Well, last night i was watching nightline with that freak Ted Kopple.......and well they were having a recap of the republican debates.....and here is my synopsis......a recap based on a recap and other previous aquired media info... Bush- this guy is slick, I don't trust him, I think he could prove worse for this country than Clinton as far as reputation and intergrity. He is obviously hiding a lot and would carry the "tradition" of our presidency quite well, which is no good for the progression of our country. AN overall fuck, piece of shit with some fucked up agendas.... McCain- This guy blinks his eyes ALOT, and well you know..villians always blink their eyes. Maybe it's a post vietnam prison twitch. Whatever, this guys is way outta touch, I noticed while he was talking, to someone, he kept looking back to the camera and smiling, just like he was instructed to do. I suppose his awkwardness on TV is irrelavent, but when he responded to the gays/military question, he showed his waffling potential by being as vague as could be....... Keyes- Who the hell is THIS guy? fucking bigot piece of shit........talking about equal rights for gays in the military = to gays pushing a homesexual agenda....WTF????????Whatever, this guy is just wasting his money Forbes- whatever.............enough said Bauer- Bigot piece of shit, christian fuck...enough said....... as far as the democraps go, well, I will have to get back to you. I really believe Ventura is going to throw his hat in,say around June, July.....and if he plays it right, he will win......

Don,t get me started about McCain,or his good buddy Charles Keating,or McCain,s pill stealing wife.Bradley sounds alright,but he doesn,t have a chance,shame too.

My roommate keeps accidentally calling Bill Bradley 'Tony Bennet'. There's nothing worse than him talking about how 'he really likes Tony Bennet but thinks he'll just have to vote for Gore anyway. BTW doesn't anyone else rememeber Gore's wife the lovely Tipper and the PMRC? Why is no one concerned about this screwball getting his wife elected to the highest office in the land (ie: first lady)?

In this race, the lesser of two evils is not going to be readily apparent. I hope Nader runs again.

i am tired of the "lesser or two-evils" bit. It shouldn't be that way, and in most democracies around the world, they have MANY canidates from MANY parties.

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. no one has EVER said it is. now shut up and go home.

um, it's supposed to be according to the framers intentions and resources. Though it is never specified in The Constituion, they stole ideology from Hobbes, who was huge proponent of the idea of Liberal Demorcracy the ancient Greek democratic system as well. And as much as the schmucks we elect into office like to refer as our system a democratic system, i think it fair to say we have a democratic system. of course we could argue the merits of said democratic society, and i agree we don't have *really* have one either, it's more like a limited republic, with only the facade of democracy....but if you look at the roots of our founding fathers and the system they designed, the rhetoric of our leaders, according to them we do have a limited liberal democracy.....at least on paper, an implied democracy. so................

i also tend to think the framers were more insightful than most give them credit for.....you know the ole "...if Washington,Jefferson and the others were alive today to see the terrible mess we have created....etc etc etc " they ultimately feared the general population, and to see that we are still being kept at arm's reach from our gov't would make them proud.

Oh please, spare me.

this is a democracy. There. *Someone* said it. Happy now?

um y'all know that voting doesn't really get anyone elected

democratic republic. big difference. you are so moded.

*adopts a scolding tone* Now Heather, if everyone thought that way....just think of who'd be in office! Right. I always have to say this. I must convince myself that the tree killed for my ballot served a purpose.

You just mentioned that no one has ever Said it. I said it. I'm not maintaining that it's true, but I did Say it. so nyah. My mother believes in a shadow government. so do I, but she and I have different theories about this shadow government. what does moded mean?

it's just nate trying to sound smart again. cut it out, nate.

Ok, Patrick, not to slap your face, honey, but Hobbes was explicitly NOT about liberal democracy. You're thinking of Locke and Mill, and they were Liberals fer shur, but neither of them was a democrat. Our system of checks and balances reflects a fine reading not only of the classics which detailed Athenian democracy but Roman republic. Please do not make me school you on this again because I'm actually keeping a lid on my temper right now, but it could get ugly. This is something that sends me into a towering rage. This country is not a democracy, was never intended to be a democracy, and was not framed as a democracy by the founding fathers, who were not so fucking stupid they would leave out the little democratic detail while intending democracy all along. NO. Democratic republic. Big, big difference. Anyway. Umm. Ok, and all that said, I remember Tipper Gore, and I hate her. I personally have never shaken my belief that she caused Zappa's prostate cancer, not the radium pills they shoved into his sinuses when he was little. She killed Frank Zappa. I love John McCain. I love John McCain. I love John McCain. I am considering voting republican this year unless I can waste my vote on an interesting 3rd party candidate again. The United States is not a democracy. Uh-huh. I will say it one more time. Not. A. Democracy.

I,m a Republican...I would,t vote for McCain,I,m from Arizona.

i have a strict no-vote policy but lately i've considered voting on local issues, i.e. city and county issues. and just issues, not people.

wow margret, silly indeed.....school me?

see? see? gee, i figured you were talking about cancanada. moded a word we used in 80's. MODED. you can put your open hand over your face and say FACED. ah 80's. ah jr. high. someone, quick... define electorate college. someone, quick, tell me the year in which a man was elected president though did not win by popular vote.

The electoral college is the only people who vote for the President of the United States. When you go to the polls on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, you're actually voting for electors for the candidate, not the candidate him- or herself. These people then meet in December or January and vote for the President. Only then is he legally elected. Theoretically, the electors pledged to Smith could vote for anyone else they wanted, though this rarely happens. Makes for an interesting what-if, though, especially if Smith does something horrible between the popular vote and the electoral college meeting. 1992 and 1996.

1992 and 1996? rilly? i was thinking of someone else.

