry

Larry F wrote:

I'd rather wait and see how she does with New York first.

"Mike Zaite" wrote in message news:[email]...

You're not serious are you? The fact that she's in office on nothing but star power and technicalities doesn't bother you? As for how she does with New York, I think it's safe to say she's not there to do the job, but just to get the line on her resume. Hmmm, maybe she's not so different after all. Bleh, they're all evil.

Another cop out response.

"petben" wrote in message news:B6396AF5.2C59%[email]...

How is a negative opinion of a dishonest, sleazy, unethical, power hungry tramp a cop out? If it were up to Big Sister Hillary, we'd all have to turn out tomorrow for re-education on how to be a proper "village". But then if you don't have a mind of your own, that won't scare you...it might even be of some comfort that someone else wants to think for you.

He says, while aping the ridiculous opinions of right wing reactionaries.

that won't scare you...it might even be

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

The enemy of my enemy is also retarded. I say pick a crazy homeless bum at random and let him make the decisions. Couldn't be any worse than it is already.

There are very ignorant people doing and saying very wrong things on both sides.

Someone, I think it may have been Kurt Vonnegut, wrote a story about a future election, where the human race has advanced to the point where a global president was to be elected. Anyway, the logistics of getting the by this time about 12 billion people to vote were ridiculous so they got the most powerful computers to crunch numbers and determine THE statistically perfect person to cast the only vote. Imagine the pressure.

Damn. I love stories like that, so long as they don't come true. Imagine a world like that in 1984, or Farenheit 451. Yeesh.

-Fraggler?

I remember 1984 very well. The boomer yuppies revised history so that every thing worthwhile was either started or discovered by a boomer or happened in the '60s or both. Then they voted their credit cards and reelected Big Brother while patting themselves on the backs for keeping the idealism of the '60s alive. I believe this was called doublethink....

DGH

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:48:31 -0800, "Fraggler?" wrote:

It was Asimov. His basic prediction was that computers would get larger and more powerful until the world would need only a single, city sized, computer. It was called "Multivac". I guess he was a bit off on that one.

Or the grandfather of all sci-fi anti-utopias, Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927).

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote

I think it's more a dystopia, but if you like such a world... ;)

Larry F wrote in message news:[email]...

That must have been written when vacuum tubes were all the rage in the field of computers. Archaic. :)

Huh. I've never heard of that one. I'll have to go to a library and find it. I love dystopic novels.

-Fraggler?

It's a silent movie.

DGH

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:12:53 -0600, doug holverson wrote:

It was a play on the name "Univac" (UNIVersal Automatic Computer), Which was the first computer to use magnetic tape. The boot process cause a brown-out in much of Philadelphia.

Right. You can get it on DVD for about $7.00 or VHS for <$5.00. I think the copyrights have expired. If your Library has a video section, it may be there.

--Larry

Larry F wrote:

And while your at it look for "Les Voyage De La Lune" ("A voyage to the moon") Not only one of the first Sci-Fi films but one of the first Fiction Films.(Before that they were just shots of every day events)

I think you mean "Le voyage dans la lune" (for anyone who'd try to look it up).

"Arnoud W. Morsink" wrote:

That would be it. Not that I actualy expect anyone would look it up.

Perhaps, but the boomer yuppies would still have you believe it was filmed in the '60s. ;-)

I wouldn't put it past them. "Like man, it shows The Man using his technology, like symbolized by this robot chick, to like oppress us all, man. Technology is like really unmellow, man!"

DGH (Who has bad experiences with '60s and '70s holdouts in fandom.)

That sounds about right.

While I can't specifically recall the short story well enough to remember if it was one of Asimov's, I do remember a book of his called "All the Troubles in the World." In it, the Earth was already under Multivac's control, this city-computer made all the important decisions and accurately predicted all forthcoming events as long as it contained every single bit of available data. Anyway, everything was running along smoothly until the computer found out that someone was plotting to destroy it. The saboteur had to insure that the world computer that knows everything, doesn't. Asimov handled the paradox extremely well.

Sorry for the belated reply ...

Stardate Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:17:53 GMT ... written on Mars by the contented [email] (Larry F):

Asimov did write stories like that, including one about a machine in "I, Robot" which actually did act as the ruling power, rather than just the elector. The short story the original poster is referring to, though, is "2066: Election Day" by Michael Shaara, written in the 50's. The computer was named UNCLE SAM, and the plot was about a college professor of sociology, who is called upon by the government's secret service to solve their dilemma on election night, which is that UNCLE SAM had determined that absolutely no citizen was eligible for office. (The excuse was that, in the future, managing the country will be infinitely more difficult.) Most of it takes place in a single room, with the various officials arguing over how to solve it. I won't give away the ending, on the off-chance that anyone actually finds a copy. : )

Thanks Jordan, I was the original poster and your description sounds very familiar but this isn't the story I'm trying to recall. I checked the publication list http://www.sfsite.com/isfdb-bin/pwork.cgi?e3e9 and I don't have any of the books it's appeared in. I remember the protagonist was a mensch, a "why me?" guy, not a sociology professor, and he was definitely selected by the supercomputers to cast the single vote. I just can't recall any more than that.

On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 22:34:30 GMT, [email] (Jordan Eisenberg) wrote:

When I read your post I went into my collection of old sci-fi anthologies to see if I could dig up the Asimov story I was talking about. While back there, I decided to check in my old magazines to see if the story you mentioned was in any of them. Very few of my mags are pre 1960, but the first one I grabbed off the shelf was Dec 1956 Astounding Science Fiction, and the first short story listed is Election day 2066!

I've never read it, but I will in the next day or two. If anyone is interested, I will see if I can scan it without damaging the magazine and post it in the binaries group.

There is another story by Asimov, where statistical science (see also exit polling) gets so exact that a single person can determine elections to 100% accuracy. Multivac narrows the search down by state, then city and neighborhood. Finally, it picks the one person to determine everything. It not only asks for his answers, but it monitors every reaction to each question. It may be in the collection "The Early Asimov", but I haven't been able to find it in any of my books.

Here's another bit of trivia. I, Robot was a short story by Eando Binder, written in 1938. This story inspired Asimov to write "Robbie". When he collected his robot stories together, it was named I, Robot, against his wishes.

--Larry

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

I'd have to say the Dems are doing/saying most of them. They've done *everything* to tip it over the rim, and it ain't goin' in. They've lost the goodwill of all but hardcore liberals, the kind who vote straight party ticket, blind to any wrong their party does, etc. At this point, Bush will have a cakewalk if he finally gets the office. Gore is just plain screwed either way.