>>>The 1948 presidential election campaign was a hard fight for Truman. By traveling thousands of miles, Harry Truman talked and spoke to many people. He spoke out his feelings on the issues rather than double talk his way out of giving a direct answer. The people that listened to him started the now famous phrase "Give 'em Hell, Harry". Harry Truman said he was just telling the truth. More and more people began to come out to listen to his speeches. The famous "whistle stop" campaign drew the farmers and small town people out by the thousands. The Democrats were so badly split that they didn't think Truman had a chance against Dewey. There was very little money behind Truman. Tuesday, November 2, 1948, Truman and his family voted in Independence, Missouri. Later he went to Excelsior Springs, Missouri and spent the evening at the then famous Elms Hotel waiting for election returns. He retired early and not knowing that history was about to be made in the form of a headline in a newspaper being printed about the outcome of the election -- "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN".<<< 1948 Dewey v. Truman Truman won

1888 Benjamin Harrison Popular Vote: 5,447,129 Electoral: 233 Grover Cleveland Popular Vote: 5,537,857 Electoral: 168 Benji wins.

Nixon, Clinton Kennedy and Truman have all been elected with less than 50% of the popular vote, plurality..... also Nate, check out the election of Hayes over Samuel Tilden prior to Harrison's term, same deal..... if you really care, which i doubt you do. yeah yeah yeah the electoral college is a fine flaw to cite of our system, that doesn't mean it can't be changed.....

i think it's a step in the right direction. look around you when you walk through LA. you really want a democracy? let all these nutcases pick the leader of our country? television warped zombies vote by hairstyle. good looks. good luck. new rome will meet its fate soon enough.

first margret, why would you slap my face? also, why must did you sit and lurk and wait for the right moment to strike (usually ME)? I guess it's because i tapped a subject you have confidence in or something....... here goes.... I think the framers took note from Hobbes on the state of human nature, of WHICH the framers incorporated into the design of the constitution. Although it can be debated as to *who took influence from his writing, namely the Federalists like Adams and Madison. Read the Federalist Papers to see how they viewed the nature of the people. Now granted the federalist papers seemed more to be written to sway ratification of the constitution than comment on human nature, but the influence is there. In one of his papers, Madison stated fight selfishness with selfishness, as far as establishing gov't goes. Unrelated, I would say the economic gap in our country is the greatest example of Hobbes theories in action. As to whether or not we have a democracy or not it depends on how you view the system, in tact, and how you regard the intentions of the framers. OBVIOUSLY. Do you accept the traditional forms of democracy? I think our democracy is a combination of a liberal democracy, based on the principles of Hobbes, Mill, Smith, Locke. I would say we are in the latter state of a liberal democracy. We have expanded the franchise as far as it can go, short of pre-teens. Gov't has become a formidable power in one's personal life to achieve the goals set forth by our market economy.(i.e job placement, welfare, college loans, rehab etc...). Our market economy enforces inequality and our gov't plays the role of equalizer, at least some of the time. The only thing we truly draw from Athenian democracy is the concept of equality, however the importance of that value is inmeasurable. The Athenian democracy was participatory, had class bias, anti-incumbent and had a fusion of powers, whereas we here have a separation of powers, pro-incumbent, representative, individual bias (or so we like to think). We are a democracy in theory as implied by the Constitution and Declaration: a)the legitimacy of the public right to rule b)Political equality, c) majority rule with minority rights are all bluntly stated in these two papers. Whether or not our system has all of these characteristics or not is open for debate, and I am as critical of system as anyone. I accept he fact that the framers didn't necessarily INTEND to establish a full democracy, they in fact were scared of a rampant democracy. I am not oblivious to the fact that they were rich white dudes who we out to protect their kind. But the core values they sought to protect, political liberty, popular sovereignty, are indeed the core values of a democracy with political equality thrown into he mix. We have inherently become more democratic. The framers didn't readily recognize the potential of combining political equality, liberty and popular sovereignty. But that's the whole point right? The sky is the limit, POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY!?!?!?!??!?!?!! So when we fight wars in the name of democracy, pass laws that are "democratic", participate in the political process like a democratic society (save your elctroal college crap for another discussion), politicians make their platform on protecting democracy at home (and abroad) I think it's safe to say we have a democratic society or at least we are struggling for one. The core values of the Constitutional framers are indeed the core values of a democracy.

Hobbes was nasty, brutish, and short.

before any neurotic speel checkers and grammatic correctors go a-judging, I have re-read for the 3rd time what I wrote and I have caught the obvious errors. I feel the need to say this from time to time...

patrick, you are so fucking sensitive. jeeeezus.

More fun facts for all you electoral college fans out there: Horace "Go west, young man" Greeley got 66 electoral votes in the 1872 election, but managed to die on Nov. 29, 1872 before the electoral college met. His electors scattered their votes all over, including to his running mate, Gratz Brown. Most recent electoral glitch was in 1988, when an elector from West Virginia pledged to Michael Dukakis voted instead for his VP, Lloyd Bentsen. The most screwed up election was 1876, when electors in several states were disqualified, multiple states sent in contradictory sets of results, and Samuel J. Tilden was one electoral vote short against Rutherford "Party Animal" Hayes. It went to a special committee that under duress gave it to Sam. Check it out http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101175.html. And while Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon all were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote due to third party candidates funnelling of votes, the 1888 Cleveland/Harrison race cited above by Nate is the only case where the winner had fewer popular votes than the loser. Hey, wake up there in the back row. There'll be a quiz on this.

yes yes i KNOW agatha....so what...today i am in particular mood due to circumstances unbeknownst to any of you

smashing.

Feck. Reversed the link like a fecking newbie. Feck.

I was actually only going after you because you managed to tweak about the only political nerve I really have. Ummm...believe it or not, I have had fragments of this conversation for a really long time. http://www.peakpeak.com/~mebailey/democracy.htm I was not disputing that the framers may have read Hobbes, I was disputing that Hobbes was in any way an advocate of democracy, or that advocacy of constitutional democracy in any way springs from a reading of Leviathan without a pit stop somewhere else. Like Locke. Next: self-sovereignty does not mean democracy. It just doesn't. I don't give a crap about the electoral college. The electoral college doesn't mean shit to me, in terms of explaining why this great nation of ours ain't a democracy, wasn't intended to be a democracy, etc. The House and the Senate. What do they do? They legislate. Do they legislate and then we vote? No, they legislate and then THEY vote and then the President gets a fucking veto. Not a democratic process, though these bozos are democratically elected. I am not saying there are not some democratic practices in place, I am saying democratic processes do not a democracy make, unless all the fucking processes are democratic. It is my contention that John Stuart Mill tapped into the essence of the intentionality of the Framers in "On Liberty," and that the system of checks and balances including the productive tension between republicanism and the democratic ideal is designed to CREATE better people through the creation of a class of active citizens, and the kind of system which protects people from powerful minorities as well as powerful majorities, which in fact prevents the concatenation of power in any single arrangement or class. I am all FOR that ideal. I am AGAINST democracy, though not democratic processes. I think Hobbes presents, in fact, some of the best arguments I've ever read against the devolution of power to multiple centers for reasons of peace. I also think he's wrong. And if I feel a bit of confidence about this, I'm pretty sure it's justified. You are a photographer and it wouldn't occur to me to get in your face about it. I don't think your brains or talents are limited to this artistic arena, either. This is my bag. I'm incredibly good at it it and I know a lot about it. I'm not saying other people aren't capable of having thoughts of a higher caliber, or commitments to ideals I don't share, or interpretations which differ. I AM saying that I didn't single you out for attention on this for some nefarious purpose. That's why I included the link. So you could see that it is in fact a pet peeve of mine. And if you don't cut it with the paranoid shit that's the last time I temper my rhetorical flair with a honey to let you know it's not personal.

it's easy to be defensive with snippets from others around here from time to time, and being victim of the Lucy wrath as well. I thought you were being sarcastic with the "honey".......my fault.....I am certainly not in your face, nor am i intending to. today is particularly difficult day so far and well, as Agatha pointed out, I am just sensitive...so bear with me...... The procedures of our congress exemplify represenative democracy. We elect them to do the best job in our best interests. What constitues a democracy is political sovereignty combined with political liberty AND popular sovereingty. Each of these can be debated individualy as to whether or not they exist in our current system. If we are not a democracy then why is it the cornerstone of any political speech from any given canidate running for any office??? I realize the word itself could be a infinte political buzz word so to speak but so much emphasis is placed on the ideals of a democracy, how can we say we aren't one or at least struggling for one? I also realize there needs to be an active body of citizens armed with knowledge of the best interests and of the system we work within to achieve an American democracy. Saying we don't live in a democracy or at least a struggling democracy is like saying Clinton didn't have an affair. looks like, smells like, even tastes like though not specifically implied

Sigh. James Madison: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Saying the U.S. is a democracy is a way for politicians to many things (1) avoid complicated explanations which run counter to the expectations of the majority of people who were mis-taught in junior high civics class that they live in a democracy (2) through sleight of hand make themselves seem as though a transparent conductor of the popular will...people voted for them, so they represent the people's will, so they are doing the people's will....this is why we have a bicameral parliament, pooky, congress is supposed to represent the will of the people and the senate is supposed to represent the INTERESTS of the people, which are not always one and the same, at least they aren't if you're a founding father with a terror of the tyranny of the majority....never mind that the assholes in Congress tend not to represent anything so simple as either the will or the interests of the people(3)politicians abdicate responsibility and hide power by suggesting that the U.S. is a democracy...they need not take personal responsibility for decisions made on the behalf of their constituents and they can avoid the thorny issues of the negotiation or balance of interests and desires...and they very clearly abdicate the responsibility for leadership and civic education implied in the balanced power arrangements laid out in the constitution. The U.S. does not look like a democracy. The U.S. does not taste like a democracy. The U.S. does not smell like a democracy. But the U.S. has great PR and a largely uncritical market.

"neurotic speel (read spiel) checker" that's funny the cornerstone of a political speech is that they actually say as little as possible using the most words

Ok, guys, I hunted and hunted and hunted and it seems I have strange bedfellows, because it's me and the right as far as this democracy sucks and we don't have one thing goes. This is pretty comprehensive, although not as good as I would have liked. I'll keep my eyes open for something with more Madison and Jefferson stuff. http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

it was ironic in more ways than one heather....

Eureka! http://www.jmu.edu/madison/madexpcontojeff.htm

thats a good link. But what they fail to address are the flaws of our Federalist system. I understand the fear of an ignorant majority in a democracy, but the lack of uniformity in a federalist nation can threaten personal liberties (i.e. polygamy is ok in one state but illegal in another) lack of accountability because of a complex system. There are too many decision makers. And ultimately we lack popular control..... How many of us participate in our local gov't.? Who is your local represenative? Do you know? Who is your Senator in Congress? I bet most know of their Senator in Congress before their local State Senator or represenative.

i ran for mayor. so said, respect my authoratay.

I ran for city council. My downfall was failing to graduate from the electoral college.

I know all that Patrick,didn,t you get my e-mail today?That,s just what I think of them too!!! Feck it,thats cute.I question authority!!! p.s.if anyone wants to know what I think is important to see for the day,let me know at the address below and I will add you to my bitchlist.

your such a privileged whitey "daughter of the revolution" how can we take anything you say on the state of cultural and political affairs with any grain of *white* salt.....

above

You really do want a whipping don,t cha "sugar"?

Sign me up, J. For the bitch list, that is, not the whipping. Maine and Nebraska, that home of the unicameral legislature, are the only states that don't award electoral votes in a winner-take-all manner.

but then again, why should anyone regard this privileged white male ass either.....

Is Lucy posting as patrick? Just asking. If your personal problems can't let you be polite to your fellow Sorabjiites, then take it elsewhere, or to PERSONAL EMAIL. I for one don't wan't another sorab-jihad. It would be nice if inflections could be translated literally. We definitely need a new font or something to signify that stuff, so we know when folks aren't make wacko remarks seriously. And when they are. I for one am clearly outclassed in this type of debate, but I think Margret has her shit square (I admit I didn't check out the links, as that's something I rarely do anyway). And i agree with Simon's thought on voting for issues. I will admit an admiration for Patricks optimism, which can be refreshing in this day and age. I would like to quote one of my old prof's paraphrases of Jefferson: "We don't intend to give every biped in the forest a vote." I'm outta of this one, I can see where it's headed. If anyone really wants any further opinions from me on this, you can email me, cause I think I will stay away from this thread.

btw, did a quick source code check, and it doesn't seem to be Lucy posting as Patrick.