Which is in fact one of the reasons the Electoral College exists, because there is no statistically perfect person. Sounds like a cool story tho'.

On the contrary, all the Dems can really be accused of is abiding by the legal system. Every move they've made has been perfectly legal according to Florida state law, and so far, the courts' rulings have gone their way.

You must have missed Baker's speech on the vast Democrat conspiracy.

Not true. Most people who have expressed disappointment are displeased with the process, not the players. Gore's camp has not done a single thing wrong from a legal standpoint. If people want to blame him for not rolling over and dying two weeks ago, then so be it, but that doesn't make him culpable of anything more that wanting the true will of the people to be known.

Interestingly, I think we've learned at least as much about the candidates in the two weeks since election that in the 8 months that preceded it. Personally, I've learned that Gore is a *much* better statesman and politician, and that Bush is a puppet who's handlers wield the real power and make the real decisions. Did you see his rebuttal speech last week? Gore extended an olive branch, Bush refused it of course, but watching him read the teleprompter like he was ordering a double cheeseburger and fries off a fast food drive-thru menu showed me plenty. And again, just last night after the Supreme Court rejected Harris' notion and ruled the counting should continue, Gore chose again to speak to the nation. He chose 11:03 Eastern time. Why? Because he's smart, because his people are smart. Network news coverage on all channels, plus he gave the local newscasters a few minutes to explain the situation. So what does he do? First he shoots down the Republican spin that he's trying to steal electoral votes from Bush (leaked from the Bush camp earlier in the day), he again offers the olive branch, this time he says he and Bush should meet, they should get together and talk. Of course Bush will again turn him down, again playing into Gore's hands. The country wants this to end, Gore requests a meeting, Bush says no, what's the country supposed to think? Remember, we're not talking about savvy political pundits, we're talking about Mr. and Mrs. America, stupid people who need to be spoonfed information or they won't understand it.

Actually, if the Florida Supreme Court rules that dimpled ballots count as votes, Gore wins this election walking away. There are over 22,000 such ballots in the three South Florida counties, and the estimates are that Gore would receive about 75% of them, or 16,500 to Bush's 5,500. This would make up for the infamous 93 plus a few thousand left over to cover the overseas ballots and then some.

If I had my way, each state would be allowed to break down it's electoral college votes based on popular voting. If State X has 30 votes, and Candidate Y wins 60% of the popular vote while Candidate Y wins 40%, the electoral votes should be split 18-12.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

Vast right-wing conspiracy, vast left-wing conspiracy. Or, the Republican party and the Democratic party.

True will of the people being Al Gore as president you mean. Face it, if Al Gore had pulled ahead the tinies smidgin in the first recount the two positions would be totally reversed at this point. This is a good time to mention that Gore *lost* his *home* state of Tennesee, which is normally a guaranteed win. I remarked to someone the night of the election that those were the people who know him best. And that says alot about the man and his reputation.

A real statesman would have conceded gracefully, thus assuring his election to the first of two terms four years from now. In light of what the democrats have pulled, I'd be surprised if this isn't Gore's last fight in the political arena. He's run for president before, without much success. It took riding on the coattails of the country's most notorious president to even get him in the ring. It also says alot about Gore that the election was so close. Normally a very popular (ugh...but it's true about Clinton) president's VP is elected pretty easily.

And that is really fixing the vote. If the law said dimpled ballots should count, why take it to court? Because the Florida supreme court is overwhelmingly democrat, that's why. The whole point of having the machines count is that they can't be partial. They can't interpret a dimple to be a vote for a certain candidate. BTW, Harris maybe one of Dubya's staunchest supporters, but the Attorney General is a Gore *elector* for god's sake. The horrible precedent here is the politicization of the process. Bush was right when he said the Supreme court overstepped its bounds by changing how the law should be interpreted after the fact, and that just might hold some sway with the US Supreme Court. Let's not neglect what's happened in Dade County, the canvassing board just threw up its hands at the SC deadline (which was arbitrary to begin with) and said they were through. I don't blame them, this was *supposed* to last a few days, not weeks. The real issue is the fact that the hand recounts are going on in hand picked democratic counties. To be anything resembling fair, it should one county picked by the dems, one by the republicans, and one picked out of a hat. Then if the total were effected to enough a degree, hand recount the whole state.

Actually, if Candidate Y won both 60% and 40%, he'd get all 30 votes. But I'm guessing you meant to stick a Candidate Z in there somewhere. But what you say makes better sense than the all or nothing we've got right now. It sure would be the answer to the current situation. If there's one good thing to come out of this, it's the awareness that the electoral (and here I mean the whole smash, not just the current shenanigans) apparatus is horribly flawed. From the procedures down to the hardware used, nothing is standardized. In this day and age, when you can walk into a McDonald's in Key West, and a McDonald's in Seattle, and know they're the same, the state of electing in this country is abysmal. It's just tailor-made for mistakes and mischief. With all this talk of online voting, I would have expected some system of computerized balloting to already be in many places. Punch cards, jeez. We need to get our elections out of the stone ages.

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:19:30 -0500, "LooseChanj" wrote:

Don't forget the vast centrist conspiracy.

If the situation was reversed at any point, each side would be arguing the other sides position. If Al Gore's brother were governor and his campaign chairperson were sec of state etc, does anyone really believe that Bush would have let this kind of BS go without a fight?

I am very happy to see what is going on. Elections in the US are hugely corrupt. Up until now, most national elections have been such landslides, that a few percent off wasn't an issue.

Nixon, rather than risk his political career, let obvious voter fraud slide in Chicago. I think this was more to keep the light of day from the fraud on his own side than the "good of the country".

If Gore loses, I think we'll see a re-match in 2004. I really depends on how Bush's term goes. For the Democrats, a Gore victory in 2004 would be A huge vindication. "See, the fight in Florida was right, the people wanted Gore."

Gore rode Nixon's coattails??

Because they weren't going to count them.

Yeah, and that too.

In 1988, the National bureau of Standards said they could not get the machines to count the same stack of pre-punched ballots the same twice. They declared that punched cards are not an acceptable methods of voting. After 12 years, we still haven't gotten rid of them. Hopefully, we will now.

Harris not only supports Bush, she was the co-chair of his election campaign and was already in the running to be the US Ambassador to France. Hence the nickname "Paris Harris". This whole process is dirty on both sides. I think this points out one problem with two party politics. Virtually everyone with decision making power is indebted to one of the two candidates.