GO GO GADGET WHIP!!!!!!!!!!

rroot 19 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_attrsync_thread rroot 20 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 24 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 23 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 22 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 21 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 25 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 34 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 33 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 32 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 31 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 30 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread rroot 29 root 138 20 0K 0K sleep 0:00 0.02 0.02 vx_inactive_thread

ah sure wish ah had clue as t'whut yo' varmints is talkin' about. All this hyar talk about liberty an' sovaheignty haf got me cornfused, cuss it all t' tarnation. All ah knows is i haf th' right th' own ma 12 gage duble barrel shit blaster an' mah Fo'd pickemup truck so as far as ah's corncerned ah's a free man

It's secret white fella han'jive code....ssshhhh!

Sem: Sorab-jihad! Hah! I love it! Nate/Dude: What the hell are you doing?

Ah,this may sound strange,but has anyone else seen the "mysterious page of disappearing question marks"?I was on the board last night,looking in the "tree view", and under "The Stalking Post---Here We Go" [still in the tree view] the last entry filled my screen with bold question marks.I clicked on it,but the "entry" didn't come up, it took me to the top of the thread,so I decided to read it,it was mostly Lucy stuff, but when I got to the bottom, the question marks weren't there.I found this odd,and even commented to "J" about it,and we surmised that "Mark" must have taken it off.[I am VERY based in science,and like things I can explain]This seemed logical under the,uh,circumstances,and I let it go at that. But DAMMIT,I just saw it again,under this thread. I came on and again called up the tree view,going back 3 hours,I read it all,[I'm a fast reader,as this is one of my favorite pastimes]found it interesting,so went back to the tree view for the last 6 hours,I had just finished reading the last 3 hours,and there were no bold question marks filling my screen,but when I called it up for 6 hours,again my screen was filled with them,they were right after Semillina's post of 6:30pm, "Is Lucy posting as patrick?" I had just finished reading that post and several after it,and there were no question marks,but they appeared again.I am not prone to hallucinations,unless self induced,for "medicinal purposes", of course, but had taken nothing last night or this evening. So,please,has anyone else seen all these damn question marks? Or has any explanation for this? I clicked on them again,but it just took me to Semillina's original post,sans the question marks.

this thread got so long so fast. It makes me wish I were at all interested in politics. I was alive in the 80's and I still don't know what Moded means. Even worse than that: I don't know what Faced means either. Do I need to buy a slang dictionary to keep up with you guys?

1-2-3-and 1. o fa! 2. o fa! 3. o fa gonnes sakes! Hey!

Ooo Ooo! I had to come back! I have a memory but it's not fully formed. It might be a story or it might be a TV show or something. I can't remember. a piece of fiction about some sort of civilization where every election, one person is chosen to pick the president (or some kind of world leader, I don't remember). What is this? Does this sound familiar to anyone?

"The Lottery"?------but it doesn't have such a happy ending.They stone the person to death at the end------so I guess it not good to be chosen----he he he

aren't these political words like "democracy" and "communism" really just relative terms? has there ever been a nation where every single piece of legislation was put to popular vote (if that's the correct definition of "democracy")? is the true definition of "democracy" so specific and silly that the word can never be used to talk about the real world? if the clerk at the post office can put up those stupid fucking kitten posters in her window, does that mean this country isn't a democracy? I mean, if this were really a democracy, wouldn't I get a say about the use of that government pushpin, divider space? are there countries that are more democratic than the united states? forgive the basic-level questions. I am hungover and tired and 99% of my mind is focused on how much I do not want to leave for work in two minutes.

I just know when I was poor,I was a Dem. now that I,m not so poor,I,m a Rep.,but when I vote I try to pick the best one regardless of what party they are in.Not that my vote counts.

thats a very typical occurance. People who get money want to maintain the status quo, where as those with little or nothing to loose often seek to buck the system in their favor.... ...I have decided not to vote this year. Spare me the *if you don't vote you can't bitch* argument. Despite what i may have been arguing above, (I was simply playing devil's advocate more than i may have let on). I frankly despise our system on the whole and I don't vote or get involved with politics simply because its a side show and a distraction from the things that really matter. Whoever is president is really more of a figure head for the media, someone to skirt the issues with. The president is not someone truly in control of the state of affairs. I don't deny the influence but hell, I think Alan Greenspan is in more control than Clinton. He farts loud and the Dow Jones plummets for a day. I would be willing to bet the economic advisors were consulted before the military advisors when we went to Yugoslavia. You think? I suspect an alterior motive for anything our gov't does on just about any level.

i am hungover. i have never had a political insight in my life. this thread reminds me of a short-short-story by saki called "the great weep". it was written during the time that women in england (a constitutional monarchy) were fighting for the right to vote. the king in the story, hermann the irascible, not only gives them the vote, but makes them legally bound to vote in every single election, no matter how paltry (new coroner, choir-master) or be fined ten pounds. all this voting so disrupts their lives that they start demontrating to have suffrage taken away. when they hit on "the great weep", organized public weeping by thousands of women, the king drafts a bill to deprive women of the vote. "there are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream," he quoted, "but i'm not sure," he added, "that it's not the best."

you'll have to be removed, then. sorry.

ulterior

your're the best Webster I don't care what Merriam says about you

come home webster. we love you even though you burned down the house with your fucking fireworks, you little shit.

that short story (or droopy's rendition of it) really pissed me off

why is that heather? please, elaborate.

It's an interesting story, but I don't like it either. I don't like the moral. Czarina - I think you might be right about the story. you don't remember who wrote it, do you?

let's start a sorabji.com bookclub. your assignment for this week is to find that short story and read it. next week, we will discuss what book to read next.

Shirley Jackson wrote "The Lottery" Unfortunately, the wonderful college professor friend with the story in his book ran away. So I can't tell you any more. She writes other deeply disturbing sotries, though.

And now a word from our sponsor....You should never talk about politics or religion among "others"...my mom

I feel so guilty. I TOLD Patrick (via private e-mail) to slam me Lucy style. He wouldn't have been snotty like that otherwise. We were trying to generate interest in the political debate with vicarious personal flamage. Anyway. Then I was out super sick and couldn't defend him.

Margaret....happy to see you have recovered. Patrick does OK on his own :)

Yep,he done himself proud,ain't that a bird?

i was surprised at the lack of flammage, sem touched on it, but damn! Plus I was curious to see if it would bring Lucy out of the woodwork......ehhhh oh well.....

She will come back once she,s ready to eat a little pie and it will be o.k.

Humble pie I meant.

Lucy and Humble Pie........LOL....that will never happen

you know, lucy's not around to defend herself. doesn't take much balls to drudge this muck up when you're preaching to the choir. pussies.

bitch

there is nothing here that Lucy would have to defend herself against, she was just mentioned

i dunno. it's just this picking on somone who's not around. bothers me.

i dunno. it's just this picking on somone who's not around. bothers me.

and we can't have that, can we?

exactly. any more questions?

because of the risk of bothering you, i'll wait until you're not around.

when are you leaving dave?

whenever he fucking wants to!!

my answer to nate about the story... sorry it will be hard to read (also that it takes a lot of space) but i'm not gonna fix it HERMANN THE IRASCIBLE---A STORY OF THE GREAT WEEP It was in the second decade of the Twentieth Century, after the Great Plague had devastated England, that Hermann the Irascible, nicknamed also the Wise, sat on the British throne. The Mortal Sickness had swept away the entire Royal Family, unto the third and fourth generations, and thus it came to pass that Hermann the Fourteenth of Saxe-Drachsen-Wachtelstein, who had stood thirtieth in the order of succession, found himself one day ruler of the British dominions within and beyond the seas. He was one of the unexpected things that happen in polities, and he happened with great thoroughness. In many ways he was the most progressive monarch who had sat on an important throne; before people knew where they were, they were somewhere else. Even his Ministers, progressive though they were by tradition, found it difficult to keep pace with his legislative suggestions. ``As a matter of fact,'' admitted the Prime Minister, ``we are hampered by these votes-for-women creatures; they disturb our meetings throughout the country, and they try to turn Downing Street into a sort of political picnic-ground.'' ``They must be dealt with'' said Hermann. ``Dealt with,'' said the Prime Minister; ``exactly, just so; but how?'' ``I will draft you a Bill,'' said the King, sitting down at his type-writing machine, ``enacting that women shall vote at all future elections. _Shall_ vote, you observe; or, to put it plainer, must. Voting will remain optional, as before, for male electors; but every woman between the ages of twenty-one and seventy will be obliged to vote, not only at elections for Parliament, county councils, district boards, parish-councils, and municipalities, but for coroners, school inspectors, churchwardens, curators of museums, sanitary authorities, police-court interpreters, swimming-bath instructors, contractors, choir-masters, market superintendents, art-school teachers, cathedral vergers, and other local functionaries whose names I will add as they occur to me. All these offices will become elective, and failure to vote at any election falling within her area of residence will involve the female elector in a penalty of <L>10. Absence, unsupported by an adequate medical certificate, will not be accepted as an excuse. Pass this Bill through the two Houses of Parliament and bring it to me for signature the day after tomorrow.'' From the very outset the Compulsory Female Franchise produced little or no elation even in circles which had been loudest in demanding the vote. The bulk of the women of the country had been indifferent or hostile to the franchise agitation, and the most fanatical Suffragettes began to wonder what they had found so attractive in the prospect of putting ballot-papers into a box. In the country districts the task of carrying out the provisions of the new Act was irksome enough; in the towns and cities it became an incubus. There seemed no end to the elections. Laundresses and seamstresses had to hurry away from their work to vote, often for a candidate whose name they hadn't heard before, and whom they selected at haphazard; female clerks and waitresses got up extra early to get their voting done before starting off to their places of business. Society women found their arrangements impeded and upset by the continual necessity for attending the polling stations, and week-end parties and summer holidays became gradually a masculine luxury. As for Cairo and the Riviera, they were possible only for genuine invalids or people of enormous wealth, for the accumulation of <L>10 fines during a prolonged absence was a contingency that even ordinarily wealthy folk could hardly afford to risk. It was not wonderful that the female disfranchisement agitation became a formidable movement. The No-Votes-for-Women League numbered its feminine adherents by the million; its colours, citron and old Dutch-madder, were flaunted everywhere, and its battle hymn, ``We Don't Want to Vote,'' became a popular refrain. As the Government showed no signs of being impressed by peaceful persuasion, more violent methods came into vogue. Meetings were disturbed, Ministers were mobbed, policemen were bitten, and ordinary prison fare rejected, and on the eve of the anniversary of Trafalgar women bound themselves in tiers up the entire length of the Nelson column so that its customary floral decoration had to be abandoned. Still the Government obstinately adhered to its conviction that women ought to have the vote. Then, as a last resort, some woman wit hit upon an expedient which it was strange that no one had thought of before. The Great Weep was organized. Relays of women, ten thousand at a time, wept continuously in the public places of the Metropolis. They wept in railway stations, in tubes and omnibuses, in the National Gallery, at the Army and Navy Stores, in St. James's Park, at ballad concerts, at Prince's and in the Burlington Arcade. The hitherto unbroken success of the brilliant farcical comedy ``Henry's Rabbit'' was imperilled by the presence of drearily weeping women in stalls and circle and gallery, and one of the brightest divorce cases that had been tried for many years was robbed of much of its sparkle by the lachrymose behaviour of a section of the audience. ``What are we to do?'' asked the Prime Minister, whose cook had wept into all the breakfast dishes and whose nursemaid had gone out, crying quietly and miserably, to take the children for a walk in the Park. ``There is a time for everything,'' said the King; ``there is a time to yield. Pass a measure through the two Houses depriving women of the right to vote, and bring it to me for the Royal assent the day after tomorrow.'' As the Minister withdrew, Hermann the Irascible, who was also nicknamed the Wise, gave a profound chuckle. ``There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream,'' he quoted, ``but I'm not sure,'' he added ``that it's not the best way.'' so i read it. to see if there was just something missing in the brief version but there does not seem to be. so. unless i'm just not getting it (something tongue-in-cheek along the line of 'if there's a food shortage just eat the kids') then i think it's obvious why i don't like this story just an asshole 'i am so clever' way of bullying people- and i'll not start into how it portrays women on so many levels if i am way off- please enlighten me

every day, i leave.