If Harris made a decision that swayed the election for Gore, it would be the end of her political career. Even if the decision was the exact letter of the law. It is unfair to her to place her in that position.

Right after a near riot disrupted the counting process. Go figure.

That's the way it is done in Maine and Nebraska. States decide how to divide the votes up. If all states went to that system, it would make the electorial college much less important. The larger states would become more important in the election process.

Why should a candidate campaign in your piss-ant little state (or my piss-ant little state) when they could spend there time in CA, NY etc where there are more electors up for grabs. Because of this, smaller states will resist any attempt to eliminate or weaken the electorial college. That being said, I personally support a direct popular vote or lacking that, the apportioned elector plan stated above. And I do live in a piss-ant little state (Arizona, home of Ev Mecham).

Absolutely true and very well stated!!

Electronic voting systems are in limited use. I saw one on CNN. When you vote, the name of the candidate you voted for is displayed on the screen and you can confirm or cancel. The only reason they are not in widespread use is the cost. Compared to this year, the cost won't seem so high.

In my county (Maricopa), we use optically scanned ballots. About 5% statewide don't read properly.

--Larry

"Don't blame me, I think I voted for Gore" --Florida bumper sticker

"If I had known he was dishonest, I would never have helped him stuff the ballot box" --M*A*S*H

OMG, that's not even the worst of it. I just got the scoop. The "demonstrators" were there *specifically* to disrupt the counting process, which led *directly* to the Miami-Dade ballot counting being called off.

Now the same group of Republican assholes[1] are on their way to *my county* to fuck with the counting process here in Broward. I can only hope their bus flips over on I-95.

Whether or not the candidates actually show up in my state to lie to me or if they do remotely it by way of public media shouldn't make a difference. Alaska got over it, the other low population states can too.

I say f*ck the "college" and let the popular vote rule. It only makes too much damned sense. Who was the original asshole who put that in the Constitution in the first place? Was it Jefferson? That slave screwing dope farmer? Damn him!! Damn him to Hell!!!

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

A-ha! The real threat. They mean to sit on the fence and get wooed by the two sides, thus controlling them both, and everything. Evil, evil!

I think he would have. If the Florida vote had gone narrowly to Gore, he'd have much more to lose. Gore is the VP, already in power and Dubya's the outsider. If Dubya had pulled the Gore tactics, the cries of "election stealer!" would have silenced him almost immedietly. And the courts would have bounced his ass damn quick too. The resulting public opinion of Dubya would be approximately that of several tons of mixed cow/horse/bird/rat/snake shit. And you think the "how the grinch stole the election" rhetoric was bad this way around.

I think there may have been a little of the "good of the country" in his decision, but the over-riding thought was no doubt "What's this going to do to my public image?".

I expect it'll go pretty well. All he's got to do is be a little smarter than people expect. Barring any huge Clintonish gaffes, he should be able to beat Gore by a better margin in '04. Not that he should. We should just quit pretending these guys are evaluated in an objective matter is my point.

should

Because they were of questionable legality.

And would decide in favor of anything that would benefit a democratic candidate.

The point is they can't be used to subjectively interpret results for or against any candidate. But yes, they need to go.

Which is exactly why partisanship was frowned upon by the "founding fathers". But then, our current system is so far removed from their intentions it barely resembles them. I think their biggest failing was not putting in a review/rewrite process in the constitution.

Oh, I'm sure she had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Sec of State office. No one could have predicted this course of events. She really should have said look any decision I make is gonna look biased, and called some sort of panel to come to a decision that would look fair.

You know it's funny, there have been demonstrations all over the place throughout this episode, but when they sway things to the Republicans' end, all of a sudden you see vicious charges leveled. Here's a good story about this particular aspect of In-duh-cision 2000: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/15000.html

Of course, that's why I said it. <g> Thanks, but it really does amaze me that voting equipment is stuck in the 19th century.

I think after this fiasco we'll see a huge push towards some type of balloting that will result in much more accurate tallies. This whole chad thing just shows how blunt an instrument the electoral process is. Neurosurgery with a butter knife anyone?

Might as well just use the polls.

Haven't seen it yet.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:52:35 -0800, petben wrote:

Congress can also convene a "Constitutional Convention". Fortunately, that isn't done. Once it was convened, the entire constitution is up for grabs.It could takes years to finally end. When they first wrote it, they debated every detail to finally compromise on what we have now. Add to that political parties and the partisan politics that goes with them, CNN, the internet, and Gallup polls. What a mess!

We don't need to rewrite the constitution. Straightening out the election mess could be done with an act of congress. Any change in the electorial college would require an amendment.

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

I'm not so sure. It's about time we had a Constitution 2.0 instead of 1.99999999999999999.

LOL!

"I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill..."

But now I'm stick in committee...

Damn, I meant "stuck." Now the song is ruined.

Yeah, you suck! :-)

"And if he signs me then I'l be a LAW, oh how I hope and pray that he will, but today I am still just a bill."

Either way, they should restrict their most blatant rhetoric to the newsletters, so the people who care (and those who actually believe it) can read it.

They both had contingencies. Is Bush a better person because he didn't need to use his?

Nope, it just means they're more familiar with his name. And I'd bet negative feelings about Clinton (i.e. Idiot voters who think this is the best way to voice displeasure about something Gore had no control over) caused his loss in his home state, not because they "knew him better" and somehow had access to information about him that nobody else had.

Not really. I'd say the last 8 years says more than the previous 40 or so.

A real statesman who's passionate about his ideas, and knows his plan is better for the country than his opponent's would hang on as long as possible. Considering what's at stake, I'd expect nothing less.

A lot can happen in four years. I think it's naive to assume the next nomination is automatically his. Although, what Gore will gain when Bush wins is the ability to say "Told ya." every time one of Bush's ideas flops. After four years of that, he may well walk into the White House in 2004.

But that was against Clinton, who won the nomination and the presidency. It's like a football team losing to the eventual world champion. There's no shame in that.

God help me, I'm not *really* sitting here and listening to a Bush supporter talking about coattails here, am I?

Throw "normally" out the window. There was nothing normal about this election. All the vote says is that the entire country is split down the middle. Actually, Gore still has a quarter million popular vote lead.

Because the Republican Secy of State doesn't want them included. Hell, she's got that sweet Ambassador job waiting for her if Bush wins, and a job doing AmEx "Hi, do you know me?" commercials if Gore wins.