You know what's really good? maple syrup pie. yum.

i love baking pies. also, i want the nutcases to pick the leader of our country. the electoral college is an obstruction of true democracy.

I went to your website today when I was waiting for work to start, Sarah. I think the new look is really pretty. I was a little dissapointed to see that so many of the stories you've told here are also in your journal. I thought we were special. Anyway, I got over it.

not that many stories are retold at my site. actually very few of them. nearly everything i've written of worth in the last 3 years was written here first. this place is special. it is inspiration. all of it *starts here*. i transfer it to my website and edit.

i am opposed to true democracy. it impairs freedom.

There is not one candidate out there I am "excited" about. Gore - Blah. Bradley - Zzzz. Bush - AIYEEEEEEEE!!! McCain - SHELL SHOCK. Keyes - Can you say Garrett Morris boys and girls? Bauer - Scary ass fucking devil. Forbes - LOL. Donald Trump - Trump's White House Mah Hal. Pat Buchannan - Catholic Freak. I was all about Elizabeth Dole. I might even support a ticket that has her as a VP. What a freaking lackluster field. Today's leaders pale in comparison to our forefathers.

Well, a lot of those guys were right bastards as well, like Zachary Taylor. At least we don't have dictators or royalty. Although it might be interesting to have royalty. They seem to make excellent scapegoats in this day and age. One freak even is spreading information about how the Britiish Royals are all Reptiloid aliens here to eat children.

I'm impressed by McCain against my will. I worked for a Member of Congress who spent siz and a half years as a POW in Vietnam, and who obviously knew McCain and the others quite well. The guy's a genuine hero for his conduct there and afterwardsl, though that doesn't mean he should be automatically given the presidency, it does show he has the character for it. I met him several times while I was working in Congress, and more importantly, talked with his staff about what the real deal is. I don't know how you can repeat that defamatory crap about shell shock, Jim. He's sound, and deserves better, even if you disagree with his politics. But any politician who goes to my home state of Iowa and tells them that ethanol is a steaming pile of shit gets my admiration. Who the hell is Garrett Morris? I used to like Keyes until he went crazy and began stridently running for President.

If McCain becomes president I AM going to kiss my ass goodby.

I know you're from AZ, J, and have said before you hate him. What's it about?

I,ll get back here and tell you all about it,I have to go make it look like I did something,but I use to go out with Cindy,s cousin,his Dad and her Dad were brothers,Hensley Brothers Bottleing Company disribute Coor,s beer.My friends dad took the rap for Cindys dad and went to a federal prison,and there are plenty more reasons.

Keys is a biggot

plus, he has the most false, shit-eating grin I've ever seen. I don't see how anyone could trust someone with a smile like that. Who will babysit the babysitters?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

blip dip da plipt lipdip.

say THAT 5 times fast!

THAT 5 times fast. heeheeheeheeheehee!!

Markus- apologies for the "shell shock" statement. That was tacky of me. Garrett Morris was the black comedian on the 1st Saturday Night Live. Keyes, is a token black republican, who has no real ideas.

and Keyes resembles Morris.

http: //www.realchange.org/mccain.htm

That's some ugly stuff. When you look through it, the only charge of substance is the Keating Five involvement, which I consider to be a very serious blot on his record, even though he was found to be the least involved. But the rest is sleazy innuendo. He got an invite to a mobster's birthday party and wrote a letter saying he wasn't coming? Sounds like the right thing to do. The way a congressional office works, is some 22-year old staffer, probably not from the home district or state, punches the name and address into the CMS computer and tells it to send a form letter out already "signed". A major focus of the office is constituent service, and there are at least ten people (a majority of the staff) fully or partially involved in replying to constituent letters. An average House office gets between 400 and 1000 pieces of mail a deay in four separate deliveries, and I'd imagine the Senate gets more. The Member sees perhaps 25 of them. This is "Mafia ties"? And what's the point that both he and Symington sent a form letter to the same guy? That means McCain's tied to Symington's felonies in some way? US Veteran's Dispatch is a couple of discredited people with a Web site making unsubstantiated allegations. Their grudge is that McCain blasted them and their cronies for using the POW issue for their own gain. There is a small but highly vocal far-right fringe that insists that the US has knowingly abandoned living POWs still in Vietnam today. To them, the Rambo II movie where Stallone rescues these guys is a documentary. As a US Navy veteran, I as much as anyone else would do whatever it took to rescue any of my fellow sailors, soldiers, Marines, or airmen if captive. Hell, we don't even leave our dead behind. But there's no evidence at all to these allegations. The wild-eyed people making them seem to have a lot of overlap with those who insist that the Air Force has been covering up the dead alien bodies at "Area 51" for all these decades. As I mentioned before, I worked for a Congressman who was a Vietnamese POW for 6 1/2 years. These guys all know each other intimately. He had only good things to say about McCain as a person, even though they were in different parties, and agreed with him on the whackos who were waving the bloody shirt of living POWs, such as the US Veteran's Dispatch. As for the quotes, the first one was stupid to make publicly, but kinda funny in a sick way, the second is completely innocuous (this is what constitutes scandal for these guys?), and the third one is demonstrably true. Despite what it seems, I'm not a McCain supporter. Besides the Keating mess, I find his main policy issue, campaign reform, to be unconstitutional, undesirable, and just plain ineffectual. But after being in professional politics for many years, I'm sick of the sleaze game, the dirty politics, the lust for power. Anyone who runs for or holds political office is fair game for fair criticism, but I gotta speak up about personal attacks. That's what prompted my comment to you, Jim, hope you didn't take it personally. Sorry about the length and incoherency of this ramble. Hope nobody took it seriously enough to read all the way through.

I did,but it,s o.k.

Umm. Y'know, I respect conscious objection to the military involvement of the US in most conflicts and I respect and wholeheartedly agree that the US needs to stop playing police to the world (or half-assed attempting to). But I was raised to respect the sacrifice of people who died or suffered (however wrongly, however misguidedly) on behalf of the freedoms I cherish, that I avowedly DO NOT take for granted. That in itself would be enough for me to cut McCain incredible amounts of slack. That he takes the time to point out the fattest slabs of pork in various bills being voted on really pleases me. All of these speeches read into the congressional record which are scathing denunciations. He also met with the Log Cabin Republicans, which really pleases me. Met with them, and listened to them; GW Bush did not. I am not inclined to vote republican. But I (and I mean this quite sincerely despite my hokey language), I like the cut of McCain's jib. I am looking for reputable sources both pro and con. Sorry, J., that site was...Anyway, anyone? Thank you all, and have a nice day.