But they can be, and are wrong. On approximately 1 out of every 500 ballots cast. That's 20,000 known and expected mistakes in Fla.

If other votes on the same ballot are also dimpled and reps from both parties are deciding together? They *absolutely* can. Read this article: http://www.latimes.com/print/editorials/20001123/t000112524.html Note specifically the comments about Seminole county and Jacksonville, and of course the part about dimpled ballots being counted in Bush's home state.

Who knew he would dangle such a delicious French carrot before her eyes? And who knew personal gain was more important to her than getting it right? Granted, she's in politics so it should have been expected, but it's still pretty ugly to witness.

"Waaaaah. We can't count them all in time so we're just quitting." Due process in action. Gotta love it.

Gore pleaded to have the whole state recounted, not just those counties. It's a shame they turned him down.

Let's not ignore the 13 counties Bush hand picked for recounts of oversees ballots. If one candidate is a scumbag for doing it, so's the other, or neither are.

They already have, but some people are fatigued and tired so screw the recount, right?

And don't even get me started on the 20,000+ double punched Palm Beach ballots that will never be counted. Estimates from both parties say that 3/4th of them would have gone to Gore, making the recounting a moot point.

Yeah yeah, thanks for picking up on that. :-) This *is* America, after all.

Absolutely. That seems to be the only thing both sides can agree on.

The Constitution says each state can devise its own procedure. I'm all for states rights, but election laws, things that affect the entire nation, should be federally mandated and overseen.

I agree wholeheartedly. Computerize the whole damned thing and step up encryption and 'hack-proofing' so it works the way it should.

I also think the voting persion should be extended. One 8-hour day isn't enough time to get everyone who wants to vote to vote. It should be more like a 72-hour window, maybe over a weekend. And *NO* projections whatsoever!

Hey, what of the Senate race in Washington? It appears as though the Dem. upset the Rep. which would split the Senate in half, 50-50. (Unless Gore wins the election and Leiberman has to relinquish his Senate seat to a Rep. replacement.) When Bush ends up winning, he's going to have a tougher time pounding his agenda into law than he expected.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

Saw Loserman say the funniest thing yesterday. "Now is the time to listen to the rule of *law*, not the will of the *mob*"....gee, isn't the mob the *people*? Shows what they really think of us. Oh, if it'll put them in power they're all for it, but when it looks as if it won't...screw it. They're all slimebags. This game is stupid, and I'm not gonna play anymore.

BTW, I agree with you about the Republican "demonstrators". I don't think they were paid tho', other than expenses.

This one's even beneath Ollie North. This is Rush Limbaugh material here.

So you don't see a difference between a peaceful protest and a Fascist rent-a-mob from out of state who's *sole* purpose is to disrupt the ballot counting process? It worked in Dade. They caused such a disruption, the canvassing board decided to call off the recount. Fortunately, Gore filed a motion to have the count continued, as there are still a lot of unheaard voices in that county.

Hmmm. Tell me if this sounds familiar.

Bush: "I trust the people." (Shit, that didn't work, let's go to the state courts.)

Bush: "It's a state issue, let the state decide." (Shit, that didn't work, let's go to Federal court.)

Well, the game goes on whether you play or not.

Gore has just picked up over 490 votes in Broward, and they still have about 500 absentee ballots (legal ones) from Jewish Democrats living in Israel...

If you look at the reverse sides of some of their anti-Gore posters, you can make out the words "Free Elian." :-)

On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:16:44 -0500, Dave wrote:

American Jews living in Israel are a little more conservative than here. However, with Lieberman on the ticket, Gore should do quite well with that constituency.

Now that's down right funny!

There is a bumper sticker in Florida that says:

"Don't blame me, I think I voted for Gore".

--Larry

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

|

Hehe, saw it on some protesters signs, and thought it was funny. By and large I've liked what I've seen of Lieberman, but that "rule of the mob" line struck me as extremely hypocritical, and worthy of at least a token mock.

In context of the quote, it was a legal (rule of law) vs. popular (rule of the mob, or will of the people) argument, and a complete and utter turnaround. I guess we do our utmost to count the votes for us (dumbasses in PB county who *might* have wanted to vote for Gore) and follow the letter of the law when dealing with people who probably didn't vote for us (overseas military).

Shit, the democrats have gone beyond trying to manufacture votes through recount after recount, and are now trying to throw out votes that might be for *us*.

OH what the hell, the gloves are off.

I wonder what would happen if *nobody*, I mean not one soul, turned out to vote.

Where were these votes in the first count? Where were they in the second count? They were midwifed by overwhelmingly democratic canvassing boards from pregnant chads, that's where.

You wanna hear a *really* good Bush quote? Most of my democrat friends don't believe it when I tell them. "There ought to be limits to freedom". Of course, it wasn't that cut and dry, I usually edit out all the pauses and "uh"s so it doesn't sound quite so strained.

I saw how that group he was referring to had acted and what they accomplished, and I appreciated his choice of words.

Gore wanted to have the entire state, mail-in ballots included, recounted. Bush didn't like that idea at all. Shame, it made a lot of sense to me.

So you didn't really watch any of the recounting, did you?

Right. Bush was bullied into it. This is sooo far off, I'm not even gonna touch it.

Well, the recounts would almost certainly have taken less time.

So the bipartisan witnesses were in on it? And the press too? I'll be damned. You just never know how deep the corruption runs, do you?

Thanks, I really needed to hear that.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

Oh, so Bush never had any right to go to court and make sure the election wasn't sued out from under him?

second

boards

Ok, I'll say it again: Those ballots were *legally* discarded. The will of the voter in each of those instances was invalidated due to their own inability to cast a clear ballot. This is not an oddity or one time occurrence. If anything comes out of this, it should be a complete redesign of how "the will of the people" is determined. At the very least, statewide standards. In ALL the states. Some people in Fla voted with the punch cards, some put marks in a box, others did other things. I've been shocked at just how primitive the actual hardware is as well. As far as I'm concerned, the system in place can't be trusted to give much better accuracy than a poll. In this case, that wasn't enough and caused problems. This must be fixed before anyone can have confidence in this process again.

freedom".

and

Hehe, want to hear the mp3?

On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:58:59 -0500, "LooseChanj" wrote:

That is only partially correct. On at least one machine it was shown that if you pushed through the correct hole for Gore, the ballot came out for Pat Buchanan. One women complained about it to the volunteers at the polling place and they refused to take the machine out of service because there were lines of people waiting. Of course, there is no way to tell which ballots came from that machine and no fair way to correct the problem.

Another story on CNN said that on a few machines, the punch was blocked and could not go all the way through. This resulted in dimpled ballots. The voters in that circumstance did nothing wrong are stupid. There intentions are clear from the ballot, but the machine would not count them.

According to the National Bureau of Standards in 1988, the punched card ballot counters could not dependably obtain the same results consistently using standardized pre-punched ballots. They further declared those machines as unsuitable for voting. Economics has kept the machines in use and the law which calls for re-counting and hand counting were put in place to overcome the problems of the machine count. Of course, that brought in a new set of problems. whether or not the new problems are worse depends on who you ask.

If the entire situation were turned around, and Al Gore's brother were governor and the sec. of state worked on his campaign etc, would you accept the machine count? I think we would have seen almost the exact same thing play out, with the sides reversed.

If anyone hasn't read the paragraph above carefully, DO IT NOW!! No matter who takes office in Dec, 15%+ of the America will not accept the result. That number is way too high. No matter how much I disliked Reagan as a president, he was no doubt the winner in the elections and I accepted him as such without question. No matter who becomes president in 2001, we will always look at him as the president with an asterisk next to his name.

There are very dependable electronic voting machines in use already and they need to become the standard. They put the name of the candidate you choose up in big shiny blue letters and ask you to confirm your choices. If your ballot is not valid it tells you before you leave the booth. When you push the "Is that your final answer?" button, your vote is counted.

--Larry

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:3a21585b$[email]...

and

Of course there should be limits to freedom. People shouldn't be free to just kill whoever they want.

Taken out of it's context any quote can be abused, so I really can't tell what Bush meant with that.

"Peter Backx" wrote in message news:9007k3$e0$[email]...

It was in response to a question about a website which is highly critical of Bush. "Do you think they ought to be able to print that kind of information?".

With rhetoric like this, it's not even worth discussing it with you. Just like a republican to use quips instead of logic.

"petben" wrote in message news:B6484BB8.2E5C%[email]...

Ay! Take that back before I call YOU a name. :-P

In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: Still hope! [was Re: So much for the $500 Al Gore bill...(NT)]" thread, LooseChanj wrote:

No, not exactly. The distinctive feature of a mob is that it is an unreasoning group of people, interested in nothing more than satisfying its own immediate and base desires. Living under mob rule would be like being governed by the people you see on "The Jerry Springer Show." Much is made of the fact that the founding fathers were wary of tyranny; lesser known is that they also feared mob rule. When they drafted the Constitution, they aimed toward ensuring that no one group would become too powerful -- and also that the nation would not slide into chaos. It is probably this sort of mob that Leiberman was railing against.

I'd stay on topic, but Fox (ahem) pre-empted "Futurama" again.

"Benjamin Robinson" wrote in message news:[email]...

This is different from the majority of people how?

Probably? Then you're not quiet sure of your argument then. "The Mob" is just another term for "the People" when a politician wants to say they're a bunch of dumbasses and what do we really need'em for without pissing them off. Negative connotation so people won't realize they resemble the remark.

Yeah, that's the real tragedy.

work"

Brockman

I think he was right. I favor benevolant dictatorships.

In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: Still hope! [was Re: So much for the $500 Al Gore bill...(NT)]" thread, LooseChanj wrote:

Cynicism aside, most people behave in a civilized and orderly fashion. They have to. If they didn't, America's whole experiment with democracy would have been over and done with before 1800.

No, I'm just not willing to try to read Leiberman's mind. My "probably" had a high degree of certainy -- as in, "Futurama will probably be pre-empted tonight" -- but only Lieberman knows for sure what he meant.

The Romans actually had something like this. During times of political crisis, such as a war, one guy would be named dicator, and his word was law for six months. At the end of his "term," he'd step down and become an ordinary citizen again. One such dictator resolved his crisis in a day -- and then promptly resigned as Supreme Dictator of Rome. Try finding a politician of similar caliber today!

I know this is a partisan site, but it doesn't change the facts. Check out the picture of this so called "mob" and the identification of who's in it.

http://www.bushwatch.com/

Yeah, this was a real "protest of the people."

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:20:20 GMT, Mike Zaite wrote:

Mostly kidding actually.

Of course, if the election is stolen, Gore can run in 2004 with Hillary as his VP. Then after 8 years of Gore-Clinton, Hillary could run for Pres with Tipper. This could bring in 8 more Clinton-Gore years. By the time Tipper runs for pres (2020) Clelsea (sp??) will be old enough to fill the ticket and ARRRRRRRRRG!

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

Are you forgetting this is the same woman who had kittens over Prince using the word "masturbation" in a song, and is *the* reason for warning labels on music? Don't even joke about it man.

And you think warning labels on potentially offensive music is a bad thing?

I know it was the cool thing to think back in the 80's, but I'd like to think a lot of us teenage headbangers did a little growing up since then.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

And just who should decide what is even "potentially" offensive? That's really where the dangers of censorship are.

You're the kind of guy who'd go all the way to Jerusalem and not wanna visit the Sexateria.

But the benefits outweigh the dangers. They have to. Sure there's a massive grey area, but there's also a tremendous black area. And an equally large white area, but let's face it. It's just not cool to like music that comes from the white area, right?

Never heard of it. But I'd love to make that trip. All that history, jeez the oldest building in my county was built around 1910.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

Not if you're wrong. The end result of taking *any* responsibility away from the individual (or their parents, in the case of children) is 1984 and/or Brave New World. A policy enforcing censorship can end up no other place. It's what's down that road.

Well, if *you* think it's not cool, is it your right to force others to behave as if it weren't? Even if they did think it was cool?

visit

Don't watch much Futurama do ya?

That's because you live in Florida, where even concrete dissolves in the humidity.

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:[email]...

Maybe, but the other way around is not much better either. Any law or rule is a way of taking away the responsibility of the individual. And I wouldn't want to be living in country without laws.

Censorship is a difficult thing. For instance: in Germany they want to forbid (or have done so, not sure) some extreme right party. Although I'm absolutely no fan of what those extreme right people want and think, I'm also a little bit worried about such a decision.

:-)

"Peter Backx" wrote

You're talking about the NPD - "Nationalistische Partei Deutschlands" - "Nationalistic Party of Germany". The problem is that it's really difficult to forbid a party in Germany, the process takes years and there's no guarantee that it's successful. In these years the trial is always in the magazines and on TV. The NPD would get a lot of unwanted publicity. Politics give me a headache...