My friends dad took the rap for Cindy,s dad,spent a few years in a federal prison,when he got out,Cindy,s dad hooked him up.They were involved with the murder of Don Bolles,a reporter who was on to them.I might not be able to sway anyone,but for the record,I think about as much of McCain as I do Clinton,they both stink to me.

I have a hard time with anyone who's never worn a uniform sending our kids into battles.

Moi aussi.

we should make previous military service a requirement for preisdential office. we need to further discourage normal, bright, thoughtful people from throwing their hats in the ring. not that all enlisted folks are idiots. just all the ones I've known personally. (except my dad, of course, but he wasn't given a choice, either.)

are you serious, simon?

thats just silly simon, man is not destined to be a war machine, having a soldier for president doesn't make peace any less or more secure. It's all a chess game, i say put the smartest guy in, who cares if he has killed a man in combat......

But Jimmy Carter won't run again. Now that would be awesome! Most respected ex-President re-elected. I'd vote for him.

i'm with simon. you want someone who has no idea what it is like to be in battle to be the one who is choosing whether or not your son/daughter gets to sacrifice his/her life for the ol' US of A?

i've always thought that was a silly sentiment. just because someone has never picked up a gun and had to face off with an armed enemy doesn't mean that person would be frivolous in making a decision that would put another in a life-threatening situation. it doesn't take much empathy to understand that sending people off to war is serious business. and on the flipside of the equation, i don't want some programmed yahoo who believes that dying for your country is some kind of fucking honor making that decision either.

No,I agree too,Jimmy Carter is a good man,he wasn,t that good at being President.I didn,t see Amy in the service.

draft dodging clinton sure has made a lot of frivolous war.

but does his draft dodging 30+ years ago have anything to do with his policy making now? It is ironic, he dodged the draft in another frivolous war that some other zealot started....

Score Nate.

i see dodging the vietnam draft as a sign of intelligence.

So do I,but I,m still with Nate and Simon.

I was just respecting Veterans, y'all. I don't think having served in a combat situation makes anyone better or worse prepared for being the Commander in Chief. Dig this: the jobs aren't the same.

swine said it, 1968, you would have found this smart ass in Mexico City sipping tequilla....

i see raining terror on numerous sovereign nations as quite the opposite. regardless, i fucking hate cold coffee.

or in Toronto chugging Labatt's Blue

It doesn't matter if the Commander-in-chief has had military service or not, because the ones making all the decisions that affect troops are ALL military, dig? The President may be able to order troops in somewhere, but after that, it's all military decision making that deploys them. And then what happens if some miracle occurs and America does not participate in any wars for say, 20 years? Does that disqualify all members of that generation from being able to serve as President because they didn't get a chance to go shoot other people with the approval of the state? It's all a crock.

a friend and I were having similar discussion, he tended to believe that, that when we go to "war", such as Iraq or Kosovo, the leaders of the financial institutions get together with the military leaders, THEN go to the president to get the order......i don't know if i buy that, but do you think we would go to "war" (as in Kosovo Irag, Nicarauga, Panama ect) if our country wasn't in such good shape. I am not talking about a self defense situation that escalates to war, but a "war" to protect democracy for some second or third world country that would kill for a few MREs.

when was the last time we went to war to protect democracy?

does 'war' mean we grab a lot of guns and stuff and go tromping around in other countries showing them how tough we are? cause that's what it looks like

protect, instill, encourage, pave way whatever. And I am just quoting the talking heads, i don't believe that is the real reason, but the public seems to accept it.

yeah heather, thats what i mean. I wouldn't call our excursions into Panama or Kosovo a war, at least not in the traditional sense. Besides official war was never declared, in fact zealous presidents have been dodging the congressional declaration for years know. Executive order my ass.....

the official term for that stuff is "Power Projection" and it's amajor part of what the Army at least is about. It's the modern military equivalent of flexing muscles, and it's supposed to be a deterrent.

I would agree that someone who's had experience in the matter of death should be President. They don't need to have been soldiers--army doctors, for example, know all about young men dying. I don't think that someone who has never felt it should be able to make the choice to send people to war. Whether or not the war is just is another matter altogether. (Just my .02--I think no war is just.)

i think Carter has been one of the more smart presidents of the 20th century. However, I think he was too much of softie, or rather diplomat. he got a bad wrap and he would get my vote, if i were to vote and he were to run. I have spoken with people who have taken his classes at Emory and GA State. Although they have an aid or two doing lectures 75% of the time, when he does come in and lecture, it is very rewarding.

I just think that saying we shouldn't have a C-I-C who hasen't been a soldier is like saying we shouldn't have a President who wasn't a doctor, because he wouldn't be qualified to make health care decisions, or we shouldn't have president who doesn't have a Harvard MBA, because he wouldn't be qualified to make economic decisions. It's faulty logic thatjust presses emotional hot buttons.

I'm not saying a man who's never served isn't qualified to be commander-in-chief, just that I have a hard time accepting when they want to make up the rules of engagement as they go along, at the expense of our children. If we take a man of principle, surround him with competent, principled advisors, and he knows his limitations and who his experts are, and he relies on those experts while following his guiding principles, we should get the best outcome we could possibly hope for. Unfortunately, that scenario is pretty much a reality only in star trek reruns.

I have to go with Nate and Simon on this. I've said it before somewhere else. The disconnect between the civilian world and the military in this country is growing, and that's a significantly bad thing. There's an us and them mentality developing. It didn't used to be that way, even after Nixon ended the draft; if not you, there was always someone you knew who had served. I don't support a peacetime draft for many reasons. But it did have the virtue that everyone (who was young, healthy, and male, anyway) participated in the common duty of defending the nation, and then went back to a civilian life. Besides the philosophy of duty, etc., it created a common culture and a cohesiveness in the nation. A farm boy from Iowa would be shipped off somewhere along with some guy from Queens along with some kid from Alabama along with the Harvard grad and the second generation immigrant. They would all go through a difficult molding process and learn to cooperate in a single purpose that's bigger than themselves and their insular little worlds they came from. As far as I can tell, I seem to be the only one on these boards who has served in the military, much less spent time in combat. And that in itself is remarkable. Not only is the President a nonveteran with an anti-military history, but for the first time going back perhaps to the Civil War, the majority of Congress is people who have no concept of military service and what it entails. I was working in the House of Representatives when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The "debate" was frightening at times, on both sides of the issue. I've seen how easy it is for politicians to dismissively contemplate sending people to die. As Nate noted, Clinton has committed the US military to action more than any other president since WW II. Runners-up would include Reagan and Johnson, no former warriors they. Bush on the other hand, a genuine naval hero, unlike his son or the current VP, agonizes to this day over his troop deployments. He knows the human cost of war intimately. The civilian world sometimes paints the military as a bloodthirsty culture banging the drums for war and mayhem; the opposite is true. They know who's going to pay the price, and it's not those jingoists sitting at home baying for blood. Military service, much less combat or killing another human being (!) should obviously not be a requirement for the Presidency. But it isn't true that politicians don't use their armies as cannon fodder for reasons other than national self-defense. It's one of the oldest stories in mankind's book; what do you think the Iliad is about?. Especially now that it's developed into a class thing in this country. And Clinton sure as hell values lives in other countries even more cheaply. As for the assertion that the President picks the war, and after that it's all run by the military, that's just plain ludicrous. Civilian control of the military extends down to the tactical level in any engagement since Vietnam.

if it makes you feel any better, markus, i don't feel any particular "disconnect" from the military. my father was a soldier - retired now. he was going to be career army, but vietnam kept me from being an army brat. i don't know what the hell happened to him there, he never talks about it, but my mother tells me that after he got home he would wake her up in the middle of the night making air-raid siren noises. he became a banker but stayed in the reserves. after high school i almost joined the army with a couple of friends - more out of desperation than duty. i was rendered unfit for service in an accident, though, so that was that. i saw a lot of one of them - pat was his name - when he had leave. after several years in the army i met up with him in a bar. he'd just been somewhere in southeast asia and for a while in the middle east. he talked a little about seeing dead bodies lying in the streets, but what he really wanted to talk about was the communist manifesto. apparently he had picked it up in a used bookstore and read it. he was impressed by it. he also had a foster child - one of those plans where you pick a child from somewhere in the world and send so much money a month. this is the guy who provided me with my first cigarette, beer, first felonious act, and first night in jail. he's a male nurse now. the other one was named jeff. he was a complete psychopath and voted most likely to do hard time. he's a cop now.

yeah, i guess. i just hate political rhetoric. all of it. i guess i also don't care that i don't have military service as common ground between myself and a bunch of other dudes all across the nation. in fact, i'm damn glad i don't. i was just born here. i guess if i could choose a place on this planet to be born, it would be here. or maybe sweden or norway. but i didn't choose anything, it just happenned. i think too many people forget that they just happened.

What's gonna happen 20 - 30 years from now when people are running for office? Will they be dogged because they didn't fight in the Gulf War or in Granada, or because they objected to those conflicts? I will be the 1st to admit I know very little about the military. I don't have the slightest problem with draft dodging. In fact this whole posting probably doesn't make sense.

Markus, this country is based on an us vs them mentality. First the British, then the natives and so on..... I view military on the same terms as religion. I am fascinated by it, and disgusted as well. I agree with Simon, the Star Trek model is ideal, and I go there in my dreams.........(you should see the uniforms...) I understand and respect the need for a military. I also respect those who choose to give their life to our gov't. I have no interest in being gov't property, nor is it wrong for someone to avoid becoming gov't property. I do believe our military is underpaid. As far as militaries go, i believe it has also become soft under Clinton. I believe our desire to "make the world safe for democracy" has exhausted our resources, by the number of deployments. I think our military vcould be so much better if we had less deployments, took more of a defensive position in the world. I also believe the military on the whole can be a great tool for our society. Where else could an otherwise high school flunkie learn to drive an $500k tank and blow shit up and get paid for it, not to mention the other education that can come with that. Unfortuantely, our military tends to attact some real intersting breeds of people. My wife can tell you stories, growing up in Fayetteville, NC aka Fort Bragg, she got hit on by soldiers by the age of 11, the hate crimes from that town are staggering for such a small town. Drive down the main drag, look left and right and what do you see? Liquor, Guns, Strip joints, Liquor, Guns, Strip Joints, Liquor Guns, Strip joints...now ordinarily this wouldn't bother me, but drunk Marines coming out of a titty bar with guns in the trucks SCARES ME! anyway.... I am not 100% on the connection between lack of military experience and troop deployment as commander in chief. How many presidents have we had all together who didn't serve in the military and how do they rank as far as deployment goes? It is an interesting note of the last few presidents, but this is also a very unique time in the world. Our interaction with other nations is bound to create enemies as well as put us in obligating situations.

Please read "Hell, Healing, and Resistance" by Daniel Hallock for another perspective on the military, its uses and usefulness, and its prices. It's worth your time.

You're not the only one on either count, Markus. People who serve are no better or worse than those who don't, and there are as many graphic examples of scumbags on both sides of the fence as there are examples of greatness. Most people can give you excellent reasons why they choose to follow the path they do. It all comes back to that "P" word (principle) again. I'd just once like to know from the bottom of my heart that when the next clusterfuck comes along, our president, whoever he may be, makes his decisions based on what he believes to be best for the nation, regardless of what the detractors might say, and with no thoughts of personal or political motive. God that was a long sentence. As for your last statement, Patrick, the commander-in-chief, regardless of prior military experience, must enter into an engagement with a clear picture of what he expects the outcome to be. He must share this vision with his military advisors and allow them to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. He must trust that they are the experts in their respective fields, and that they will work to achieve his vision expeditiously. That's all anyone can ask from a good leader, no matter who he leads or what his experience is.

i think that makes perfect sense Simon