"Peter Backx" wrote in message news:8vgv5p$of6$[email]...

wouldn't

I have to disagree with that. If a law forbids something, it merely provides legal consequences, it doesn't remove the responsibility for doing something. Censorship, OTOH, implies that a person should not be allowed to make a choice by attempting to remove the choice alltogether.

Yeah, what the fudge is wrong with german people? I mean hell...they censored the defrag program out of Win2k for crap's sake.

"LooseChanj" wrote

Who knows? :)

sake.

There is nothing censored in the Windows 2000 version on the german market. It's just the gouvernment that doesn't want to run software made by a company that is somehow related to Scientology.

"LooseChanj" wrote in message news:[email]...

doing

to

The discussion started out with those parental advisory labels they put on cd's. They also put the responsibility within the peoples hands. They still have to decide whether they buy the cd or not. But I have to agree, there's a difference between removing the choice and making that choice illegal. However in practice this is almost the same, since most people won't do any illegal things, because they will have them sent to jail (or fined or whatever)

Europeans are very concerned about the extreme right threat. Belgium (where I live) isn't much better.

I haven't heard about that one.

I'm

I'm no sociologists, but I do know that Germans in general (at least all the family and friends I have with German roots) do not enjoy being socially related to the Nazi party. It is something that they are associated with and they don't like it. I can see why, too. Perhaps the German government feels the same way, and so by trying the squelch some of the more radical right wing parties, their trying to keep history from repeating itself.

Like I said, I could be totally wrong on this, but if the US had a history of instigating the holocaust, maybe our government would put some more limits on the KKK. (I heard there was some decision in one of the southern states that they wouldn't allow the KKK to adopt a highway. Hey, if they're cleaning up trash, let them do it, right? It's not like they're applying for a grant, it's charity.)

Maybe Germany just doesn't want to take any chances, with good cause.

-Fraggler?

"LooseChanj" wrote:

The decision will be made by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (the German equivalent of the supreme court). The court will be judging if this party (NPD) actively tries to undermine the german constitution. If it can be proven that it does, the party will be forbidden. If not, it won't. If I had to take a guess, I would say that it won't be forbidden because such a thing is extremely hard to prove.

Nothing was ever censored out of Win2000. It's just that the government, the churches and a few big companies said that they won't use a software written by what in Germany is a forbidden cult without having the sources checked first. Especially if the software has access to every single file on the computer. The Scientology Company that wrote the tool denied to show the sources to German security specialists, so Microsoft, afraid to lose a lot of customers, provided a way to uninstall the defrag tool.

Ulrich

Only if taken to its extreme. It doesn't have to be.

Coolness wasn't really the point I was going for, it's the grey and black areas. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I do know that CDs that countain illegal or patently offensive material should be labeled as such and their purchase should be restricted from underaged listeners. What's the age limit? Beats me. What constitutes 'patently offensive'? I dunno. But I do know that if *I* had, say a 9-year old child, I certainly wouldn't want him listening to music that glorifies raping women or killing police officers.

The MPAA has been labelling movies for years and that program has been doing pretty well, I don't see why the same idea for music should be met with such criticism.

Only when the football game ends on time. IOW, not often.

LOL! Yeah. But it was 52 degrees when I left my house this morning. I had trouble finding my winter clothes (i.e. my windbreaker) because it had been about 11 months since I last needed it.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email]...

If it weren't for people with attitudes like mine, you can bet yer ass it would be.

Oh, real convincing...you're for something, yet can't actually set any specific standards. No wonder Senator Palpa...err, Clinton doesn't bother you.

Oh, now you're just trying to make me laugh. The MPAA is more full of shit than a septic tank.

Yeah, but that episodes been re-run a couple times I'm sure.

Yeah really, WTF is going on. 2 weeks ago I was sweating my ass off with the A/C cranked. Someone screwed up an order somewhere.

Oh please. (You can't see me rolling my eyes, but that's what I'm doing.)

Yeah, you're right. Recognizing a problem and not knowing how best to fix it is much worse than pretending that problem doesn't exist.

Looks like I unwittingly attacked one of your personal little bailywicks here. Forget I said anything.

I just watch, I don't tape or memorize each ep. If I don't remember it, then it must not have been funny enough for my brain to hold onto it.

Speaking of orders cdworld came through yesterday, I'm the proud owner of a walking Bender, and it's really a big piece of crap. I don't know if they tried specifically to emulate the tin toys of the 50's, I can only assume that's the case.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 23:34:35 -0500, "LooseChanj" wrote:

One of the first things that will be censored is the right to complain about censorship. From there, it is a very small step to the extreme.

What is your pretend child doing in a music store buying CDs without a parent? There are plenty of places on the net to find out what the general content of a CD is.

The problem with 'voluntary' labeling is that it quickly becomes mandatory. For example, when is the last time you saw a movie that wasn't 'voluntarily' labeled? I mean with your pants on. If your movie is unrated, no major theater chain will show it, which cuts your market by over 90%. You may get shown at a couple of arts theaters near colleges, but that's it. Most movies that are not rated are adult in nature.

There is also a backlash in the movie business. Since R rated movies tend to be the most popular, movie makers often add gratuitous violence, language and nudity just to get the movie up to R.

There are plenty of rappers (and other musicians) who do not promote violence or degrade women etc. The ratings system puts pressure on them to get the parental advisory sticker to promote sales. If your sales are high enough, your group is quickly dropped.

I saw a great poster up in our local library during 'Banned book week'. It had pictures of Castro, Hitler, Stalin and a few others, with the caption, "Censorship works, ask the experts".

(see above)

How about this:

People who support censorship shouldn't be allowed access to mass media!

Death to extremists!

You're just being nice.

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

Now this is healthy.

(you were being sarcastic, weren't you?)

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:56:40 +0100, "Peter Backx" wrote:

Of course. It goes along so well with the statement about denying censors access to the mass media.

--Larry

"Larry F" wrote in message news:[email]...

You forgot ridiculing of those who feel uneasy about proto-censoring efforts. Out and out censorship would be seen for what it is, you have to condition people into not complaining about it.

I'm a little bit further down this track. I think if you're close enough to your kids, you'll know before hand what kind of stuff they're entertained by. If you've done the job right, you won't need to worry about the choices your kids make. ICBW, but I don't think so.

bother

I realize now that what I was reacting to was the evasive nature proto-censoring systems must adopt, so as not to be recognized and squashed on first sight.

I like the example of the South Park guys. In fact, one of them wrote a damn good editorial about the MPAA: http://crapmag.com/old/3/matt.shtml

This is simply ridiculous.

It's a huge step actually, but hey, some people also think smoking a joint leads to full blown heroin addiction and there's no telling them otherwise.

Hmm... I'm just curious, but what state are you guys in? You see, I'm on the eastern side of the mountains in Colorado (here we call it the front range) and changes in the weather happen just so spontaneously that people accept it. Just a week ago, in the Denver Area, it was a beuatiful, mostly clear morning around six, when I got up. Around seven, it started to snow. It was light at first so I didn't think it was all too strange. It picked up fast and completely died off in two hours, leaving about three inches of snow on the gorund. The sun came out before noon, and all the snow was melted by six in the afternoon that day. No joke!

That's what our weather on the front range in Colorado's like. It's genuinely entertaining!

-Fraggler?

"Fraggler?" wrote in message news:M_dT5.1178$[email]...

with

|

<snip>

Florida. Can't speak for the other dude, but I'm east coast.

Your description reminds me of the weather in Dallas. I'd wear a big coat during the sub-zero temps on the way to school, and sweat my ass off on the way home.

I live in Florida. Broward county, in fact. Just a week ago, nobody ouside of SoFla had ever heard of Broward. Now we're (in)famous. But then I live in Ft. Lauderdale which, during the heady Spring Break years of the 70's and 80's, was pretty infamous to begin with.

Are you a Rockies fan? I hear they're pushing really hard for Alex Rodriguez.

Snow? Oh, yeah. That fluffy white stuff they show on TV. :-)

(It snowed here once. 1976. I was in 4th grade. They let us all out of class to watch the snow fall. A flake actually landed on my arm and stayed there for 4 seconds before it evaporated! It was really something.

Where I am, the summers last from around March through October. Temps are usually from the mid 80's to the mid 90's, with various tropical storms and hurricanes thrown in for good measure (and to insure the water level in Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades doesn't drop too low), when winter hits and temperatures reach down into the 50's, it's big news.

I was their first few years. I watched their tremendous first game, I was at their first home game, and when they made a big deal about the four millionth fan (I think it was in the third season, some kid bought the four millionth rockies ticket and he was all over Colorado news for a week) that kid was my little brother's best friend. Recently though, I really don't care too much about them. They lost too many good players.

Wow. I've been surrounded by snow my whole life. I was even born in Hawaii, but for the few years I lived there we spent a lot of our time on top of Muana Kea at the observatories since my papa's an astrophysicist. There's more snow up there than almost any other state. All of the tropical storms that come in from the west climb up those mountains, dump a Hurricaine's worth of snow, then flop down on the east side on top of Hilo and keep them as wet as a rainforest.

No offense, but I couldn't live there. I need snow to survive. It's in my blood (I just like it too much). Every winter I HAVE to go snowcaving. I HAVE to do some winter camping. I don't think it'd be quite the same there. Wow, 50's are the lowest...

Thanks!

-Fraggler?

Denver's a football town anyway. Baseball is a pleasant diversion, but I know you guys eat sleep and breathe Broncos.

It's not like he's a rocket scientist or anything. :-)

You had to go and come from the *only* state that's more tropical than Florida.

Oh, we can still camp in the wintertime. Difference is after the tent's up, we go swimming. :-)

Actually, it gets colder than that here. It's been in the 40's, last year I think it got down to around 38 degrees one night. All the news stations were warning everyone to bring all their pets in lest they die from exposure.

Dave wrote in message news:[email]...

So very very true. We're the town that denied more money for public schools but voted yes for a new tax to build a brand spankin' new stadium for the Broncos when they had a perfectly good one already. Yeesh.

We jokingly call him a rocket scientist, but he doesn't build rockets. He builds the satellite thermal emission spectrometers that the rockets put into space for him.

And at times I wish my family stayed there.

I suppose that'd be fun. We do that in the summer, but there's no chance in the winter.

Ha! That's funny! Boy, here it's been under 20 every night for the past few months, but we know our dogs can take it. They take it every year. Wow.

-Fraggler?

Funny, we've been voting down a new stadium with surprising regularity.

Ya know, it's been my experience that if you run into a guy who builds satellite thermal emission spectrometers at a party, stay near him, they've always got the *best* stories!

On the opposite end, I've got a neighbor who owns a Chow. There are few things crueler than owning a cold weather dog in South Florida. It's agonizing to see this shaggy thing gasping for breath on a 90 degree summer day.

Fraggler? wrote in message news:tIAU5.2311$[email]...

schools

Cool! (pun intended). Does he have anything to do with this TES-> http://emma.la.asu.edu/ (currently in orbit around Mars)

John Cody

sfjcody wrote in message news:iC6Z5.5642$[email]...

It's funny you should mention that, because yes he did. He also built VIMS (Visual Imaging and Mapping Spectrometer) which is on its way to Saturn and Titan aboard Cassini. Right now he's working on getting a proposal passed for a mission to Europa, and that should be the best mission yet. If you don't know why it's because beneath the ice on Europa there's a pure water ocean that may contain life. You probably already knew that though, since if you've heard of TES you already have more knowledge about space exploration than the general public, eh?

-Fraggler?

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:06:38 -0800, "Fraggler?" wrote:

Last I heard, liquid water was suspected, but not at all proven to be there. All the more reason for a close up look, and especially a landing.

I heard some speculation about an orbiter / lander with a micro-sub that would melt it's way through the ice to the liquid water (if it's there) below. Is any of this still possible or have they scaled it back?

I realize it might take a B1 bomber out of the mouths of our children, but I think the best known chance of finding liquid water and "life friendly" conditions is well worth the trip. I hope it gets approved.

--Larry

Larry F wrote in message news:[email]...

An orbiter will definitely be launched within the next 5-10 years or so, but a lander is still being debated. Europa is top priority for NASA's outer exploration programs. The next satellites that NASA works with (that aren't local, like ones that would stay around Earth) have something to do with Europa.

The thing about a lander is that it's obviously somewhat pointless to have a lander that doesn't go through the ice. The debate is the most efficient way to get through the ice. Melting and drilling are the top two, but even for those there are countless designs that all have to be considered. Basically, the prospect of going under Europa's ice to find the most, as you put it so well, "life friendly" conditions is so exciting to NASA and involved politicians that in the next decade or so, it WILL happen. Funding isn't the problem! They just need to figure out the best way to do it, and that's where America stands right now.

I don't know about any other countries expressing interest for a similar mission, though. Any way, we'll get to see what's beneath that ice within years. :)

-Fraggler?

Fraggler? wrote in message news:vOeZ5.472$[email]...

VIMS

and

Yeah, I've heard of it. IIRC the Outer-Planets program is under a bit of strain at the moment- the planetary science community is torn between Pluto and Europa in a world of decreasing budgets. Pluto-Kuiper Express was recently 'deferred' (a euphemism for cancelled) and the Europa orbiter has been delayed until 2007 or later.

I am part of the general public (at the moment... I've just started my Physics degree) :-)

John Cody

So, I guess you're against movie ratings as well?

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:03:10 -0500, Dave wrote:

There are a number of reasons I dislike the whole warning label thing. First off, who decides what's offensive? Are we going to have a list of works that are not allowed? Then how about an idea stated without those words? Or is the mere implication of any of those words enough?

How about detailed descriptions of violent acts? Is this offensive:

"And the rockets red glare The bombs bursting in air."

Those bombs and rockets were killing people. Do you think it's okay for kids to be hearing that? And if that's okay, why can't someone describe what he saw when someone got shot in a drive-by?

The warning labels very quickly deteriorate into imposing one cultures values onto another culture. If you take a song like "Strangers in the Night", a classic by Frank Sinatra.

"Strangers in the night Exchanging glances Wondering at first sight What were the chances We'd be sharing love Before the night was through"

He is clearly referring to meeting a woman, probably in a bar, and having sex that night based on nothing more than physical attraction. I have never seen a parental advisory on a Frank Sinatra album, but suppose you re-worded the excerpt above and used the language and imagery of a modern rapper. I think it would get labeled in an instant. Even if it was done without the use of any offensive words. So it becomes more a matter of who is speaking and how they talk, not a general condemnation of the concept being discussed.

This is in a nutshell what I foresee with "voluntary labeling":

1. A series of labels that, like TV ratings, indicate it the record contains violence, sex, racial stereotypes etc.

(Hmm, that's sounds pretty good so far. After all that's what labeling is for.)

2. Pressure is placed on major record companies to submit their artist for labeling as "needed".

(Well of course, if no one uses the system, why bother to have it.)

3. Music chains like Tower, The Wherehouse etc are then pressured to
either:
     a. Do not carry unlabeled music
     b. Keep unlabeled music in a separate room where only people over
18 can go.

(Yeah, we have to pressure the record labels somehow.)

4. Put pressure on radio stations not to play any music from companies that do not label.

(Hmmm, that's kind of like censorship but we have to protect kids right?)

5. Once the major chains and stations comply, boycott those that do not until they go bankrupt, or give in.

(Yeah I guess that's kind of censorship, but . . .)

6. At that point, if you do not "Voluntarily" label your CD, you will not be released by a major label, you will not be played on most radio stations and your CDs will not be in music stores.

(Ok, that's censorship let's go back a few steps and oops too late.)

Yes you will be able to record, and release a CD. Sell it in some small stores and get it played on a few scattered college oriented stations. However, it will be nearly impossible to have a real career as a musician. If this point is reached, the ratings board can decide what does and does not make it to the market.

If you think this whole scenario is a bit of a paranoid delusion, please consider that this is almost exactly the history of motion picture labeling. No major movie chains will show an unrated movie, and the vast majority of movie screens in the US are owned by three or perhaps four chains.

Another very disturbing development in movies was the ratings board being used for social engineering. It was proposed that a movie would automatically be raised one full letter grade (from R to X for example) if it depicted drug use. Unless, it was directly connected to severe negative consequences. The context did not otherwise matter, even if was needed for historical accuracy. "Back to the Future" and "Poltergeist" both would have been bumped up for that reason. Even if you hold a very anti-drug stance, you can still see the danger involved here. You can express your opinion about drug use if it is the right opinion. What next? Movies that show people using guns MUST show negative consequences? Any woman in a movie who has an abortion MUST show regret?

Fortunately, movie makers objected too loudly and that plan was put on hold. It way well raise it's head again. The same thing will start to happen in the music industry.

--Larry

In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: Still hope! [was Re: So much for the $500 Al Gore bill... (NT)]" thread, Larry F wrote:

You're on the right track here, although I don't the the scenario is quite as grim as you portrayed. The MPAA has been rating movies for over 30 years, but there's no shortage of daring movies with which you can offend the bluenoses. The labels have drifted over time, so as to become more permissive, and it would take an act of willful denial to argue that the average "R" rated movie of 1970 is as strong as the ones being made today.

So why don't standards work? Actually, I think they would -- if you were dealing with a population that was small and homogenous. A movie audience, if it is as large as the producers hope, doesn't fit that description. It seems obvious that people have differing senses of what's fit for public consumption, but until you try to come up with a universal standard it's hard to appreciate how difficult it is. Incompatibilities of opinion can crop up in surprising places. What would the MPAA censors of 1970 think of the standards of their 2000 counterparts? Straying from sex and violence doesn't make things easier. Does a film critical of the Catholic Church pass muster, or not? I'll bet the opinion of a priest will differ from that of a Protestant lay person, even if both are otherwise socally conservative Christians. Even a historical drama can raise problems: Does a biopic of Jesse James glorify a criminal, or tell a tale of America's past?

I can sympathize people who are concerned about sex, violence, or what-have-you in movies. Just because I approve of something doesn't mean that everyone else shares this opinion, and they have as much right to avoid an "immoral" film as I have of watching it. A warning system would be useful. My newspaper's movie review section has a column listing possible "objection points" in current movies. That's a promising step. It does have two minor problems: (a) In my paper, at least, it lags the review by a week, and (2) not every paper has such a column. Both of these problems are fixable, which is perhaps more than can be said of the problems of standardized ratings.

I don't want to get into a political discussion, but the ballot was confusing. Regardless of the ballot set up, don't we want the peoples choice to be president? Isn't that the ultimate goal of the election?

In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: Still hope! [was Re: So much for the $500 Al Gore bill... (NT)]" thread, Larry F wrote:

According to the Futur-O-Matic 2500, Gore will get his portrait on the $500 note not for being President, bur for inventing a more accurate voting machine. (Or claiming to do so, at any rate.)

"I had a lot of spare time, and Tipper suggested that I get a hobby, so I went out to the garage and started tinkering ..."

Meanwhile, "Ratboy" Dave asked:

Think so. That's certainly the rule for stamps, and probably for national monuments, as well.

Not to mention possible fraud in Florida..

Sean Rea

In article , [email] wrote: