November 2004 posts


October 2004  

More November 2004

Liam of... (spoilers 6:1) -- KdS, 12:32:18 11/01/04 Mon

A damn good opener for the sixth season of Angel, with an immediately obvious comfort with the higher budget.

The highlights are the vision scenes, with Angel and Illyria both forced to confront the downsides of their attitudes to leadership, and Spike's "the black guy always dies" speech at the Wa!Jani encampment. The new writing team certainly have a very clear grasp of the characters, and it's amusing that a duo of writers entirely uninterested in male pulchritude should keep to the tradition of totally gratuitous Spike nudity.

On the downside, the demonic nomad clan here are a little cliched, and I hope that the Angel tradition of quirkily individual demon characters and cultures can be revived. Spike's "Damn coot" line is unBritish enough to jolt this reader entirely out of his suspension of disbelief, and one wonders if the writers orginally planned a different c**t noun and lost courage at the last minute ;-)

Also, this reviewer's old hostility to the idea of Spike on AtS is revived by the decision to give Masters Denisof's old "with..." position. One would have thought it more appropriate to the senior surviving AtS regular cast member.

Replies:

[> Not to nitpick your nitpick, but.... -- cjl, 12:46:53 11/01/04 Mon

Of Acker, Richards and Marsters, Marsters is the senior ME actor (regular statas as of Buffy S4, ep3). Hence, he gets the "with" tag.

As for Spike's "coot" line--I thought it was perfectly appropriate. Spike thinks of Angel as this stubborn old geezer, the "old man," and he has enough of a grasp/liking of American colloquialisms (probably from all that TV watching in his crypt) to say something like that.

[> [> On the other hand... -- Masq, 13:18:22 11/01/04 Mon

I wouldn't mind a Brit beta reader to check over our Spike stuff. I know I don't have a good grasp of Spike's brand of Britishisms.

[> [> Something like that, yes -- dub ;o), 10:27:21 11/02/04 Tue

I think the issue is that "coot" doesn't flow trippingly off the Brit tongue. It's not something that someone with Spike's accent would choose to say...not that it doesn't describe his attitude toward Angel.

"Geezer" would probably be the alternative.

dub ;o)

[> Re: Liam of... (spoilers 6:1) -- Masq, 13:24:23 11/01/04 Mon

Also, this reviewer's old hostility to the idea of Spike on AtS is revived by the decision to give Masters Denisof's old "with..." position. One would have thought it more appropriate to the senior surviving AtS regular cast member.

This was not an honorarium for Mr. Marsters. I put the actor credits in the order they originally came to the show, DB being first, JAR second, AA third and JM last. This was meant to show he was low man on the totem pole, demoted from being second in the credits in season 5.


Do you have an alternative to "coot" (that is British and not, er vulgar? I actually seem to remember Spike saying that at some point, but if I'm mistaken, I'd like to change it something more appropriate. (heehee, the upside there not being multiple copies of the script!)

[> [> From what seems to be your original intention... -- KdS, 14:42:46 11/01/04 Mon

The appropriate phrase would be "Old git."

[> [> [> Re: From what seems to be your original intention... -- Masq, 14:52:09 11/01/04 Mon

It wasn't my intention for Spike to refer to Angel's age. It was my intention for him simply to insult him because he rudely ran off to go have all the fun leaving Spike behind.

Got an insult for that??

[> [> [> [> Slang (18th century) -- Rufus, 20:13:42 11/01/04 Mon

www.campchase.com



Coot: an idiot; a simpleton; a ninny.

1856: He's an amazin' ignorant old coot, tew. Widow Bedott Papers, No.9
1857: It is a poor coot, let me tell you, that will make such excuses. H.C. Kimball, Salt Lake City, Journal of Discourses, September 20, V, p.251


Considering the circumstances I thought that the use of the word "coot" was appropriate given Spike's propensity to adapting to where he lives. Living in America even if for only decades I could see the term having some allure considering its relation to the term "cooties". I remember the use of the word "coot", if age was an issue (and in some ways it is as Angel is waaaaaaaaaay older than Spike) he would have said "old coot", still meaning to call the guy and idiot.

[> [> [> [> Re: From what seems to be your original intention... -- Celebaelin, 04:33:44 11/02/04 Tue

The only 'coot' I was aware of was as in "Bald as a coot". This is a reference to a small waterfowl with a white head. It seemed a little out of place to me bearing in mind the more usual 'hair sticks up' type insults but I could live with it.

Running off leaving Spike to tend the wounded Gunn might call for something a bit more vociferous but it is interesting to see Spike become the carer! Or is he just doing this so he can suck Gunns' blood out of the shirt when he gets it back?

If you want to skip the coiffure speculation you might try 'Glory boy' or some such (although 'W**ker' sounds more likely under the circumstances).

[> [> [> Oh, of course -- dub ;o), 10:28:35 11/02/04 Tue

Excuse my suggestion above..."old git" would be perfect!

;o)

[> [> As cjl agrees above... -- KdS, 15:22:03 11/02/04 Tue

The "with..." credit is generally regarding as second-best after top billing, as most memorable to the viewer. I remember the specualtion as to the implications of AH getting the "with..." on BtVS after ASH quit as a regular.

[> [> [> except... -- Masq, 15:43:10 11/02/04 Tue

it says "and" not "with"

[> [> [> [> Re: except... -- LittleBit, 19:33:53 11/02/04 Tue

Which is also a 'plain' and...not "and James Marsters as Spike"

[> [> [> [> [> Exactly -- Masq, 20:09:30 11/02/04 Tue

It's a simple

"W, X, Y, and Z"

Which is just a list, and doesn't make 'Z' special.
The master of Chaos (Angel Odyssey 6.1) -- Tchaikovsky, 04:34:29 11/01/04 Mon

Kudos.

6.1- 'The First Law'

-We start in the middle of the desert and flashback. As a result, in the teaser we're devoid of all locations and features, (the skyscraper familiarity of LA) to navigate by. We're as lost as someone who's just watched their show come to a massive cliffhanger, and doesn't know how to continue.

-I enjoyed the little observation of Gunn lying in Spike's shadow. In this episode, the two are playing opposing sides of each other's issues. Spike is trying to puzzle through how such a tectonic twist, a whole axis-spinning new world seeming conclusion, can come from a life he's been playing one week at a time, never looking at the big picture. He continues to cope by looking out for Gunn, (Charley!) first of all, and then trying to orientate himself within the scheme of the big, vacuous desert. Meanwhile, here comes Gunn, who, post-'Underneath' became the most holistically thinking of the Gang- the person always worried about human lives and how their actions would impact upon their uncomfortable diplomacy with Wolfram and Hart. For a moment somewhere, Gunn believes the words of 'La Resistance' in the South Park movie: 'Though you die, La Resistance lives on'. He's surrendered himself to being merely an instrument in the struggle against the Senior Partners, trying not to implicate himself as a person with selfish motivations. Trust Spike to snap him out of it with the timely film cliche.

Meanwhile, in another part of the desert:

-I believed you had the mettle of a true King. A lot of the Illyria/Angel plot-line, throughout the end of last season and continuing into the beginning of this one is about how to be a King, when you are a person. Angel has none of the bluster of a James I, shackling himself to the Divine Right of Kings, the idea that his power is invested in him by God. Not any more does he see himself as a Heaven-invested Champion. In the final struggle, he realises that the important thing is not merely to keep power, but to fight for power to invest the hierarchy with some kind of order in which humanity can be safeguarded. Angel, in other words, once to put down some ground-rules. Some 'First Laws', by which, if all else fails, and you find yourself stranded in a waste land, you can count on others not to let you, to let Gunn, die. Angel responds to Illyria's taunt by claiming 'You don't take power just so you can have power'. Illyria, meanwhile, dismissively suggests that she still is Kingly, still has the right to lord it over the maggothumans. It is when we see them knee-deep in the surreality of humanity that they can put their kingships to the test.

-In the meanwhile, we're confronted by the existentialist and the nihilist. Illyria still hasn't got to grips with what Wesley postulated so strongly at the end of 'Shells': that there is 'hope' that can overcome the tides of grief that life causes. Angel, meanwhile, has got the story, and is living on to help friends, regardless of a lack of a bigger plan. Oddly, neither will turn out to be exactly right. Illyria, after all, believes Gunn will die, dismissing considerateness as an underlying tenet of humanity. Angel thinks that the Dragon, the mere object by which the survivors can return to LA, should be their complete mission. He hasn't realise that they're on a quest to re-examine their true idenitites; a place where specifics interact with fantasies and dreams.

-Feigenbaum is the master of Chaos, someone who distracts from the purely linear nature of a narrative and draws us into fractal dreams. He is the one who causes the Shaman's sandstorm, causes those grains of sand to slip idly over each other, each one a tiny particle interacting randonly with the vistas around them. And Feigenbaum, invested in the Shaman, begins the parallel tea-parties. The parties are non-direct metaphors for aspects within our two Kings, trying to get them to claim sovereignty before demonstrating how leadership can be impossible to handle. This demonstration however, is not merely teaching them of their own arrogance. The methods by which they are deposed correspond to their own foibles; their own worries about how they might continue to be inadequate. We know this situation doesn't happen in Real time and space; there is nothing genuine inside the tea-pot, merely the illusion of life continuing in its comforting normality.

Some chequers in the table cloth:

=Illyria is deliciously set up as Marie Antoinette here, ending in her being led to the guillotine. This has wonderful resonance. Illyria is the only one of a vast race who is not still incarcerated. She is led to the scaffold by hordes of bizarre individuals hell-bent on upstaging the monarchy. Illyria very much has the condescension of the apocryphal 'Let them eat cake' comment. but just at the moment when we are about to see the French Revolution succeed in establishing a Republic, we are banished from the dream. We leave before a new Illyria, (a Napoleonic Illyria?) rises from the ashes of her meditation.

=We have those moments of delicious Goddardian continuty. Into its ninth year, the universe still bubbles with backstory. Here the King of Cups is presented as a Tarot card, (the cards themselves give the sense of foreboding also present in Eliot's first section of 'The Waste Land), and we get the 'Fool for Love' references, tied in majestically with the Unbirthday myth from 'Alice'.

=Meanwhile, also elegantly threaded, Gunn as the dormouse gets to fall asleep, paralleling the somnolence that almost overcomes him in the real world elsewhere.

=What to say about the Tea-party as a whole, except that it is a conception of genius? In a sense, we are back in Fred's world, the world of the mathematician imposing contrary logic upon a crazy set-up. You can't imagine Fred not reading Carroll, and of course Fred was set up as Alice way back in her introduction in the penultimate episode, the mid-Pylean 2.21, 'Through the Looking Glass'. If we're asking questions about Fred's canonisation post-death, the script asks us to follow our nose. The re-incarnation of Fred as she was in Pylea indicates Angel's memory of her as not really having significantly surpassed, 'Hero, saved me from the monsters'.

=We don't get the revelations easily. There's none of the hokey, clumsily simple symbolism of Spike or Gunn as an element of Angel. It's much more complicated than that. The tea party has moments of connection, which are then pulled back. It goes the whole hog into Dreamland, as did 'Restless' and as didn't 'Soul Purpose'.

Back at the camp, Spike and Gunn talk about Wesley as the ultimate utilitarian, 'getting the job done no matter what the cost'. Gunn summarises him well, and yet he also realises that the Wesley he knew was once his best friend: a person not just a theme. This allows Gunn to consider the 'small, personal' issues, like his own survival, in the right light.

And so we get Gunn chuntering through Angel's epiphany, in 'Epiphany' and what happened when it came time to reinvest. And we come tripping back over that idea of multiple epiphanies, the need to learn the same thing over and over, and to start applying it into your life with equal fervour. Illyria and Angel's quests have started them looking at each other and themselves, but through their introspection made them wonder whether they treat their closest friends merely as cariacatures, as Mad Hatters and dormice. It's time for them to (re-)engage (for has Illyria ever really understood her love for Wesley and Gunn?) with the idea of saving lives one at a time, because it is the best thing to do.

And so, an elaborate picture of water flowing uphill until it arrives where it started from, the episode comes full circle, and we're once again left with our gang 'going to work', fighting not because they're going to lose, in kamikaze desperation', but despite the fact they might lose, because they're fighting for what is good and right. And what's more, this time, with a second and later episodes coming, they stand a better chance of success.

Well, I've adopted Kenny's line here and reviewed as a normal episode. Let me just say this: though I was aware of the extensive groundwork you'd laid and the detail you'd gone into about character's motivations and so forth, I still laboured under the illusion that the finished result would tickle me without ever engaging me. I underestimated you as ever. This is excellent. This is more than enough...

TCH

Replies:

[> Now, with this and S6, the world is back as it should be. -- Ann, 05:02:24 11/01/04 Mon


[> Many thanks, TCH.... -- cjl (giving a shout-out to his co-author), 06:56:03 11/01/04 Mon

I don't want to get into everything you discussed above, because I'd be reduced to my usual state in this type of situation: a babbling idiot prone to giving out spoilers.

But I just want to cover one point:

"[I]n the teaser we're devoid of all locations and features, (the skyscraper familiarity of LA) to navigate by. We're as lost as someone who's just watched their show come to a massive cliffhanger, and doesn't know how to continue."

If I had any doubts that Masq could come through with the goods as a writer in our project, her work on 6.1 eliminated them. The hilariously "context-free" teaser, the description of the alley battle (easily one of the best of all the fanfic versions I've seen), and--in a truly remarkable display of "for the good of the project" over personal preference--her rendition of Spike, an absolutely dead-on version of a character she simply does not like.

A great job, Masq. You are the Joss of us. Let's keep this rolling.

[> [> That is so untrue! -- Masq, 07:16:24 11/01/04 Mon

I do not dislike Spike. I just have no feelings about him one way or another.

And I do believe the disorienting teaser that strips the user of their cliff-hanger context was your idea. I just snipped out the explanatory sentence clause you put at the very beginning of it that was there, I suppose, to orient the reader.

OTOH, I do write rockin' fight scenes. Yeah me!

Yeah all of us!

[> [> [> Sorry about that, Masq. -- cjl, 08:19:03 11/01/04 Mon

I just wanted to congratulate you for your strong work on a character to whom you have no real "connection." That's the sign of a good writer.

And I may have suggested the teaser, but you gave it a sort of deadpan slapstick that set the tone for the rest of the story.

[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry about that, Masq. -- Masq, 11:01:30 11/01/04 Mon

Oh, yeah well, I *wrote* the teaser, didn't I? I honestly thought it wouldn't survive the first draft, I thought it was a bit silly.

But then you know my threshold for what counts as "too silly" is really, really low. ; )

[> [> [> Re: That is so untrue! -- Pony, 08:29:50 11/01/04 Mon

And you managed to have Spike shirtless for most of the episode!

Great work guys, it really moved and the visuals were excellent. I thought Illyria's voice was spot on, and she can't be easy to write. The tea party really was an inspired out of left field twist and worked beautifully. I'm not entirely sold on the demon tribe, they're feeling a little Dances With Wolves-style wise natives to me, but I'm looking forward to the next installment. Congrats!

[> [> [> [> Re: That is so untrue! -- Dlgood, 08:42:54 11/01/04 Mon

And you managed to have Spike shirtless for most of the episode!

Well, due to budgetary constraints, we've only got the one outfit for him, and it was at the cleaners this week.

[> [> [> [> [> Actually... (with a vague S 6 spoiler anyone could surmise on their own) -- Masq, 11:06:44 11/01/04 Mon

Spike is shirtless under his leather duster. Which I suppose he had to take off at some point because it's rather warm in Fasach.

I'll have to remind the writers to have Spike grab his duster from whereever he laid it before the gang heads back to Earth.

[> [> [> [> [> [> nah... -- anom, 22:32:00 11/02/04 Tue

"Spike is shirtless under his leather duster. Which I suppose he had to take off at some point because it's rather warm in Fasach."

He had to have a shirt on, 'cause he took it off to use it to stanch the blood from Gunn's wound.

"I'll have to remind the writers to have Spike grab his duster from whereever he laid it before the gang heads back to Earth."

Not necessary. He still has 10 more just like it, courtesy of W&H Rome! If he can get to wherever he was keeping them, in all the chaos. But he still has the one he was wearing in Fasach--he used it to tie his shirt in place as a bandage for Gunn. So all his clothing is present & accounted for, if not in the best condition.

But it occurs to me: maybe that whole 10-extra-jacket line was a setup to have repeated destruction of the replacement garments in season 6! (hint, hint)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Those dusters are gone anom -- Masq, 19:45:36 11/03/04 Wed

Although why would be a spoiler.

[> [> [> [> Only practicing sadists.... -- cjl, 08:47:44 11/01/04 Mon

Would tease their female fanbase by keeping Spike shirtless in an episode that's never going to be seen on any screen.

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, c'mon, we're not sadists. We're just continuity-challenged. -- Masq, 11:09:33 11/01/04 Mon

I helped write, edit, re-write, beta, read and reread this episode for three months, and in fact I WROTE the scene where Spike uses his shirt for a bandage (and flags down the demons shirtless), and it *still* didn't occur to me that he was walking around shirtless for the rest of the episode.


But then, you know, my brain doesn't naturally go there, you know?

[> [> [> [> [> i dunno... -- anom, 10:02:30 11/05/04 Fri

...never underestimate the power of Spike fans' imaginations. Besides, anyone who wants to actually see shirtless Spike has plenty of episodes to play back. What I want to see, & what it really bugs me that I never will see, is JM in the Mad Hatter outfit! Maybe you are sadists after all.

I don't suppose any of our Photoshop artistes out there could...?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Done -- Ann, 10:55:45 11/05/04 Fri



Bobble head Spike as Madhatter.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That is absolutely perfect. -- Arethusa, 11:42:09 11/05/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That is absolutely perfect. -- Ann, 15:44:06 11/05/04 Fri

Thanks. I have had a pretty good icon day. I tried to do an icon using stills from the Disney movie, but there are no good drawings of Spike. So I figured this would work ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hee. Ann, you are an icon making genius! -- Jane, 21:16:20 11/05/04 Fri

Can I snitch this to use on my LJ? It's priceless!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Jane. Sure, with credit ;-) -- Ann, 03:01:34 11/06/04 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> awww...thanks, ann! -- anom, 16:18:01 11/07/04 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're very welcome. -- Ann, 20:49:05 11/07/04 Sun

Willow and Gabrielle.. very similar ppl.. -- ghady, 08:10:21 11/01/04 Mon

i was rewatching Xena S1, and i was STRUCK by the similarities of both characters (i dont have time to go into detail cuz i have a chem exam, but i'll try)

Both start out as sidekicks.. little "nobodies," living in the shadow of the hero (buffy/xena)

then, gabrielle becomes an amazon and learns how to use a wepaon: a fighting staff. willow, also, learns magic. theyre now becoming LESS nobodies.

Many turning pts.. with gab, the main one is killing that woman at the temple of dahak (ego trauma).. with willlow, it's tara (ergo not trauma)..

then it dawns upon gabrielle that shes killing too much.. or being too violent or sthg.. and it dawns upon willow that shes using too much magic.. gabrielle goes to india to find peace, and willow tries her best to improve.. everything is fine and dandy, until callisto breaks xena's spine with the chakram, the romans capture xena, and gabrielle, in one moment of fury, SLAUGHTERS them all (to no avail cuz they both end up being crucified).. willow, also, was doing so well, until a stray bullet kills her girlfried.. so willow goes on her own frenzy, flays a guy, almost ends the world.. bla bla..

after these two events take place, gabrielle is resurrected and willow returns to sunnydale.. by the end of xena, gabrielle is xena's equal.. she's learned everything xena knows.. SHE is now the "woman with the chakram".. willow, too, becomes very powerful, but in a good way (chosen/activation of slayers/"you're a goddess")

see my point?

(sorry this was rushed)

Replies:

[> Interesting thoughts. -- dmw, 15:51:32 11/01/04 Mon

BtVS Cast Alert: The Wig Lady/Penis Monster from DMP was on "Desperate Housewives" last night!! -- Rob, 08:43:35 11/01/04 Mon


Replies:

[> AtS Cast Alert: Drogyn on Enterprise for 3 eps. -- Cheryl, 07:13:42 11/02/04 Tue

I hadn't watched Enterprise for a couple of years but tuned in cuz Brent Spiner was on - and there was the guy who played Drogyn. He's on the 3 episode arc with Spiner.
The day after Spoilers 6 (squee)-1 -- Ann, 08:53:27 11/01/04 Mon

Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Ok, now that that is out of my system, I can squee with just a few e s.

Deep breath.

Type. Lots of bits here.

We begin as we end. Looking back on a battle scene. Moon's view. Artemis would be proud.

Okay, this episode opens with a nod to Icarus, flying to the sun, but luckily not into the depths of the ocean. The twin thing is here too, Illyria and Angel, twin kings, children of the gods, or gods themselves. Still to be determined. Bound to each other. They mirror one another in their emptiness like their newest kingdom. They, hopefully, will find themselves the same way. Journeys are long. But we have 22 episodes. Squee.

Cutting to the heart of a dragon is the way to the center, or here its foot, its sole, and its soul. The slash that will build kingdoms and take you away. To find yourself while lost. But when the center is filled with sand, water will need to be provided for dehydration. Tea party. Wings might be clipped, but the bird can still fly. And I am glad Angel s friends got to go with him. It might not be his black convertible (it had wings too) but it will still convert his heart and soul. Drogyn, oops, I mean the dragon, the battlebrand continues its life elsewhere, but I hope we see it again. I like dragons. Even evil ones. The stone that is the dragons can be the rehydrated walnut that lives within Angel. Fred found that in another dream sequence!

More Flowers for Algernon references too. In the novel, Algernon, the white mouse, taken care of by Charlie, only here Gunn, (Charlie, the dormouse), is cared for by Spike (Madhatter). Nothing is black and white.

Seeing Fred/Alice bring to me a memory mixture of The Honeymooners and The Flintstones and the marital bliss that both of them enjoyed on their respective shows. The rock that holds the center whether it be moon rock, flint, or just a stone. I hope that Angel and Illyria will not be in for such annoying relationships. Icarus is on his way to the moon. Hee. Fred always had shades of the girl in wonderland, so this just continues that journey. The tarot card reading, the twin moons, just one more image that ties us to the sun, the moon, the twin themes. The moons twin is the sun, Artemis and Apollo, as retold in Fray.

I am now ok with Anya s dying, as she would have hated a bunny coming to such prominence and power. Thank you for that closure.

I love the contrast of Illyria, king old one, and the Shaman, poking his staff in the sand, staking the earth, trying to discover the truth about these wanderers. And Angel stuck between them, literally and figuratively.

Chanterelle discussed, a remembrance of goodness past (Anne), bringing life to the desert, life goes on in many forms, fungus being the bridge between many types of species. And one of the first to bring life after cataclysm.

Great job guys. I am glad we are having another season, especially one so well written with lots of philosophical chewy goodness.

Replies:

[> Great job S6.1 rocked! -- skpe, 05:56:51 11/02/04 Tue

The mysterious jungle beast in Lost -- Ames, 07:30:23 11/02/04 Tue

I was watching a bit of the first ep of Lost last night when they re-ran it on CTV, and I caught a bit of dialog I missed the first time around. When the mysterious invisible jungle beast first howled and shook the trees next to the beach, one of the women passengers said "It sounds familiar", and then she said that she was from the Bronx. I'm wondering why that bit of dialog was there. If anything, the howling sounded to me like something from Jurassic Park. Anyone from the Bronx?

Replies:

[> I still think it's the Son of Yog Sothoth myself... -- Majin Gojira, 10:37:13 11/02/04 Tue

But I just want more Lovecraftian Television...
Wonderfalls on Vision -- Ames, 07:37:46 11/02/04 Tue

Vision TV showed the first previously un-aired ep of Wonderfalls last night, Crime Dog. It was great! Why on earth was this show cancelled?

Slightly idiotic portrayal of Canada, as usual (*sigh* - Canadian here). As if you could be extradited for going the wrong way down a one-way street, wrecking a flower bed, and punching someone out! And, like the USA, Canada doesn't care what you smuggle out of the country, only what you smuggle into it.

Replies:

[> Re: Wonderfalls on Vision -- Rob, 08:35:59 11/02/04 Tue

At least the show was filmed in and acted by Canadians, so the 'slightly idiotic' portayal wasn't done by outsiders, so to speak.

Rob
Off Topic: To My Fellow Americans, Remember to Vote -- Dlgood, 08:46:52 11/02/04 Tue

Or P. Diddy will kill you.

Replies:

[> Listen to Dlgood. :) -- Briar Rose, 15:27:52 11/02/04 Tue

Xena/Alias (off-topic) -- Sebastian, 10:16:05 11/02/04 Tue

With all the Xena/Alias talk on here....I was wondering if someone could point me out to decent X or A episode summary sites.

Thanks!

-Sebastian-

Replies:

[> www.whoosh.org is a VERY good Xena site -- ghady, 12:47:32 11/02/04 Tue

Lost: Walkabout analysis, plus MY WEBSITE! -- Evan, 19:26:46 11/02/04 Tue

Alright, I'm FINALLY done my 4th Lost analysis, and my website, though still unfinished, is up and running. Check it out here: http://www.teegerschiller.com/lost-philosophy ...

I think my basic method is gonna be to post up my analylses at this board, at the lost-tv board, and at the fuselage threaded board, then collect any interesting quotes from others to insert into my analysis (particularly dissenting ones, I hope), then I'll post it all up at the website. You may notice that I added quotes from Cleanthes and Rufus in my Tabula Rasa analysis found here: http://www.teegerschiller.com/lost/episodepages/101 ... Thanks guys!

Alrighty, on with the post.

Walkabout

I think I'll go on a walkabout
And find out what it's all about
Just me and my own two feet
In the heat I've got myself to meet

A detective of perspective I
Need to try to get a bigger eye
I could learn the art of life
On a walk I could find a wife
On a walkabout

You could do it in the city
You could do it in a zone
You could do it in a dessert
You could do the unknown
On a walkabout

High dessert skies are what I spy
So fly - you've got to wonder why
The stingrays must be fat this year
Moving slow in my lowest gear
The didgeridoo original man with a dream
I believe the Aborigine
On a walkabout

You could do it with a shuffle
You could do it with a stroll
You could do it with a stride
You could do it all alone
On a walkabout

I've been sitting far too long
At home - I've got to get along
A walk could cure most all my blues
bare feet or in my two shoes
Bloodwood flowers in my gaze
Walkabout in a sunny daze
On a walkabout

I think I'll go on a walkabout
Find out what it's all about
Just me and my own two feet
In the heat I've got myself to meet
Use your legs to rock it wide
Take a ride to the other side

-Red Hot Chili Peppers ( Walkabout )



i) Forced Cremation

On night five, the survivors get a news flash: wild animals like dead bodies. When they hear some rustling in the fuselage, it turns out to be a couple of boars. So, what should they do with these bodies that could potentially attract much worse things to their beach? Jack suggests burning them. A reasonable, practical suggestion. But They re people , protests Kate. Is burning them okay? It s true that many choose for this to be done when they re dead, but without making that choice, the generally accepted default is burial. Sayid is the voice of dissent, telling Jack that they deserve better than having their remains burnt.

Jack: Better than what? Being eaten by wild animals? Because that s what s gonna happen. Any bodies we bury are not gonna stay buried for very long It s not about what they deserve. They re gone and we re not .
Sayid: That may be true. But for us to decide how these people are gonna be laid to rest is not right. No regard for their wishes, their religions
Jack: We don t have time to sort out everybody s God.

This week, Jack is on the opposite side of the argument as he was in his fight with Sawyer in Tabula Rasa . Sayid is now the Kantian, ignoring situational factors and arguing that they must do what s right no matter where in the world they happen to be. And Jack, like Sawyer last week, is the one abandoning the rules of civilization and treating the moral situation as a practical one (particularly when we realize that he plans on doing it at night so that it ll be visible for any airplanes flying over. Not only burning them, but doing it as a means to get rescued? Ouch.) So, what s changed? Well, this time we re talking about corpses, last week we were talking about a living man. Jack seems to view a dead body as the end of life and no more gone. Sayid seems to believe that corpses are people too and they inherently deserve to be treated as such, even though they re dead. For Jack, as a doctor, death represents failure; morality is no longer relevant once a person is lost. For Sayid, death seems to represent only a passage into a different state, without affecting what s right or wrong.

Of course, there s more to it for Jack than just protection against wildlife and the tiny chance of being rescued. He knows how badly people need to move on with their lives, start fresh, and burning the remains of the fuselage represents closure. He really wants to do this seemingly immoral act for the sake of the people who ARE still alive. When he said We don t have time to sort out everybody s God , Charlie responded that last time he checked, they were positively made of time . But Jack wasn t talking about time in the literal sense. Rather, I think he was speaking emotionally. As long as the bodies are there and everyone is aware of them, no one will be able to let go.

Sayid s Kantian position on the situation, unfortunately, just can t hold up in this particular instance. The environment doesn t allow it to. It may be right to bury the bodies, but it s not right to leave them vulnerable to being eaten by wild animals. And it seems, in this instance, you can t have one without the other. There s simply no other option beyond, well, fire. What could be more frustrating than knowing what s right but being unable to do anything about it? Sayid reacts accordingly, and just sulkily washes his hands of the whole thing and puts his mind elsewhere: on rescue.

Kate helps Sayid this episode in attempting to triangulate the French lady s signal. Interesting that the man who lied to the others about the message because hope is a dangerous thing to lose has managed to cling to his own hope despite what he knows. When Kate offers to help him, he points out that she seems as anxious to get off the island as he is. So that quote from Cleanthes I used in my last episode analysis doesn t quite hold up for him. He does need to go home, possibly more than anybody. For the sake of his morals, and possibly for the sake of that girl in the picture he was looking at, he really really really wants to get off the island. Because of this, I don t know if he s safe.

ii) The Issue of Kate

We haven t seen the last of Sayid vs. Jack, though. For a few episodes, a rivalry has been building between the two men, who are both natural leaders (though Jack seems to be rejecting that role in this episode). And to top things off, now Kate seems to be making pretty good friends with Sayid. Plus, Jack is acting kinda jerky towards her. He snarkily accuses her of having a problem staying in one place for very long , but where exactly did that come from? In their five-day history together, what should make Jack feel such randomly ill feelings towards Kate? Is he still mad at her for lying? What does that have to do with her inability to settle down? Meh. He probably just acts weird towards her because he has a huge crush on her. Stupid boys.

He does say one interesting thing, though. He asks her why she s going into the Heart of Darkness . Yes!! I like that analogy because, in that book, the thing to be feared comes from people themselves. It s the darkness within humanity that s monstrous. This certainly supports my method of thinking about the show.

iii) Locke

The understanding, like the eye, while it makes us see and perceive all other things, takes no notice of itself; and it requires art and pains to set it at a distance and make it its own object. But whatever be the difficulties that lie in the way of this inquiry; whatever it be that keeps us so much in the dark to ourselves; sure I am that all the light we can let in upon our minds, all the acquaintance we can make with our own understandings, will not only be very pleasant, but bring us great advantage, in directing our thoughts in the search of other things.
-John Locke

Alright, I m not sure how I ve written so much without mentioning Locke yet, as this episode is all about him. Up until now, all we know is that he enjoys oranges and backgammon, had a miracle happen to him, and is quite resourceful (dog whistle) and kind. Well... now we know more. First of all, we find out that his first name is John, eliminating all possibility that his sharing a name with a famous philosopher is a coincidence. So how are they connected?

Well, John Locke s ideas apply to our Locke in several ways. He is most famous for his tabula rasa philosophy, described here. But even what he is most famous for is often misunderstood. Yes, Locke believed that we weren t born with any innate ideas; he thought the concept was ludicrous. But he also didn t believe that all of our ideas came from our sense impressions. Unlike Hume, he believed in human beings self-awareness as coming from the mind s ability to reflect and think, and he viewed this ability as a source of knowledge in and of itself. So our ideas and understanding do come from our own ability to think and reason, but this ability is contingent on our environment. It is "when he first has any sensation" that "a man begins to have any ideas , but these sensations are not necessarily the source of our ideas.

The metaphor on the show is that, before this plane crash, Locke was sort of like a blank slate (symbolized by the fact that he had no sensation in his legs). But his legs weren t the source of his ideas. He still had his mind. So he adopted a sort of escapism where he imagined himself as a military Colonal, had delusional relationships with phone-sex operators and devoted his free time to playing board games. He convinced himself that, despite the fact that he couldn t use his legs, he was capable of anything he set his mind to, including an Australian spiritual journey: a walkabout. He compares himself to Norman Croucher, a double amputee who climbed Mount Everest. Why? Because it was his destiny. Well... Locke has decided that the walkabout is his destiny and no one can tell him that he won t succeed.

But he won t succeed, at least not until he gets his sensation back. In fact, he isn t even allowed to participate once the organizers find out about his condition. But Locke does get his sensation back, giving him the means to become the man he always wanted to be. He can finally accomplish what he believes is his destiny. He s found the perfect place to take his spiritual journey, and he s having the time of his life! To begin, he uses the knives he brought for his walkabout to lead a group into the jungle and hunt those boars (though it takes a few tries and possibly some help from the island itself). He becomes the guy who really does seem capable of anything. No one will ever tell him what he can t do again. Unfortunately, I don t think Locke is too stable. It seems like he s willing to do anything simply to prove that he s capable of it. Danger number one is that he ll end up getting himself killed doing something unnecessarily risky. Danger number two is that he ll see his abilities threatened somehow, possibly by another castaway, and react...unpredictably. Plus, there s some evidence that brings his mental health into question (such as when he accidentally calls Kate Helen . Chances are, it was just a moment of confusion and stress, but it could also suggest the beginnings of senility). At this point, he s a wild card.

iv) The island is a character in and of itself! (or How To Take Tired Old Clich s and Make Them Bloody Interesting).

So, what s been accomplished here? Well, basically, it seems like the island has given Locke a reason to stay, removed any desire he might have had to return to his mundane and, frankly, embarrassing old life. Is this the island s goal? To keep people there by giving them a reason to stay? It certainly fits with last week s episode, where Kate regained her freedom (well insofar as one is free on an island completely removed from society, anyway). Maybe at first, with the whole monster thing, the island may have been misled, or rusty, not realizing that sometimes people don t actually have control over their fear or anger and don t actually want to feel that way. Basically, it mixed up desire with expectation (admit it, propositional attitudes can be pretty ill-defined). And, with the whole polar bear thing well, maybe the island has a little more trouble with a child s thoughts, often enhanced by a disproportionate amount of enthusiasm ( Hey that polar bear is so cool!! ). Anyhow, I guess we ll see, as the mythology of the island continues to expand.

v) So what are the other characters up to, then?

I always like this section; I imagine myself taking a deep breath and then blurting out in a single run-on sing-song type sentence (as in It s the End Of the World As We Know It by R.E.M. or that You ll never stop the Simpsons song) containing all the events outside of the A-Plot that occurred in the episode. Anyway, here goes.

Jack helps Rose deal, Locke and the orange peel, Boone yells at his sister Shannon, Sawyer is a loose cannon, Sayid finds his pictures, Jack gives Kate a lecture, Jack won t participate, Sawyer is nice to Kate. (Deep breath). Shannon bitches, Charlie fishes, Hurley helps and Vincent yelps, Claire holds a ceremony, everyone feels sad and lonely, Charlie does some heroin and Jack has an odd vision, Sawyer Hurley have a fight, hot blonde extra with blue stripes, Shannon proves she can catch fishes, brother Boone calls her twisted , all she does is manipulate, Charlie s hand said fate now late . Overdue videos, delusions had by Rose, convinced her husband s still living, she s defense mechanism-ing. Jack downplays his doctoring, where was Rose s wedding ring? Michael has Sun babysit, Jin feels mighty jealous, Randy wants those TPS s, Office Space was the bestest, Kate falls out of a tree, what did Locke see? Sun makes a toothbrush, so her breath won t suck, Michael gets a boar bite, fire burning through the night.

Alright, that s enough. I promise I ll never do that again.

P.S. This episode rocks.
(Off topic) Bush wins again... -- Duell, 09:48:24 11/03/04 Wed

Just in case anyone had not heard yet, CNN just confirmed that Kerry has conceded. So, for better or worse, we are stuck with Bush for another four years. Thoughts? Comments? Rants of joy/rage?

Replies:

[> Re: (Off topic) Bush wins again... -- Alistair, 10:09:38 11/03/04 Wed

Being a crazy conspiracy theorist I must say that the powerful control everything, except our will to choose. Its true. In our lives, with what we have, we can choose a lot, doesnt mean there aren't concequences in a system, but we can choose.

I think that there is some organization which exists internationally and secrets controls this world. Call them the immortals on the holy mountain, call them the circle of the black thorn, call them whatever secret society you wish, but they run things behind the scenes. Terrorists and governments work for them, are run by them in some way. Bush and Kerry are run by them. Its a machine... of great power and whatever their final goals are.... Perhaps then, none of this matters. They have no intention of winning, because for them there is no fight. There is no war. They are war and pestilence and destruction and greed and power and money. This is them, and they run everything... except our will to choose.

[> [> Fantastic Results! -- Vegeta, 11:11:32 11/03/04 Wed

I couldn't be more pleased with President George W. Bush's victory. I will say this, the fact that this election had a clear victor was even better. Even if Senator Kerry had been victorious (which I wouldn't have cared for) I would also have hoped for a clear victory. This country doesn't need another 2000 election debacle.

In closing I think these cries of "we're doomed" are ridiculous. Time to live in reality folks. All is not lost for the Democrats, but they definetly have to find a way to connect with everyday Americans. Because I believe they failed doing just that this election season. Saying your optimistic doesn't mean you are. Saying you have a plan doesn't mean you do. I think most people (myself included) had no idea what a President-elect Kerry would actually do for this country. Because of that I am glad that George W. Bush was reelected.

Vegeta

[> [> [> Re: Fantastic Results! -- Duell, 11:49:35 11/03/04 Wed

Of course, a clear majority doesn't actually mean that much when it is 51% to 48%. Yes it's enough to warrant a clear win, but it still leaves the country almost evenly divided.

[> [> [> Re: Fantastic Results! -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:44:19 11/03/04 Wed

I voted for Kerry, not because I'm a Democrat or because I saw him doing good things as a president, but because, as the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I think that George W. Bush's over-reliance on miltary force and heavy manipulation of public perception (even now, something like a third of the U.S. population is still under the impression that Iraq had ties to Al Quaida and/or other terrorist organizations) was definitely worth voting against. Voting for a canidate who was also fairly unappealing was the best option left open for that, as Kerry at least has the benefit of the doubt and would still have to worry about re-election (now that Dubya legally can't be elected again, he doesn't have to worry nearly as much about public opinion).

P.S. It's interesting to note that, at the exit polls, 41% said that they strongly disapproved of George W. Bush, and something like 12% somewhat disapproved. It's a sad state of affairs when over half the population thinks the winning canidate is doing a really bad job.

[> [> [> [> The exit polls were wrong -- Vegeta, 12:50:17 11/03/04 Wed

The exit polling was poorly collected at best. I am sure most media outlets will not use the same exit polling orginizations in 2006 or 2008. In fact there is talk among media folks regarding investigating the exit pollers for fraudulent reporting.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The exit polls were wrong -- or were they? Fraud? -- frisby, 14:49:12 11/03/04 Wed

In the 2000 Florida exit pools Gore was winning but the votes that were cast were not counted. Here again, in both Florida and Ohio, in both early and late polls, Kerry was three points up but the results were six points off (with Kerry three points down). So, were the exit polls wrong, or were, again, the votes that were cast were not the same as the votes that were counted? Is it unAmerican to suspect the election in FL and OH was rigged? Did all those Ohio-ians who had lost their jobs 'really' vote for Bush anyway cause of moral concerns? I know Plato's _Republic_ too well to not suspect fraud. Or again, maybe I'm just a sore loser, a paranoid, etc ------

[> [> [> [> [> [> BlackBoxVoting claims fraud -- dmw, 18:08:45 11/05/04 Fri

Black Box Voting, a watchdog group for electronic voting security issues, claims that they've detected fraud:

Black Box Voting has taken the position that fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines. We base this on hard evidence, documents obtained in public records requests, inside information, and other data indicative of manipulation of electronic voting systems. What we do not know is the specific scope of the fraud. We are working now to compile the proof, based not on soft evidence -- red flags, exit polls -- but core documents obtained by Black Box Voting in the most massive Freedom of Information action in history.

We need: Lawyers to enforce public records laws. Some counties have already notified us that they plan to stonewall by delaying delivery of the records. We need citizen volunteers for a number of specific actions. We need computer security professionals willing to GO PUBLIC with formal opinions on the evidence we provide, whether or not it involves DMCA complications. We need funds to pay for copies of the evidence.

TUESDAY Nov 2 2004: BREAKING NEWS: New information indicates that hackers may have targeted the central computers that are counting our votes.

Media calls: 206-335-7747 (congestion) - 206-778-0524
E-mail

Freedom of Information requests are not free. We need to raise $50,000 as quickly as possible to pay for records and the fees some states charge for them. We launched one major FOIA action last night, and have two more on the way, pell-mell. Now is the time. If you can't donate funds, please donate time. E-mail to join the Cleanup Crew.


Their past information about insecurity of electronic voting machines and prior problems with e-voting has been highly reliable, so I think their discoveries warrant further investigation.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I KNEW IT! Rove cheated again! -- frisby, 20:11:08 11/05/04 Fri

I knew it. Dick Morris said the exit polls are never 'that' wrong (Kerry 3 points down after polls show three points up) -- and he based his position on decades of experience with exit polls.

I knew Bush Inc would not relenquish power without using most all possible means to prevent it. Look at the record of Bush's brain. And of course, I suppose its all too late for anything to be done, even if the provisional ballots 'did' make the difference.

I really really think (even though everyone opposes the idea in the name of a sacred privacy) that there should be a website listing everyone eligible to vote in this country, and then also listing whether they voted or not, and if so, exactly who they voted for. Make it ALL public -- otherwise, as Plato taught in the _Republic_ the rulers will always use the magical nupital number to control things from behind the scenes. Of course, if everything was public then Tony Soprano and his type would threaten people to vote for so and so and if they didn't, punish them. But I think THAT possibility is not as bad as everyone believing a lie, like 59 million people really 'did' behave stupidly last tuesday.

Does anyone reading this really really believe that election was totally honest?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The sad part about Massachusetts -- manwitch, 06:19:24 11/07/04 Sun

Don't get me wrong, mr. frisby. I am a firm believer in the dishonesty and frankly criminal nature of our current president.

But I suspect this time he has legitimately been asked to lead the herd.

What makes me suspect this is the results in New England, particularly Massachusetts, a state in which I resided for 16 years, several times electing John Kerry as my US Senator. The State of Massachusetts has always been a joy for me. I remember coming out of North Station in Boston back in October of 2000 and a Nader supporter was passing out pamphlets. I had no intention of voting for Mr. Nader, but I liked what the pamphlet said. It said, vote your heart, vote your conscience to show the country the support that Nader really has if people do so. It said that this could be done because, "There is no conceivable way that George W. Bush could EVER win the state of Massachusetts," so stealing votes away from Gore would make no difference in that state. And I chuckled because it was true.

Massachusetts went for Gore, like it went for Clinton, like it went for Dukakis, and MONDALE, and Carter and McGOVERN, and HUMPHREY. For the last half century, Massachusetts stands as the ONLY state in the union that has voted properly every time. (he he, that's sort of a joke, although not really).

In 2000 New England showed its complete rejection of Bush, except of course for the Newfies of New England, the charming residents of New Hampshire. But Mass went 2 to 1 for Gore. Connecticut, Maine and Vermont went 2 to 1 for Gore. Rhode Island went 3 to 1 for Gore. These are massive numbers, and its part of the reason why Gore won the popular vote. Where Gore won, he won huge.

This year, while New Hampshire did finally choose the correct color, and while all the New England states did go for Kerry, they went by substantially smaller margins. Even Massachusetts, Kerry's home state, for whom he has been a great senator for 20 years, went 60-40 for Kerry. The other New England states showed the same margins, except New Hampshire, of course. And this is with record turnout in the most intellectually sensible region of the nation.

If Bush can have that kind of massive inroad into New England voting, after four years of showing us clearly his destructive anti-intellectual, anti-liberal policies, things that matter in New England, then I'm quite sure the Mad Jacksonian Rabble of the middle states really wants four more years of the same.

of course, I don't think they'll get four more years of the same. He has a republican congress and no concern for reelection. I think we're about to see a radicalization of American policy. The millenarians will love it, but its going to cast quite a chill over New England.

A chill that might last a while. Its not hard to imagine circumstances that could cause the postponing of the 2008 elections for security reasons. And as others on this board have already said, until the Democrats tap into Apocalyptic Millenarianism, something they are unlikely to ever do, they won't win the evangelical vote. As long as democrats think this is a nation ruled by the laws of men, and that religion is separate from the state, and that the rights of the minority should be protected by laws from the interests of the majority, the Dems will never tap into mainstream America.

So, totally honest election? Is any election totally honest? But given the 40% showing for Bush in Massachusetts, the state where Gay Marriage is legal and support for a state constitutional amendment to ban it is dwindling rapidly, and the state where even the state republicans have to support the Right to Choose and Affirmative Action, I do think that most of the voters want this. There it is. We live in interesting times.

manwitch is a liberal intellectual raised by liberal intellectuals in the liberal intellectual stronghold of Chicago who lived for many years in Boston, Massachusetts, the liberal intellectual capital of the world, and now resides in a surpirsingly conservative blue-collar section of Connecticut. He voted for Jesse Jackson in the 84 primary and supports in principle the credo stated by Eleanor Holmes Norton, "I will never vote for an all white all male anything again." Needless to say, he is totally out of touch with mainstream america, and his candidate rarely wins.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'd prefer to keep my privacy -- Sheri, 10:04:04 11/11/04 Thu

I'm not too keen on the idea of people being able to look up who I've voted for. It's just something that I'd like to be able to keep to myself. I'm not too worried about Tony Soprano coming after to me (although in my more paranoid hours, the words "Tax Audit" do dance in my head), but a public record like that would immediately be abused by telemarketing companies, and that's just too irritating.

But I would like it if all voters were given a log-in and password (something printed on the ballot stub, so that it's connected to the ballot and not the voter), so that we could view our own voting records. My county doesn't use electronic voting, but if it ever decided to, I would very much want to be able to check my record to make sure that my vote was recorded properly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Privacy OR Machination? -- frisby, 11:22:16 11/11/04 Thu

But,if you were to be convinced that the possibility of elections being machinated behind the scenes by the rulers could never be removed unless all voting were to be made public, would you then forgo your privacy in the name of honest elections?

Actually, in Plato's _Republic_ the case is presented that the rulers will always to a degree control all lotteries or elections such that the ruled think chance or their choices rule so as to enhance morale, while in the name of the good of the people ensuring the best results. Privacy will always be used for its opposite -- to ensure the rulers maintain rule.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Privacy OR Machination? -- Sheri, 12:01:01 11/11/04 Thu

Well, until I'm actually *convinced*, I really can't answer as to whether or not I'd forgo my privacy. I think I read a tad too many anti-utopian novels when I was a teenager--the idea of giving up my privacy just makes me squeemish.

Let's face it, if there is a way to mishandle things, the government is going to find that way.

Someone was on NPR a few weeks ago suggesting the possibility of a voter registration card. Each state would have it's own card, and you would be able to vote anywhere in your state. You swipe your card, cast your ballot, and a record is made for Voter #702-62J. You can then check the voting records to be sure that the record for Voter #702-62J does in deed show a vote for Candidate Jones and not for Candidate Smith. The only thing I dislike about this plan is that it appears to require electronic-voting, which I am not a fan of. But I do like that it allows the public to view their voting record, without revealing personal information. Also, the voting card would (supposedly) help make voter fraud more difficult.

As far as this election goes... I was rather shocked at the number of people I've met who either decided that there was no difference between the candidates, so why bother voting... or decided both candidates were likely to screw up, so may as well stick with the one we're used to. I just find this very frustrating--I grew up in a household where during election time, political discourse boiled down to: "They're all a bunch of turkeys, so let's give the next turkey a shot--he just might surprise us."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Privacy OR Machination? -- LittleBit, 12:50:18 11/11/04 Thu

Frankly, I'm convinced that the possibility of elections being manipulated behind the scenes by the "rulers" could never be removed period because that's not addressing the issue of electoral accuracy but one of trust. And a certain amount of distrust/paranoia will always exist. I do however think that the availability/publication of a person's voting record carries with it the possibilities of abuses that far exceed any superficial sense of personal security regarding the fidelity of the governmental process that might be gained. I do not want to be accountable to my neighbors for my political choices. And honestly? I don't in any way believe that the RNC and supporters of Bush are the only ones who could attempt to influence the outcome. And having the personal vote public leaves individual voters at the potential mercy of anyone who has any ability to affect their life. Their church, their employer, their union, their neighbors, people they do business with...

"...would you then forgo your privacy in the name of honest elections?? Initial response...no, I would not. Expanded response...while this might make the vote counting accountable and therefore more secure, I beleive that the potential for interference in the vote casting process would preclude any real possibility of an honest election.

As for the comparison to Plato's Republic I would note two things. First, it was a theoretical analogy for a perfect society ruled by a philosopher king and not necessarily practical in reality and second, at the most Plato allowed for 5,040 citizens (i.e. heads of houselholds/persons with voting rights). And just for the fun of it, that 5,040 was selected for its rather convoluted mathematical properties rather than any particularly practical reasons.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Privacy OR Machination? -- Sheri, 13:50:01 11/11/04 Thu

Unfortunately, fear of losing your job if you don't vote for your employer's candidate is both real and valid, e.g. that woman who was fired for having a pro-Kerry bumper sticker on her car.

My personal concern regarding electronic voting isn't outright fraud... it's that people put waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much faith into computers. The lack of a paper trail is simply rediculous--whether or not the votes that failed to be recorded (or that were apparently over-recorded)would have changed the overall results, we'll never know. But after all the talk of chads from the last election, it is disgusting to think that the system that was supposedly going to insure that everybody's vote is properly counted is actually doing nothing of the sort.

Before we concern ourselves with the issue of trust and whether or not fraud occured, we need to be sure that votes are properly recorded and counted, period.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plato #2 -- frisby, 03:47:50 11/12/04 Fri

I looked at your URL. Nice link. I was right about the _Laws_ -- but I never heard of the 12,960,000 number unless that's their version of the nupitial number which CAN'T be figured. You know to what it refers?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More e-voting problems -- dmw, 11:17:31 11/13/04 Sat

My personal concern regarding electronic voting isn't outright fraud... it's that people put waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much faith into computers. The lack of a paper trail is simply rediculous--whether or not the votes that failed to be recorded (or that were apparently over-recorded)would have changed the overall results, we'll never know.

Evoting-experts reports more problems in Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio. In Indiana, Fidlar's evoting machines counted straight ticket Democratic votes as Libertarian votes, which may change some county and state election results, while North Carolina simply lost thousands of votes, with no way to recount them due to lack of a paper trail.

As for fraud, it's simply a matter of fixing the programming beforehand or pointing and clicking to change a number afterward and without a paper trail, there's no way to prove it, so I'd be shocked if it someone didn't commit fraud. One of the evoting experts was an elections judge, who reported finding the machines unsecured the night before and who after the election was given all of the flash memory cards holding the votes, then left alone with them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Possible Solution? -- frisby, 12:09:57 11/13/04 Sat

If we don't go the way of making all voting public so as to ensure trust and prevent fraud, then, maybe we should set up a department of elections, a new beurocracy headed up by RALPH NADER, he who everyone trusts as at least having integrity and being honest.

Or maybe the league of women voters? but then we'd have to not let females vote, so as to prevent bias (thinking here of the seven tribes of iroquois whereby the old wise females would choose which of the strong men would be chief) --- and that's tongue in cheek (before anyone bashes me) of course, anyway-----

I 'live' in Indiana which went bush over kerry 2 to 1, so informing me of fraud here just takes me back to my original position: unless its all totally public fraud will always be suspected

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think there has to be a better way -- Bjerkley, 13:30:57 11/13/04 Sat

I sympathise greatly with your perspective, and would have dearly liked a different result to the election. But on the other hand, I've always been taught that one of the fundamental rights/aims of a good democracy is private balloting. There is the potential for far too much harassment, discrimination and abuse if voting records were open for the public. I don't have enough faith that open knowledge of who you vote for wouldn't have serious comeback for some people. I don't mean violence, but at the very least it could cause job and home difficulties. And that's really not the point of voting. It should be a private matter with public effect.

In the UK we don't have this problem, despite votes being private. I don't understand how both systems work, so this is not trying to claim any superioty, but the simple method of counting votes by hand and double counting, and the possinbility of re-counting if there seems to be any doubt generally works. And either we're very naive or no vote fixing goes on. Counted by the people for the people.

That could be how it works in America, but then in the UK, a split vote wouldn't be decided by a politically elected judiciary. I guess the best way is to show that the people are as mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The US doesn't have a single system -- dmw, 13:54:36 11/13/04 Sat

One of the differences is that the US doesn't have a single voting system; voting is done at a local level below the states, with different counties having different voting systems. Some Indiana counties used the problematic machines mentioned above; others didn't. That makes voting hard to fix, in both senses of the word.

However, we don't need to eliminate the secret ballot. E-voting needs to produce a human-readable paper ballot, which is what's actually counted, giving us the ease of use of computer voting, but also allowing for voter verification of their ballot and recounting if necessary. If paper ballots are scanned by computer, the tabulation software and process need to be completely public.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plato -- frisby, 20:27:09 11/11/04 Thu

Hi LittleBit

Nice to meet you in Chicago. I thought 5040 came from his _Laws_ not his _Republic_? Also, 'what' the republic is (ideal analogy) is still a matter of great debate. For Leo Strauss (the teacher of the neocons who rule us today) the purpose of the _Republic_ was to set limits or define parameters or critique the political itself, especially with regard to limiting one's ambitions with regard to the political. Strauss also teaches that the overall fundamental event of the _Republic_ is the befriending of the teacher of tyranny (Thrysamachus) by Socrates. The act of befriending is the deepest insight into justice. I think the _Republic_ shows the tendencies implicit in the nature of the political itself. The rulers of a people understand themselves as acting for the sake of the good of the people as a whole, and if this demands lying in the name of the good, or manipulating lotteries with regard to who mates with who, or leaving as little as possible to chance, then so be it. The essence of the political tends by its own nature to eventually transform almost all of the private into the public. I agree with you though, that without the personal and private, then secrets and mysteries need to go even deeper underground to evade persecution and or being forced to be naked to the world. Maybe we ought to return to royal hereditary kingships? picked by the nobility of course)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> E-voting issues new summary 11/7/04 -- dmw, 08:11:46 11/07/04 Sun

Here's a summary of current e-voting problem new stories:

* Columbus, OH - An error with an electronic voting system gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in suburban Columbus, elections officials said. Franklin County s unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry s 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct.

* Broward Co., FL ES&S software on their machines only reads 32,000 votes at a precinct then it starts counting backwards: http://www.news4jax.com/politics/3890292/detail.html

* Wichita Co., TX Nearly 6,900 of 26,000 total early votes had undervote for President. Human error to blame. County has software problems that need ES&S to fix before they can run ballots: http://www.timesrecordnews.com/trn/local_news/article/0,1891,TRN_5784_3303816,00.html

* Lancaster Co., SC Unilect Patriot voting machines were used and failed. Printouts of votes had to be taken from the machines memories and hand-counted: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/10094349.htm

* Mecklenburg Co., NC More votes registered than voters: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/politics/10094165.htm

* Volusia Co., FL Diebold optical-scan machines had another failure with 6 machines having memory card failures. Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor in Leon County, said officials with Diebold told him that the new, higher-capacity memory cards tend to have more glitches than older cards. : http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/elections/orl-asecvolusiaglitches04110404nov04,1,3289659.story?coll=orl-news-headlines

* Craven Co., NC - Software glitch forces a recount which changes the outcome in one race.: http://www.newbernsj.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=18297&Section=Local

* San Francisco, CA - A glitch in the new tabulation software made by ES&S to handle IRV/RCV voting (more here) stoped the counting and forced a recount of 81,000 ballots.: http://www.internetweek.com/allStories/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=52200321

* Sarpy County, NE - 3000 phantom votes show up after an audit reveals that some tabulation equipment counted votes twice. (I m not sure if this is optical scan or some other system they used optical scan in 2002): http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/1161971.html

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The election was stolen... -- frisby, 17:53:41 11/08/04 Mon

MSNBC is running a story (Keith Olbermann) implicitly claiming the election was stolen by bush -- kerry DID win. See http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

I also posted this and other pertinent info as a reply to the post that started this thread. We've been taken over! Unless the government begins another watergate like thing, there will be no further trust in the legitmation of our democracy.

I think elections should hitherto be made public so anyone can see who voted and who they voted for -- if they fear recrimination they can request a special closed condition. Only this will stop the death of 'we the people'

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The election was stolen... -- q 3, 22:20:38 11/08/04 Mon

While I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of public voting, I do feel that allowing those who "fear recrimination [to] request a special closed condition" would do little to benefit those who truly are in danger (whether that danger be bodily harm, losing a job, or even merely receiving dirty looks). Making such a request would clearly signal that one had something to hide, and most of those people who would respond in a hostile manner to a "wrong" vote would very likely just look at those who had requested a secret ballot as having voted the "wrong" way. Alternatively, many sympathetic people might also request secret ballots in solidarity with those who were in danger, in order to make it more difficult to target individuals; that, however, really only gets us back to where we are now, with lots of not very accountable ballots.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Get over it -- Vegeta, 06:58:08 11/09/04 Tue

Oh my God! Some of you out there really need to seek therapy. There was no voter fraud. Get over it and accept reality. Sorry, your guy lost, get on with your life.

Vegeta

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hypothetical Question -- -- frisby, 09:48:16 11/09/04 Tue

Are you able to consider one hypothetical question? If I could present evidence of fraud to your satisfaction, would you even then be concerned? As an American? Or is that just part of the process?


Let me know. The story by the way is being reported by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and the facts are open for inspection. Some congressmen are now calling for an investigation.

The truth is, in my opinion, after considering the evidence (and not before), that there was fraud. If so, our democracy has been hijacked. The question is, like with watergate, how far up does the fraud go. I suspect Rove.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hypothetical Question -- -- Rich, 15:34:30 11/09/04 Tue

As a cynical American, I expect a certain amount of fraud. I also suspect that there will be fraud on BOTH sides, in (very roughly) equal amounts I don't assume that either side has a monopoly on corruption. If you can prove that there was enough fraud on ONE side to swing the election, you might have something

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Proof of Fraud -- frisby, 16:22:01 11/09/04 Tue

In Baker County of Florida there were 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them democrats (8926) and 24.3% republicans (3126). But the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what the exit polls were showing. That means that even if all of the republicans voted for bush, then also one-half of all democrats also had to turn out and vote for bush. Is that believable?

This very same thing occurred in about two dozen florida counties, and in all of them there is no paper trail. The results are the opposite of what the exit polls there were showing. In all the other precincts where there 'were' paper trails, the results agreed with the polls, and there was nothing approaching this incredible fact.

What had to have happened is that the numbers were simply reversed in those counties that had no paper trail. These counties alone would have given florida to Kerry.

There was also fraud in Ohio.

Rove stole the election.

I hope the truth comes out. Only MSNBC has noted these facts. If so, it will make watergate seem small.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, -- Rich, 18:08:33 11/09/04 Tue

Historically, U.S. urban areas have been notorious for political fraud - NYC & Chicago, to name only 2. Any figures for these ?? I'm sure you can see where this leads . To prove absolutely that the election was "stolen", it's not enough to prove problems in 1 state - you'd have to prove that there were NOT corresponding problems in other areas,which might balance out the first - which means you'd have to doublecheck ALL the votes - & to be certain, you'd need someone to check the checkers. This benefits no one but the lawyers. (If you happen to be a lawyer, you have my sympathy).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, -- Rich, 18:11:08 11/09/04 Tue

Historically, U.S. urban areas have been notorious for political fraud - NYC & Chicago, to name only 2. Any figures for these ?? How about Boston or Philadelphia ?? I'm sure you can see where this leads. To prove absolutely that the election was "stolen", it's not enough to prove problems in 1 area - you'd have to prove that there were NOT corresponding problems in other area, which might balance out the first - which means you'd have to doublecheck ALL the votes - & to be certain, you'd need someone to check the checkers. This benefits no one but the lawyers. (If you happen to be a lawyer, you have my sympathy).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's no ABSOLUTE proof anywhere -- frisby, 18:43:51 11/09/04 Tue

All that one needs to do is show one act of fraud that makes a difference in the election. If there's another then someone else can raise a second challenge. But your position is ridiculous -- I think. Your position means there's never any recourse to anything. For the court to prove 'I' did something or other they'd have to prove that no else possibly could -- all six billion of them. Can you prove I even wrote this without proving for a fact that no one else did? No. If Ohio did in fact go for Kerry then Bush did not win. Period. If Bush can prove New York actually went his way, then that's pertinent, but claiming that everything has to be verified before anything counts is a dodge. If the Ohio Secretary of State determines that Kerry indeed won, its a new game.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry again, but a trial isn't an election -- Rich, 19:28:57 11/09/04 Tue

Courts have rules which establish standards & methods of proof. If those rules are followed, the decision is assumed to be binding. "Absolute" proof is not required, only "legal" proof.

In the case of the election, standards of "legal" proof are (I think) set by the states, in the form of the election procedures - within the limits of the Constitution. Those procedures may be inadequate by your standards, but neither one of us makes that decision - the states do ( or, in some cases, the Supreme Court). You haven't demonstrated that those standards were violated - you've established a new standard, by inserting an additional level of post-election analysis. More to the point, you've applied this standard selectively. For example, you argue that Bush lost Florida based on irregularities in some counties - but electoral votes are determined by the votes of the *entire* state, not just pieces of it. It's not reasonable or fair to assume that only the counties you looked at were wrong, until you've at least looked at the others. Similarly, the election as a whole is based on the electoral votes of ALL states. If you only check the "red" states, then you've stacked the deck before the game even begins. If you want to second-guess the results, that's your privelege, but fairness requires that you apply the same standard to ALL the results, not just the ones which might support your side.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you're right.. -- frisby, 03:43:43 11/10/04 Wed

I think you're right. I overstepped. I've been a bit volcanic since the election. I've also learned about the dixiecrats. I still feel in my bones Rove stole the election in some manner or other, but I take back my ability to prove anything. I return to the call to make the entire election public -- one website where anyone can go and see who voted and for whom. Otherwise, there will always be the suspicion that the results were cooked. Thanks for your excellent calm and reason ---

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think you're right.. -- Rich, 14:18:39 11/10/04 Wed

You're welcome. I got a little agitated myself; it's that kind of issue. Actually, I think we can agree on some things - lack of a "paper trail" for votes is just plain boneheaded, if it isn't crooked. In this state, we use plainly marked paper ballots, which may take longer to process but which are easily verified. If other states had thought through their procedures a little more it would have saved everybody a lot of aggravation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My opinion on voting records -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:11:37 11/10/04 Wed

I think that maybe they should do something where each voter is assigned a certain Voter ID #, and there's a record kept of where that voter is registered, when they voted, and who they voted for: this information would be fully accessible online or through a government employee. However, exactly who has which ID would be information only the person themselves would be granted; the government would have the name/ID connection on a computer file, but they'd only be able to access that information if the voter gave permission or they had a warrant to do so. That way someone can very easily go online to make sure their vote went the way they intended, and it's possible to tell whether or not votes were changed, while still maintaining individual privacy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Something along those lines is demanded -- frisby, 19:35:45 11/10/04 Wed

Something along those lines is demanded or the suspicion will always exist that elections are fixed. Plato's _Republic_ deals with this; the rulers control lotteries and elections and such, while the ruled don't know it. It's the best of two different worlds: supposed consent, and the mastery of chance.

[> [> [> [> speaking as a long time voter,.. -- Rich, 13:35:01 11/03/04 Wed

.. I can verify it's sadly not unusual to vote for people they don't necessarily approve of, for many reasons. Usually it's because the opponent doesn't convince them that he/she will do any better on whatever issue the particular voter considers most important/urgent - in which case "better the devil you know".

[> [> [> [> [> If I had been able to vote back in the 2000 election -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:58:37 11/03/04 Wed

Back before seeing exactly what George W. Bush would do as president, I probably would have voted for a third party candidate (I'm of the belief that one of the best things that could happen to this country would be to break out of the old, two party system, and just like regular voting, while one vote might not mean much, if everyone thought that way, things would go to hell in a handbasket). However, in the 2004 election, I very much wanted George W. out of office, and voted for his most powerful adversary.

[> [> [> [> [> [> plug for IRV -- Maura, 17:40:12 11/03/04 Wed

Wouldn't it be nice if we could vote for third party candidates without vote splitting? Well, we could if had instant runoff voting (IRV). Under that system, you rank your choices:

Ex.
1) Nader
2) Kerry

All the first choices are tallied, and if no clear majority winner emerges, the person with the fewest votes gets dropped and the second choices for those ballots get added in. Ex. Nader gets dropped, Kerry gets that vote. Wouldn't have mattered in this election, but it almost surely would have changed the outcome in 2000. This system assures that no one wins with less than 50% of the vote. It's democratic (with a small "d"). It's sensible. It's simple. It should be our standard system.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Third Parties -- q 3, 17:43:06 11/03/04 Wed

Winner-take-all, few runoffs (and no instant runoff voting), and the Electoral College all pretty much ensure a dire lack of third party success in the US. Third parties that do manage to get some success will either quickly burn out (e.g. Reform) or merely replace a dying major party (e.g. the Republican party replacing the Whigs).

[> [> I personally think you're a little paranoid -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:48:00 11/03/04 Wed

I'm not saying that there aren't guys we hardly ever hear of who act as puppet masters, but I hardly think their control is anywhere near as extensive or united as you make it sound.

I also think their motivations are pretty obviously not about winning, but also not about causing war and pestilence: they just want to get fancy cars, houses, and trophy alives, along with the little thrill that comes from exercising power.

[> [> [> Re: I personally think you're a little paranoid -- Alistair, 19:08:33 11/03/04 Wed

I think its far beyond that, not just fancy cars and comforts. Those who are in power have all that regardless, but then there must be something else. In the end, they are all just mortal, they have power but once dead, its gone, so whats the point???

I can think up of a million conspiracies, but it doesn't mean they're right... just some thoughts

[> Just one: The Earth is doomed. -- Evan, 10:16:58 11/03/04 Wed


[> whaddya mean, "again"? -- anom, 10:22:58 11/03/04 Wed


[> [> You got to saying it before I did... -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:08:56 11/03/04 Wed

For the first time, Bush was actually elected into office.

Bloody hell.

[> [> [> That's what scares me the most. -- Rob, 11:50:47 11/03/04 Wed


[> What cheer? Kerry just finished a good -- Cleanthes, 11:14:33 11/03/04 Wed

concession speech.

Bush will have less to prove in a second term, especially having received over 50% of the popular vote (first president to have done that in 12 years).

On an on-topic note, does anyone think that Uday and Qusay were agents of the First?

[> What didn't happen -- Rich, 14:31:20 11/03/04 Wed

We had unusually negative campaigns on both sides, threats of terrorism, threats of litigation - & a voter turnout that massively exceeded expectations & almost choked the machinery.

We *didn't* have riots, violence, martial law, a disputed result, a government imposed by judicial fiat, or (so far) recriminations or accusations by either side. Instead, the loser graciously conceded & the winner accepted. Some of us obviously don't like the outcome, but the system worked.

[> [> Rich hit it on the head. . . . . -- Briar Rose, 15:20:37 11/03/04 Wed

Better the devil you know.....

At least we all know what's coming at us for four more years. Not that I like it, but at least it's all status quo and I know who to fight and how.

But I have to say, Bush won this by keeping people AFRAID. I really think that's the sickest part of the entire affair. Fear and fear based descriminatory morality were the most important points in his campaign.

I wonder how much money Bush and Cheney owe Osama for releasing that tape at such a strategic point in the election race?

[> [> [> Re: Rich hit it on the head. . . . . -- Metron, 16:54:17 11/03/04 Wed

"I wonder how much money Bush and Cheney owe Osama for releasing that tape at such a strategic point in the election race?"

Not money. They told him he could live for another year, then locked him back in his cell.

:)

[> [> [> Re: Rich hit it on the head. . . . . -- q 3, 17:45:45 11/03/04 Wed

For what they're worth, exit polls put voters who decided in the last three days before the election--i.e., late enough to be influenced by the bin Laden tape--in favor of Kerry by at least a ten-point margin.

[> The earth loses to evangelical christianity! -- frisby, 15:13:36 11/03/04 Wed

I am beginning to fear that the evangelical christians in this country (such as George W. Bush) pose more of a threat to the future of our country and planet than the fundamentalist islamics including the terrorists. After talking to some of them I think they are mentally ill -- thinking of evolution as a mere belief for example, or that the jesus is the only way, or that armageddon is upon us. Our most dangerous belief in this country, is that one is entitled to believe 'anything' even without evidence or justification, if only it's a religious belief. I today find myself siding with Athens against Jerusalem (whether in its hebraic christian or islamic form). These are indeed dangerous times now -- if 1000 were lost his first term, I suspect at least 10000 his second, if not 1000 times 10000! I fear that the rapture and armageddon will be created -- not simply come to pass. The rise of American Imperialism will generate a dangerous backlash, especially from Europe. Is Leo Strauss 'really' the architect behind the philosophy of the neocons (including Bush's architect -- Rove)? Is there no hope for a modern religion of reason? I'll probably regret sending this shortly after I send it, and most definitely by tomorrow, but since I'm under the spell of frustration and find the election's results simply incredible (meaning un=believable -- although that's the problem in a nutshell, again), I'll close by noting that when Bush said "those who recognize those value beyond the will to power" he mistakenly implied the will to power is a value -- its not, it's a fact. The real dilemma facing humanity seems to be coming to Leo Strauss vs. Nietzsche: how do we side with Nietzsche? Oh well, enough bile! Feel free to ignore this rant. I'm simply at odds with myself. At least the next four years will generate some supreme art (whether music or movies or ----) as a means of sublimating the extreme anger and disappointment many feel today across the planet.

[> [> Wha-uh-waa-huh??? -- Duell, 10:27:40 11/04/04 Thu

As a non-believer on behalf of believers:

After talking to some of them I think they are mentally ill -- thinking of evolution as a mere belief for example, or that the jesus is the only way, or that armageddon is upon us.

1. Well, to be completely honest there is no evidence that proves that evolution holds any more stock than creationism, other than the abscence of a God to jump start it. And that only works if you claim God doesn't exist which is just as much of a religious belief as saying God does exist. There is no direct, scientifically founded link between some primordial gook and man, other than that which has be hypothesized by scientists. I'm not saying it is impossible that evolution on such a grand scale happened (because I am a proponent of microevolution, but the fish into man thing seems a bit, well... fishy to me, if you'll pardon the pun), just that it makes as much sense as anything else.

2. "Jesus is the way..." yada yada yada, holds as much basis in rational thought as saying that Jesus was a creepy dude with mental problems who got nailed to a plank of wood a long damn time ago and holds no power over life at all. Both require the same amount of faith, so you sound just as insane if you claim you know Jesus wasn't the one true Son of the Living God.

3. How do you know that the apocalypse isn't nigh?

[> [> [> Rolling back the enlightenment -- matching mole, 11:36:58 11/04/04 Thu

I can't pass this up. Although I wouldn't phrase things quite as melodramtically as frisby I certainly share his sentiments to a large degree. The most troubling thing about the election is not Bush's victory itself but the apparent rationale of a very large proportion (if not vasy majority) of his supporters for casting their votes.

Leaving aside the dubious morality and humanity of legislating discrimination against gays (as eloquently illustrated in monsieurxander's post) my mind boggles that a substantial proportion of the population apparently thinks that this and similar issues are more important than having a government with a responsible economic policy, sense of reality toward world affairs, etc. Not that I am arguing that moral concerns should not play a role in selecting leaders. But what seems to be happening is that a large proportion of the American populace seems to be totally driven by belief rather than information when making choices.

I read (although I don't know the original source) that 75% of Bush voters polled still think that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. No matter what view is held on the war in Iraq I'm not seeing anyone presenting evidence for this or even espousing this view in public discourse, at least not anymore. Holding this view implies that you are either a rabid ideologue or someone that is completely uninterested in finding out about the world around you. Neither of which seems a good quality in making a reasoned decision.

The most disturbing aspect, and what compelled me to write this response is Duell's statements about evolution. Although evolution was not a campaign issue it is the clearest example of this belief over information phenomenon. I'll start with a bit of clarification. Crudely, views on evolution can be divided into three categories listed below

A: life arose and diversified through purely natural means that can be explained by the processes that we can observe today or extrapolate based on our current observations. The important implications of this are that the earth is very old, that humans are not fundamentally different from other life forms. and that god is not necessary to explain anything.

B: life arose with divine assistance and god used evolutionary forces as an agent to produce the variety of life (including ourselves) that we see today. This view agrees about the age of the earth (and basically all other scientific implications of evolution) with view A but definitely differs with view A about the importance of god and probably disagrees about the distinction of humanity from other forms of life.

C: Life was created pretty much as it exists now in the recent past (thousands of years) by god. This view disagrees with A about everything.

Based on what I read recently in National Geographic large and approximately equal portions of the American populace hold views B and C and a much smaller proportion hold view A. There are a couple of important points here. There is no scientific evidence to distinguish between view A and view B. They predict the same things in terms of the observable world. The distinction between them is fundamentally non-scientific. View C is incompatible with both B and A. From the standpoint of scientific evidence there is no competition. There is no evidence for view C and overwhelming evidence for A/B. To accept the worldview of C as literal fact would require overturning vast amounts of chemistry, physics, and geology as well as biology.

So if you hold view C, as around 40% of Americans do, then belief is completely out trumping evidence. Five hundred years of western civilization are based on exactly the opposite: beliefs must be adapted to fit the evidence (how many people still believe that the sun revolves around the earth). An insistence on acting out of belief rather than evidence is not likely to produce very good results over the long term. If the U.S. continues on its present course the nation is likely to decline. In fact I would argue that this decline has already begun. Maybe its time to move back to Canada.

[> [> [> [> evolutionary "theory" -- manwitch, 06:44:26 11/07/04 Sun

I am an extreme relativist with a deep interest in postmodernism and poststructuralism as critical tools. You have said in the past that I occasionally write things that you agree with, but then I'll say something about science that completely floors you.

Allow me to not do that this time. I agree completely with what you've said, and Sophist below. (And for those that are wondering, I don't in any way sacrifice my relativist position by doing so).

Many things to shudder about these days. National Geographic, however, is not one of them. They had you freaked out for a second with the cover though, right?

[> [> [> [> [> National Geographic -- matching mole, 15:09:40 11/07/04 Sun

Yeah the cover was a bit of a shock. The pictures and the content inside made up for it though. Thanks for the kind words.

I have no problem with someone holding a different belief system from my own. My problem with creationsists is that their reaction against evolution seems to be largely due to a combination of bigotry and laziness on the part of the passive majority and willful deceit by the active minority.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: National Geographic: which issue was that? what's on the cover? -- anom, 19:38:18 11/18/04 Thu

Not all of us saw it--is it still on the newsstands? or can you clue us in?

[> [> [> [> Just to say... -- Duell, 12:56:44 11/08/04 Mon

I'm just saying I've never been able to find your "overwhelming evidence" for A/B outside of the internet, and if it exists, I would be forever grateful if you would point me in the right direction. Because, I've also found evidence on the internet supporting C. (Sometimes, I hate the internet.) I would like to have clear, scientific sources supporting one, the other, or both if possible. I've merely never seen them and therefore can only speak about the way I understand things to be. If I am wrong, then allow me to see the light. (Sorry for the religious reference, but it seemed appropriate.)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just to say... -- matching mole, 10:07:50 11/10/04 Wed

I will try and present some major points below. If you want a lot more detail I would advise going to http://www.talkorigins.org/. This web site has an immense amount of information on evidence for evolution. It will take some effort - understanding the evidence for evolution and being convinced by the evidence (rather than someone like me telling you that it is true) requires wading through some detail and developing an understanding some basic concepts.

Below are a few of the most obvious pieces of evidence for views A and B. There is no way I can present a convincing argument in the space of this post becuase all I can do is assert that certain things are true - for a true evaluation you should go to the web site above and/or do some reading.

Age of the earth and the universe - I'm not an astronomer or a geologist but there are a number of physical processes that indicate that the universe is a lot older than a few thousand years. Most notably the speed of light. We can detect light from other galaxies - that light would not have time to reach us in a few thousand years. A second process is radioactive decay - radioactive isotopes break down at a rates that are remarkably consistent for each particular compound. Dating of portions of the earth's crust indicate a great age and these estimates are consistent.

I will expound at a bit more length on biological evidence as I am more familiar with that.

Fossil Record - Despite the extreme low probability of any given organism becoming a fossil after death we have a remarkably good fossil record. These fossils indicate a pattern of descent and modification. In other words fossils in younger rocks can be related back to fossils in older rocks. The oldest rocks have fossils of only very simple organisms (algae and other single-celled life). Later organisms can almost always (our data are certainly not complete) be seen as modifications of earlier organisms. For example, if a fossil rabbit appeared in 300 million year old rock we would have to seriously re-think our understanding of evolution. At that time there were no organisms known with a skeleton remotely resembling a rabbit. It would be impossible to explain through an evolutionary scenario. The number of possible fossil finds that would completely invalidate our understanding of evolutionary history is immense and yet none has ever been found (that hasn't later been demonstrated to be a fake). The power of the fossil record isn't just that it shows that organisms once lived on earth that are now gone but, more importantly, that the fossil are arranged in the layers of the earth's surface in a way that is consistent with evolutionary change but very difficult to explain otherwise.

For me (and this is mostly just because of my own interests) the most powerful evidence for evolution is the comparative structure of organisms living today - both their genetic and molecular structure and their larger scale anatomy. Why do whales and some snakes have hip bones and/or hind limbs completely internalized within their bodies? These bones serve no purpose but they are consistent with these organisms having evolved from organisms with limbs. At the molecular level the evidence is even more compelling. Organisms thought to be closely related evolutionarily have turned out to have remarkably similar DNA sequences - even for portions of the DNA that appear to serve no purpose.

All of this evidence can be swept aside by invoking action by a supernatural being. But you would have to assume that this being is perverse - that it created the earth and the organisms on it with the appearance of descent from common ancestry even when it wasn't true.

Anyway I hope you are inspired to look further into this subject

[> [> [> I think you're operating under some misconceptions -- Sophist, 12:20:30 11/04/04 Thu

there is no evidence that proves that evolution holds any more stock than creationism, other than the abscence of a God to jump start it. ... There is no direct, scientifically founded link between some primordial gook and man...

This is wrong in 2 different ways. First, evolution does not purport to explain the origin of life (though it might well do so once we learn more about it). It purports to explain the origin of species after life began. For this reason, your comment about primordial gook is irrelevant to the issue of evolution.

Second, there is a great deal of evidence supporting evolution and none whatsoever supporting creationism.

[> [> [> [> Just to clarify -- Duell, 12:52:00 11/08/04 Mon

Look, I didn't say that evolution wasn't real. I didn't say that creationism was. All I'm saying is that, while there may be evidence of the possibility, there is no completed direct lineage for the case of macroevolution. Personally, I think evolution makes more sense, but I don't know everything . . .

[> [> [> [> [> Standards of proof -- Sophist, 15:50:45 11/08/04 Mon

Your phrase "no completed direct lineage for the case of macroevolution" causes me to wonder what standard of proof you're using. If you set the bar high enough, no one can pass it; even quantum physics is, at best, accurate only to about 15 decimals.

If you're interested in the subject there are many good books to read which I can recommend. If you prefer the web, start here:

Panda's Thumb

[> [> Never nominate legislators, they're too easy -- Cleanthes, 13:59:50 11/04/04 Thu

to see through.

Here's a prescient forecast of the just completed election that explains things rather well and without resort to the protocols of the elders of Zion.

[> [> The dangers of evangelical christianity! -- dmw, 14:51:09 11/05/04 Fri

I fear that the rapture and armageddon will be created -- not simply come to pass.

Read some of the sites that come up when you google for terms like the Rapture Index and you'll see that a subset of the evangelicals (Dispensationalists) are working to create those very events. Disregard for the environment (who needs the environment, and besides its degredation may be part of the end times), irrational levels of support for Israel as a sign of the end times, and enthusiasm for a war against Babylon and false religions are all part of their belief system.

They're quite scary, and their fellows, the Dominionists, like Bush II, who believe in a theocratic American Empire to bring Christianity to the world by force if necessary, are little better.

[> [> [> Their secret plan? -- frisby, 20:14:10 11/05/04 Fri

What the rapture really will be is the unleashing of a biological weapon that will kill all humans who have not been innoculated (like the evangelical christians have) against it. THEN, there will be nobody to even mention the deadly truth that humanity is not radically distinct from the other animals -- evolution and all of that. To protect their insane political position, they will kill all other humans. THAT's the supposed rapture.

[> [> [> [> are you serious? -- anom, 21:30:32 11/06/04 Sat

That's one hell of an accusation to make--do you have any evidence to back it up? A source to quote?

Promoting policies that allow pollution, deforestation, & species extinction to continue at accelerating rates is one thing, & bad enough. Mass murder is way beyond that, especially for people whose belief system prominently includes "Thou shalt not kill." That's entirely aside from whether what you say they plan is even possible.

[> [> [> [> [> dead serious -- frisby, 18:05:42 11/08/04 Mon

No, I've no proof. Except I think I know their 'side of things to a degree (but that's a long story)' -- and the key is that their (insane unbelievable) political philosophy 'can' be made real, made manifest, with only a small twist ...

Think of the many many native american babies that were baptized (so as to save their souls) only to then be killed by the same christians that baptized them. The rapture is insane on the surface (that millions mysteriously simply vanish, wisked away to heaven and all that) -- but add that twist, and its all the non-christians who simply vanish leaving the earth to the chosen non-animal supernatural human beings....

I just finished an interesting book _ The End of Faith_ which has stirred me up against the very idea that anyone can believe anything they want as long as its their religion, even if those believes logically lead to genocide or the destruction of all life or or or

I'm also upset that bush cheated and stole the election from kerry -- and i can't prove that either

maybe if i just take a deep breath and ....

sorry, i'm usually not so volatile. A long-time friend of mine really thinks there is a choice to be made between evolution and creationism, a rational choice based on evidence...

there's just too much misology among humanity...as socrates said

[> [> [> scary indeed -- anom, 20:22:38 11/06/04 Sat

Shortly after I read dmw's post, I saw this in the online magazine Grist. It provides a frightening amount of detail (warning--it's pretty long) on what dmw put so concisely.

[> Here I am, mystified... -- monsieurxander, on one of his crazy little tangents, 16:29:29 11/03/04 Wed

...as to how more than half the country can vote to oppress the rights of a fairly large minority group. (You guessed it) Canada gives full marriage rights to same-sex couples. They haven't collapsed as a nation, and the institution of marriage is fully intact... Not weakened, but stronger in that *more people are getting married*.

My main gripe about this subject is not the Marriage Ban itself, but the attitudes that accompany it. I live in Mississippi, a state which voted an overwhelming 85% to ban gay marriage.

I am not only concerned with my rights, but with my personal safety. I live in an environment where I can't hold my significant other's hand in public without being sneered at (sadly, there aren't many of those environments around). When the leader of your country (and the rest of your country's and state's officials) agree that you are not guaranteed rights because you are misbehaving and therefore not subject to them... It leads to the notion that these deviants are not worthy of respect, and when they're not worthy of respect, you can treat them however damn well you please. The President says that homosexuals should be respected, but his words are empty, as his actions speak louder and much more clearly than that.

That kind of attitude leads to this:

*Last summer, I was beaten severely by my older brother in my own front yard.

*Just a few months ago, Scotty Weaver, a boy I held a casual acquaintance with (he worked at a Waffle House in Daphne, AL, and I had flirted with him on several occasions), was murdered brutally... He was tied up, beaten to death, and then burned in a field.

*A female friend of mine recently came out to a group of her friends. One of whom, a guy who'd had a crush on her, did not take it very well, and now sexually harrasses her when he sees her around her campus. In addition to that, her former boyfriend has broken into her house, has hacked into her email account, and has threatened her person on more than one occasion.

*Another friend of mine recently found that someone had engraved the words "DIE FAG" into his dorm room door.

*This particular friend's ex-boyfriend spent six months in an institution in Memphis because he had a nervous breakdown after his parents disowned him.

*Everyone on my father's side of my extended family has officially disowned me, for no other reason than being gay.

*Once, while I was on a date, two guys followed me in their car for upwards of 45 minutes, at one point throwing glass bottles at my windshield.

*Yet another friend of mine was threatened at knifepoint at his high school, literally within ten feet of a teacher, and none of the administrators did anything about it. The incident was even caught on camera, and still nothing was done until he sued the school.

This is not to mention the countless other slurs and threats I've received... in high school and community college, at home, at work, and in public.

No one deserves to be treated like that. No one deserves to feel that kind of fear. No one deserves to ever have to think the thought "If I tell him/her I'm gay, how will he/she react?" Yet, I still have to take that into consideration every time I meet someone new. It's f*cking absurd that these conditions even exist. You'd think we'd be better than that by now, right?

When you say "Gee, I don't think homosexuals should be able to get married. Better yet, let's endorse state and federal amendments to ensure they never get that right!"... you directly lead to the sort extremism that I've detailed in this rant. Yes, directly. And frankly, I really don't see how one can overlook the issue in favor of other issues. I mean, you don't see people saying "Yeah, I know so-and-so hates black people and supports segregation, but I think he'd do a swell job at taxes, education, and foreign policy!"

That said, I do have a couple of friends who voted for Bush. I'm not going to hassle them about their decision... Even if I feel betrayed at the thought of them voting a man who wants to ensure that my rights are permantly taken away into office.

Frankly, I'm just worried about myself and those who are in the same situation. Scary shit happens all the time to perfectly decent people... For no other reason than an archaic way of thinking by one group, and apathy towards it by another.

[> [> Re: Here I am, mystified... -- Jane, 17:17:16 11/03/04 Wed

It boggles the mind that who a person chooses as a partner can be considered a threat to society. My country, thankfully, seems less concerned about its citizens sexual orientation. I just heard on the news that Saskatchewan is soon to be the 7th province to allow marriage between same sex couples, pending a court case that is wrapping up. I speak as a straight woman here; what two consenting adults do is their business. As Pierre Trudeau once said, "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation".

[> [> Re: Here I am, mystified... -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:37:02 11/03/04 Wed

Unfortunately, if the government is able to stop Mormons from having multiple spouses, then there's a pretty big legal precedent for stopping homosexuals from getting married.

[> [> [> Wait a minute here.... -- Sophist, 20:04:13 11/03/04 Wed

The bigamy argument is a red-herring when it comes to gay marriage. Banning gay marriage requires gender discrimination, just as miscegenation laws required racial discrimination. Bigamy does not involve gender discrimination, it involves discrimination based upon the number of spouses. That does not involve a protected class, so raises no equal protection issues.

BTW, the actual reasoning of the SCOTUS in upholding the ban on polygamy is pretty scary. The obvious challenge was based on freedom of religion. The response was that polygamy was "fundamentally destructive of a free society" (a "fact" the SCOTUS knew how?), so freedom of religion could not apply.

[> [> [> [> Great point, Sophist -- Mr. Banangrabber, 10:19:17 11/04/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> Not to offend but... -- Vegeta, 13:13:59 11/04/04 Thu

Last time I checked a homosexual still has the right to marry. Just someone of the opposite sex. I personally don't even understand the concept of gay marriage. If people can have same sex marriage, why not inter-species. Say some guy loves his dog so much that he wants a permanent commitment. Or maybe marriage to inatimate objects. Say maybe I could marry my couch, I mean we get along great! Where does this end?

It's funny to me that "gay marriage" is overwhelmingly not supported by the general population, yet anyone who feels that way is automatically homophobic and labeled "out of touch". I argue that those who support gay marriage are the ones who are "out of touch". Homosexuals have the exact same rights as everyone else in this country and shouldn't be given "special" rights for any reason. So, go on and label me whatever you like... it doesn't change the truth of the previous sentence.

[> [> [> [> [> Let me explain the legal issue in more detail -- Sophist, 13:51:05 11/04/04 Thu

I'm not offended, but I do think you're wrong.

a homosexual still has the right to marry. Just someone of the opposite sex.

Let's rephrase this in a way that expresses laws which were common before 1968: "whites and blacks both have the right to marry. Just someone of the same color."

If we phrase it this way, it's pretty easy to see the flaw in it. The miscegenation laws violate the 14th Amendment, and it's pretty hard to distinguish those from the gay marriage bans.

If people can have same sex marriage, why not inter-species.

I'll assume you realize that any actual comparison of a gay person to a non-human species might be seen as offensive, and that your only intent here is to make a purely logical point.

The legal reason why your point fails is simple: the 14th Amendment specifically states that states shall not deprive any person of the equal protection of the laws. There is no Constitutional issue regarding other species because there is no protection except for people.

It's funny to me that "gay marriage" is overwhelmingly not supported by the general population, yet anyone who feels that way is automatically homophobic

In the same sense, segregation was overwhelmingly supported by the general population, as were the miscegenation laws, but we still can recognize both as racist.

Homosexuals have the exact same rights as everyone else in this country and shouldn't be given "special" rights for any reason.

And no one is saying they should have special rights, just that they have the same right you have to marry the person of your choice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Just a foolish driveby to thank Sophist and frisby for existing -- manwitch, 13:57:10 11/05/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You are welcome ... and thank you for such a nice thought. -- frisby, 09:32:57 11/10/04 Wed

It felt very nice to read that -- thanks.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not to offend but... -- Bjerkley, 13:58:22 11/04/04 Thu

I guess the fundamental difference between gay marriages and the examples you cite are that one consists of marriage between two loving adults able to commit to each other (and express that comittment), while the others clearly do not. Do you compare all humans to a dog or couch? And if not, then why is that argument relevant in the least?

I'm also not sure why so many people oppose it when it would make absolutely no difference to their lives. Whereas the difference it would make to the gay couples would be great. And I would also suggest that anyone who claim that marriage does not confer rights is the one out of touch.

Until gay marriages are made legal, gay people will continue to be considered and treated as second class citizens. That some people oppose it doesn't change the fact of that previous sentence either.

[> [> [> [> [> No offense, but the situations are not analagous in any way -- dmw, 16:27:14 11/04/04 Thu

Last time I checked a homosexual still has the right to marry. Just someone of the opposite sex. I personally don't even understand the concept of gay marriage. If people can have same sex marriage, why not inter-species. Say some guy loves his dog so much that he wants a permanent commitment. Or maybe marriage to inatimate objects. Say maybe I could marry my couch, I mean we get along great! Where does this end?

WTF would you think either of those situations is analagous?

Does it make sense in any way that a dog or a couch could be a party in any sort of legal contract?

It clearly doesn't, as neither has the ability to understand legal contracts or the capacity to knowingly enter into such a binding agreement. So why do you think it makes sense to compare them entering the legal contract of marriage with two people entering into such a contract?

[> [> [> [> [> Sophist does a great job above, but -- Tchaikovsky, 16:47:06 11/04/04 Thu

From a non-legal non-American perspective:

I personally don't even understand the concept of gay marriage. If people can have same sex marriage, why not inter-species.

People are the people who are human. Animals are not people, and therefore couldn't be expected to take an equal part in a marriage ceremony. Marrying an animal is exploitation on the part of the person. Two gay people marrying is two gay people deciding to get married. Like two straight people deciding to get married.

Where does this end?

It's just not a logical subsequence, not a genuine pattern. Gay people aren't somehow less human than others, as suggested by your continuation of your pattern to animals and then inanimate objects.

I argue that those who support gay marriage are the ones who are "out of touch".

I don't think that people who support gay marriage deride people who are against it on such a flimsy principle as "out of touchness". I mean, people who didn't accept witch-burning in medieval England were "out of touch", but that's not to say they weren't right. To associate prevailing moral opinions with moral rectitude is a dangerous short cut.

So, go on and label me whatever you like... it doesn't change the truth of the previous sentence.

No labels, the previous sentence is wrong of itself. It is not a privilege to marry another person. It's a right.

TCH

[Tempted to delete and allow Sophist's post to stand, but adding two cents in any case].

[> [> [> [> [> Gee, why would anyone find that offensive? -- Pony, 19:54:08 11/04/04 Thu

To ignore your depressing and trollish analogies completely, it's quite simple: marriage confers certain tax and legal benefits, to deny someone a privileged status on the basis of their sex is discriminatory. That's it.

Note, I am talking purely about governments. A religion still and should have the right to conduct whatever sort of ceremony for whomever or whatever they see fit and no one has ever suggested any different.

And since you've put me in a very bitchy mood I would ask that when you make comments about "the general population" you keep in mind that the majority of my country's population has a very different view.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I'd say not "trollish" -- Maura, 22:55:05 11/04/04 Thu

I do disagree with Vegeta's position, for reasons that have been ably expressed by Pony and several other people in this thread.

I just wanted to say that I don't think Vegeta's post was "trollish," if by a troll, we mean someone who is just trying to get people upset rather than engage in a discussion. It seems to me that Vegeta is trying to state his/her views and invite responses. Most of this forum is on the other side of the issue, and I think it's courageous of someone in the minority to be willing to discuss their position knowing they'll meet a lot of opposition.

(It's rather like what gay people get to face all the time just by living their lives!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gee, why would anyone find that offensive? -- Rich, 12:52:10 11/05/04 Fri

Unfortunately, "marriage" in our society ( & I believe most others) has both a civil & a religious significance. Changing the former can be done by legislation - changing the latter requires divine revelation. At least some of those who oppose gay marriage may do so because they see it as a usurpation of divine authority - the state's trying to do God's job. One possible way around this problem is the "civil union" option - a status that could carry at least some of the legal & tax benefits of marriage, but without the formal title. Still a tough sell, IMO, but easier, if slightly more hypocritical, than the alternative.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not all of us are religious either -- Pony, 13:30:13 11/05/04 Fri

Unless I'm vastly mistaken in my understanding of US law, marriage licenses issued by your government do not require a religious ceremony.

And on a not unrelated aside: congrats to Saskatchewan which today became the seventh province to allow same sex marriage. In the decision it was said: "The common-law definition of marriage for civil purposes is declared to be 'the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others'" and is therefore applicable to gay couples.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're right about the license.. -- Rich, 17:53:56 11/05/04 Fri

...and civil ceremonies are perfectly valid, if performed by the appropriate authorities. But a large percentage of weddings are religious ceremonies, by religious authorities. I don't know the number nationwide, but I've never been to a wedding that *wasn't* in a church. So the connection between marriage & religion remains strong in the minds of a lot of people - especially religious people.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've never been to a wedding that was in a church... -- dmw, 17:56:57 11/05/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> what about synagogues ? -- Rich, 18:01:14 11/05/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was using church in the general sense, so no. -- dmw, 18:10:12 11/05/04 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well lets, see... -- fresne, 18:25:58 11/05/04 Fri

Well, my experience certainly isn't the norm, but...

I've been to a wedding by the side of river. The bride's choice of sari was a bit unfortunate in a little German waif in white sari sort of way, but the sword and shield arch walk was pretty cool.

My mother didn't invite me her third wedding, which I belive was some sort of new age dealio that took place at midnight.

Then again dad told me about his fourth marriage after the fact. I believe that was a civil service.

The rather interesting wedding in a pretty little stone chapel. Course he is Jewish and she's a pagan and it was all about ambiance, but you know.

One cousin's wedding in a church. A friend's cousin's wedding in a church.

Two friends weddings at Unitarian churches. One heterosexual couple. One homosexual couple.

A hand fasting at a science fiction convention, which somehow involved really hideous plaid and neon cat print fabrics. I think my retinas are still scarred.

I'm trying to think if there's anyone else. I think that's everyone.

Weddings are associated in quite a few people's minds with churches. I know both my parent's first weddings were church weddings. However, I wouldn't exist if those marriages had lasted. So, my perspective is bit off.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Faulty logic -- Pony, 18:29:50 11/05/04 Fri

Just because many marriages involve religious ceremonies does not mean that all do. However ALL marriages in order to be considered valid must have a government-issued license. Therefore the government does in fact control marriages in the legal sense. An argument to prevent a marriage license from being issued due to the religious beliefs of even a majority of citizens (but not notably the people actually getting married) seems to me an obvious violation of the separation between church and state. I always thought that separation was an admirable principle, and something worth preserving even if it occasionally requires a shift in one's thinking.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not trying to make the point you're trying to answer -- Rich, 19:02:14 11/05/04 Fri

My argument is that a link between marriage & religion exists in the minds many voters, not in the law. Therefore, they react to gay marriage as if it were a challenge to their religious beliefs. I know it isn't, you know it isn't, but they don't; & they vote (& they did). Call it something other than "marriage" - "civil union", "legal partnership", or whatever, & at least some of them might become more reasonable.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A different way of looking at it. -- Arethusa, 19:40:40 11/05/04 Fri

In "gay marriage," the issue isn't "marriage," it's "gay." That's what they were voting against. The best way to frame this is to tell everyone that gays must be allowed to marry because then there will be much less gay sex. Everyone knows nothing kills sex like marriage!

It makes no sense whatsoever, so it'll work.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL, genius. -- Rahael, 07:29:09 11/06/04 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: congratulations... -- Rich, 08:13:07 11/06/04 Sat

.. and thank you for lightening up the discussion. I was in danger of annoying myself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As long as it's the same across the board -- Pony, 19:49:06 11/05/04 Fri

Call it what you will, as long as everybody gets the same license and the same rights and privileges from it. It may be that governments will get out of the marriage business altogether and rely on common-law. Seriously, beyond the concern of of increasing society's wedding gift spending debt this is an issue that threatens no one and I wish it would be treated as such.

Concessions to the unreasonable may not always be the best course, a lot of things tend to get lost for lack of reason. It's why courts are set apart in a separate system, to protect rights in unreasonable times.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:I wish it would be treated as such -- Rich, 21:06:22 11/05/04 Fri

So do I, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Invoking separation of church & state isn't going to get around this, IMO, because too many Americans see "marriage" as having both legal & religious significance - on this issue, church & state are linked ( at least in people's minds).

Most Americans, however, also recognize the validity of a wide variety of contractual arrangements, which have no religious significance whatsoever - & which do imply a variety of legal rights & obligations. So - if it's the legal rights you're really interested in - call it something else. The real homophobes would still oppose it, but they'd lose at least some of their support - maybe enough to make a political difference.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or better yet... -- q 3, 19:28:02 11/05/04 Fri

...Abolish state marriage licences altogether. Replace with civil unions for everyone. Protect marriage from those evil "activist judges" in the most effective way possible--by taking marriage out of the hands of the government, and leaving its maintenance to communities (read: churches).

[> [> [> [> [> Likewise... -- monsieurxander, 17:22:35 11/06/04 Sat

...Trying not to offend.

I believe all of the sufficient counter-points have been made ("two adults signing a legally binding contract, which animals and inanimate objects cannot do," "Popular opinion does not necessarily denote correctness or truth," "homosexuals having the right to marry who they want is not a special right," "seperation of church and state," etc. etc. etc.).

That being said, just because you tack on a "No Offense" disclaimer does not ensure that your abrasive words will not offend. At least one other poster agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but this poster presented his views in a respectful manner. While I still think of his view as dangerous, for reasons I posted in my original comment, he was at least courteous enough not to be so deliberately antagonistic and downright hurtful. Just because your "offenses" were more between the lines than in one's face does not make them sting any less.

You could have presented your views in a much different, more constructive, and ultimately more productive (for your agenda) manner. Simply put, you have engaged in actions which I would not hesitate to label "trollish." At least one other poster has defended you against charges of trolldom, but trust me when I say that that particular poster is wrong in her assertion.

That said, I realize that your beliefs and (faulty) logic reflect the way a lot of Americans think. My first instinct would be to resort to namecalling, "You're a troll!" "You're stinky!" etc. However, I realize that said attitude is counterproductive. I am going to give you something that you so obviously have not reserved for me... respect.

I think that your logic has been peacefully combated in almost every way, and I sincerely hope and pray that you, along with all the others that think like you, will some day, if not today, realize the suffering that your words and actions are causing. To paraphrase a favorite movie of mine... You're not evil; just misinformed.

Again, I am not trying to start a flame war with you. I am just trying to let you know, in a respectful yet direct and (hopefully) effective manner, where I'm coming from and what your attitude causes.

My regards,
MX

[> [> My mind is constantly boggled -- Pony, 19:01:35 11/03/04 Wed

I just can't understand how the idea of civil unions has anything to do with anyone besides the two people getting married. There's just so much hatred out there and it seems like the election only increased it.

I'm so sorry to hear all that you and your friends have been through, monsieurxander. I can only hope things become better, that all this is the reactionary last gasps of an outmoded system of beliefs... until then be safe.

[> [> Re: Here I am, mystified... -- Ann, 19:19:34 11/03/04 Wed

Thank you for telling us this and being brave to do so.

I said similarly in another context recently, that it is not you or what you are doing that is wrong and you should certainly not to be made to feel so, but it is the world around you that is lost.

I agree that there are direct connections between slurs and slights to the institutionalization of hate and the dissolving of civil rights.

[> [> I agree. Warning: A little ranty. -- Arethusa, 06:59:19 11/04/04 Thu

When you say "Gee, I don't think homosexuals should be able to get married. Better yet, let's endorse state and federal amendments to ensure they never get that right!"... you directly lead to the sort extremism that I've detailed in this rant. Yes, directly.

I agree, and I'm afraid it'll just get worse, because bigotry worked so well for them. They threw everything they had at Kerry and several things stuck, but it was gay marriage that turned the tide for them, and they won't forget it. And they justify it in the name of God, which makes it incredibly hard to combat.

What's so discouraging is that nothing else matters to so many people. My Catholic church warned against voting solely on the abortion issue because of the Republicans' views on the death penalty and the deaths in Iraq. They said the culture of life issue is about more than abortion. But they didn't say a word about the bigotry against gays, even though Jesus very clearly makes no exceptions for whom we're supposed to love and accept.

And this "love the sinner but hate the sin" stuff is a crock. It's hair-splitting that no other so-called "sin" is subjected to, and an excuse for self-rightousness that God expressedly forbade. Judge not lest ye be judged.

Embracing hate in your heart is the biggest sin of all.

[> [> [> Re: I agree. Warning: A little ranty. -- Mr. Banangrabber, 10:35:22 11/04/04 Thu

The most distressing thing about the swell of homophobia in America is how it's setting back the legitimate gains in gay rights that were made during the nineties. When I get depressed about this (& the last few days have been large with the depression)I remember that during the height of the Aids Crisis in the eighties, the possibility that America would seriously be talking about gay marriage in 15 years would have seemed like a pariticularly cruel fantasy yet that discussion did take place. There is a long way to go for gay rights in the country (and they were dealt a huge set-back on Tuesday night) but the struggle will continue.

[> [> [> [> Good point. -- Arethusa, 10:43:58 11/04/04 Thu


[> [> [> [> There's hope... -- Maura, 23:16:03 11/04/04 Thu

I agree with Banangrabber that it's distressing to see the gains in gay rights being undone. I also agree that the struggle will continue. And gay rights will win. Eventually having same-sex partners won't be an issue (even the distinction "gay" will become relatively unimportant, I expect). A lot of people in this thread have likened gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement, and I think it's a good analogy. We're at a stage now where the "police dogs" are being set on people, precisely because gay people have been making strides and getting heard. Imagine gay marriage being a legislative issue in the 1960s. No one suggested amendments to ban it, then, because it wasn't even on the radar. So we are seeing setbacks, but it's part of a larger movement forward.

To respond to Arethusa's post: she writes, "But they didn't say a word about the bigotry against gays, even though Jesus very clearly makes no exceptions for whom we're supposed to love and accept." I think this is exactly the way to win back the born-again Christian element from the Republicans. The Democrats can make a stronger claim to actually live by Christ's most central teachings: love people; treat them with respect. It's just a question of switching the focus of the rhetoric from our sex/reproductive lives to loving your neighbor and your enemy. This should be possible.

[> Re: The coming collapse of Western Civilization.. -- Rich, 21:00:13 11/03/04 Wed

..was predicted by BOTH sides in the first Presidential election in which I actually voted, unless their candidate won. That was Nixon vs. McGovern, BTW. I've heard similar remarks made about Carter, Reagan, Bush, & Clinton, as well as most of their opponents - oddly enough, I don't recall anybody saying it about Ford . Western Civilization somehow managed to survive all of them, & I'm beginning to suspect that it will probably outlast me ( & possibly you ) - regardless of who sits in the White House.

[> [> Yes, but how many will needlessly suffer? -- Arethusa, 06:38:13 11/04/04 Thu


[> I think it says something... -- Seven, 07:36:35 11/04/04 Thu

Now this is just my opinion, but we had a huge voter turnout this year. Does anyone agree that this was because we had two candidates that inspired so many more millions of people to vote? I sure don't. I think our choices have become so bad that we are forced to not vote FOR someone but vote AGAINST another. It's a real shame.

So here' my wish list for 2008:

Republican: John McCain - You have to love a politician that at least SEEMS like he's telling the truth (Hey, he might even actually tell the truth)

Democratic: Hillary Rodem(sp?) Clinton: I wanted a Clinton this year!! I'll gladly take a woman of her ability for the job.

RALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADERRALPH NADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's cool too.

7

[> [> Go back to Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers... -- Ames, 13:59:46 11/04/04 Thu

Forget all this idealistic "election by the people" crap, and just let major corporations bid to run the government for 4 years at a time. The one with the lowest qualified bid and the best contractual offer wins. You could keep the Judicial branch of government, and replace the other two with the Commercial branch. :-)

[> [> [> Re: Go back to Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers... -- LadyStarlight (who has huge issues with the movie version), 16:52:58 11/04/04 Thu

Actually, wasn't it that only people who had served in the military in some capacity could vote?

Heinlein called those people "Citizens", always capitalized and they decided the issues, IIRC.

Don't go by the movie, go by the book.

[> [> [> [> Re: Go back to Heinlein's idea in Starship Troopers... -- Rich, 17:39:08 11/04/04 Thu

As best I can remember (it was a LONG time ago ) it was 2 years of public service - the military wasn't the only choice. But I may be remembering it wrong. The logic was that the community should be run by people who were willing to sacrifice for the community.

[> [> [> Uhmmm... -- OnM, 20:18:02 11/06/04 Sat

*** Forget all this idealistic "election by the people" crap, and just let major corporations bid to run the government for 4 years at a time. ***

Aren't we pretty much doing that already?

[> So long, farewell, amen. -- Corwin of Amber, 16:54:30 11/04/04 Thu

What happened in this election was that more people voted for Bush than did for Kerry or Nader. Thats it. Thats all. Thats the way it works! This has been happening for two centuries in this country. You'd think the liberal elites would realize that our system is a robust one, and the country will largely be the same four years after any particular election.

When I fail at something, what I do is sit down and analyze what I did wrong. I don't try to blame anyone but myself when I fail.

The Democrats failed because they don't understand the people they had to convince to vote for them. They'll keep failing until they do.

[> [> It's not quite that simple -- Sophist, 17:27:12 11/04/04 Thu

When I fail at something, what I do is sit down and analyze what I did wrong. I don't try to blame anyone but myself when I fail.

The Democrats failed because they don't understand the people they had to convince to vote for them. They'll keep failing until they do

Exactly the same might have been said (and actually was) by those who supported slavery and segregation and Japanese internment. I'm personally glad Lincoln and Martin Luther King didn't take your advice. Sometimes the message needs to change, sometimes the messenger does, but sometimes the listeners do. And they will, as Thomas Jefferson himself was confident:

A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. ... If the game runs sometimes against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, & then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are the stake.

Jefferson was a liberal elite, you know.

[> [> [> Re: It's not quite that simple -- Rockhead, 19:43:46 11/04/04 Thu

"Jefferson was a liberal elite, you know"

I suppose that is true. However, if the liberal elite in the USA want to get their candidates elected they need to learn how to translate their message into something that most of the country can relate to. But if they want to wait a generation or three for the country to catch up that's their business.

The Bush campaign has been accused of using fear to get the vote out. Actually the Democrats tried that too. They wanted the country to be afraid of George Bush and his policies. They wanted Democrat voters to be afraid that the Reupublicans were going to try to prevent them from voting. Both sides were trying to inspire their voters to go to the polls, and they weren't holding anything back. In the end there was a record turnout and Bush won. And he won on "moral issues" more than anything else.

I see no reason why the Democrats couldn't win on moral issues. They just need to make it part of the campaign. They need to state those issues in terms that "Conservative Christians" can embrace. But if they dismiss this entire block of voters as uneducated bigots they can keep losing elections. Why not educate them?

[> [> [> [> Re: It's not quite that simple -- Sophist, 21:15:16 11/04/04 Thu

if the liberal elite in the USA want to get their candidates elected they need to learn how to translate their message into something that most of the country can relate to

Well, liberal elites like Jefferson, Lincoln and King found it more effective to stay on message and let the justice of their cause sink in.

It's very common in times of crisis for the public to react in fear. What that usually generates, as we (and Jefferson) saw, for example, in 1798, in WWI, in WWII, and in the Cold War, is a demand for conformity as a method of self-reassurance. Afterwards, of course, people regret their haste and recover their good sense. At least Jefferson believed that and I do too.

I see no reason why the Democrats couldn't win on moral issues.

I entirely agree. After all, the Democrats had much the better case to make on such moral values such as honesty, responsibility, tolerance, and respect for others. Kerry should have made that case better than he did.

That said, this is a long term process. It took Jefferson 9 years to move from opposition to the Presidency. It took King 8 years to go from the bus boycott to the Civil Rights Act. It took 15 years for Lincoln to go from opposing the Mexican War to the White House, 6 years from the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The slowness of the process can perhaps be emphasized by the polls showing that over half of Bush voters still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible in some way for 9/11. If it takes this long on an issue where there is no dispute, imagine how long it would take if there were.

And he won on "moral issues" more than anything else.

The exit polls I saw did not support this claim. They showed that he won on "security" issues. Did you have one in mind?

if they dismiss this entire block of voters as uneducated bigots they can keep losing elections. Why not educate them?

You mean like Bush dismisses "Massachusetts liberals"? Kerry was very respectful of all voters, particularly voters of faith. There certainly are Democrats who dismiss the Christian Right, but just as certainly there are conservatives who dismiss all liberals as "traitors". Generally, presidential candidates themselves are careful not to do this; Bush is an exception on this score.

[> [> [> [> [> Two Changes to Win -- dmw, 04:59:01 11/05/04 Fri

Kerry was very respectful of all voters, particularly voters of faith.

Unfortunately, he doesn't speak their language the way that Bush II does or how one of the Democratic presidents like Clinton or Carter did. The next Democratic president to be successful needs to speak that moral, religious language and needs to be a governor, not a legislator.

[> [> [> [> [> exit polls -- Rockhead, 07:24:43 11/05/04 Fri

According to the CNN website the main issues named in the exit polls were:

22% moral values
20% jobs/economy
19% terrorism
15% Iraq

Those who named moral values as the most important issue went 80% for Bush. Terrorism was also a big Bush issue, and he got 86% of those voters. Kerry got 80% of those who voted on the economy and 73% of those who named Iraq as the main issue.

But I don't see how you can treat Iraq and terrorism as completely separate issues. Without the 9/11 attacks Bush would not have received the OK to go to war in Iraq, and the war is not popular. By keeping the focus (of much of the voting public) on terrorism Bush gained more than enough votes to offset opposition to the war. Of course that was important in a close election. But if you split the 22% of the voters who named moral issues as most important, Kerry wins in a landslide.

So why does the Republican Party get the bulk of the churchgoers' vote? I believe this is simply because they speak to those people. They do not ignore them. The Democratic Party has not cultivated that vote. Maybe I am wrong about this, but I have a hard time believing all of those people watch Pat Robertson. The Democrats need to get more of the Bible Belt votes. But they (seemingly) write those voters off every election, much like the Rebublicans write off the black vote.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting point on the polls -- Sophist, 08:55:32 11/05/04 Fri

22% moral values
20% jobs/economy
19% terrorism
15% Iraq

Those who named moral values as the most important issue went 80% for Bush. Terrorism was also a big Bush issue, and he got 86% of those voters. Kerry got 80% of those who voted on the economy and 73% of those who named Iraq as the main issue.

The polls identifying "security" as a primary issue seem to have let voters decide which way to go on Iraq. Those who support the war therefore got added to those who see terrorism (more narrowly defined) as the problem. That explains the poll results I saw.

The Democratic Party has not cultivated that vote

I think (I don't know this for sure) that Kerry expected economic issues to trump "moral" ones. Democrats have in the past successfully cultivated those voters on that basis. It didn't work this time (duh).

[> [> [> [> [> [> Kennedy vs. Kerry -- Cleanthes, 09:00:17 11/05/04 Fri

Much of the discussion focuses on the horror of the Evangelical vote which, of course, heavily favored Bush.

As a person who heavily campaigned for George McGovern and successfully predicted that Nixon wouldn't actually get four more years, I've long pondered why McGovern did so poorly against a crook. As I point out supra, legislators don't normally do well, but Senator Kennedy beat Nixon, although not at all by a landslide.

John Kerry got 47% of the Catholic vote. Imagine telling a voter in 1960 that in less than 50 years a Catholic nominee from Massachusetts wouldn't even get a majority of the Catholic vote.

John F. Kennedy got 84% of the Catholic vote in 1960. The democratic party long, long stood for Catholics and for immigrants (like the Irish) from Catholic countries.

Bush got more than half the Hispanic vote here in Florida and increased his portion of the Hispanic/Latino vote everywhere, even in New York.

In 1968, Richard Nixon first proposed improving education by aiding parochial schools, which had for the longest time been a plank on the Democrat's platform. This was well before Evangelicals were on the radar screen and long before there were many private schools that weren't Catholic.

It was a Republican (Blaine) who allowed that the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion".

Nowadays, the the democrats are bought and paid for by the NEA and the trial lawyers. My daughter teaches 5th grade at an inner city Catholic school. Not only were few of the teachers there voting for Kerry, upwards of 20% of the students were from families voting for Bush (at an 100% black school!). How do they afford to go to a private school? A grant from the local NFL football team as part of the "faith based initiative".

The Democrats are not going to increase their showing without some changes in who they sneer at.

John Kerry was no George McGovern, by a long shot. I'm saddened that Kerry didn't lose all 50 states, because he should have done worse than McGovern who, after all, opposed a truly incorrectly fought war and ran against a crook.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rum, Romanism and Rebellion -- Sophist, 09:29:04 11/05/04 Fri

It was a Republican (Blaine) who allowed that the Democrats were the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion".

Blaine, of course, did not say this. It was an obscure Protestant minister in NY named Samuel D. Burchard.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> True -- Cleanthes, 13:27:14 11/05/04 Fri

But then, that Protestant minister was also Republican and Blaine pandered to this in the most political way by waffling about disavowing it.

What, exactly, is wrong with rum? I think Kerry could have helped his cause by drinking more of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: True -- Sophist, 13:45:52 11/05/04 Fri

Blaine pandered to this in the most political way by waffling about disavowing it.

IIRC, the speech came very shortly before the election (a week?). Blaine had little chance to say anything about it, though it is true that he took a couple days to react (assuming he heard it).

Because of the party realignments since 1884, btw, it is important to read the party designations correctly. The 1884 Republicans were equivalent to the 2004 Democrats, and vice versa. However, Burchard's comments were more akin to what we see today from the Republicans: he was accusing the Democrats of, in essence, treason, permissiveness, and irreligion. The Ann Coulter of his day, though less well-known.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Iraq & terror = 2 aspects of 1 issue ? -- Rich, 13:38:07 11/08/04 Mon

IMO - Iraq & terror are both part of the "Middle East situation" megaproblem. The link isn't cause & effect - more like 2 effects which may (or may not) have a common cause or causes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Iraq & terror = 2 aspects of 1 issue ? -- Bjerkley, 13:45:51 11/08/04 Mon

I think that while it's true that they now form part of the same megaproblem, I do not think that was the case before we invaded. The problems in Iraq are now linked to the same sort of fundmantalism which has caused problems, but pre-invasion, the "problem" of Iraq was a dictator of the sort who could and can be found across the globe.

Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy - we say long enough that there are links between Iraq and terrorism, and lo, Iraq becomes linked to terrorism.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Iraq & terror = 2 aspects of 1 issue ? -- Rich, 14:42:55 11/08/04 Mon

This depends on whether or not you think there is some fundamental problem or problems which underlie all the separate problems in the Middle East. This has been discussed at great length on some other sites (& probably isn't appropriate on this one). If you're interested in an example ( I don't know if it's typical ), you could try http://denbeste.nu/. The poster is on hiatus at the moment, but there should be a lot of material in the archives, & several links.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the link -- Bjerkley, 14:49:22 11/08/04 Mon

I always thought that Hussein was atypical for the region, or at least the problems and issues were rather separate, but I'll check the link out and have my mind expanded :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for the link -- Rich, 14:53:54 11/08/04 Mon

I should probably mention that some of the views expressed on this site are not "politically correct" - although that can also be educational.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> US Occupation-inspired terrorism -- dmw, 15:48:11 11/09/04 Tue

I don't think there was originally a connection, and I think Hussein could've been removed without inspiring the type of terrorism that US occupation is experiencing now. However, the decisions Bremer made with the support of the Bush administration in the early days caused deep enough problems in Iraqi society to make the current level of terrorism inevitable. Some of the problems are described in the article Baghdad Year Zero.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> General Wesley Clark said ... -- frisby, 16:50:14 11/09/04 Tue

General Wesley Clark said he saw a memo long before 9-11 outlining a plan to invade and control iraq iran syria and a few others -- a pentagon memo.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That doesn't mean much though ... -- Pip, 14:47:14 11/10/04 Wed

As it's not uncommon practice in the miliary of many countries (including my own) to prepare a range of hypothetical plans for trouble spots. Firstly, it's a good training exercise for your strategic planning staff; secondly, it can save valuable time when things do blow up unexpectedly.

The Arabian Gulf has been pretty volatile for years; If the Pentagon was doing its job they should have had a range of plans prepared for the various non-friendly Gulf countries; all the way from 'search and rescue raid' up to 'full scale invasion'. Each plan to be brought out and dusted off only if required.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're right. I made too much of it. -- frisby, 15:59:31 11/10/04 Wed

I think you're right. I most likely made too much of what Clark said. But in times like these it's hard to not go all paranoid about the imperial ambitions of the US. Maybe we should just try what Persia and Rome and Britain etc tried but to do it right this time. In Bacon's _New Atlantis_ the position is presented that America will finally accomplish what all hitherto 'atlantises' (attempts by peoples to become global through the power of technology) have failed at: namely, to progress forever and not simply rise and fall, to progress to the point of having established dominion over all of creation.

Or maybe we should be content with Kant's cosmolopolitanism...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pre-9/11 Iraq War Plans -- dmw, 05:54:23 11/11/04 Thu

If you look at foreign threats discussed by Condoleeza Rice and others before 9/11 (and her planned speech for 9/11 before events caused them to scrap it), you'll see Saddam Hussein and Iraq mentioned with great frequency, but al Quada mentioned only once. Former Bush cabinet member, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, said that Bush had been planning to attack Iraq before 9/11. There's also the Project for a New American Century, whose plan (in 2000) was written and/or supported by Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Cheney, Jeb Bush, and others closely associated with Bush, that discussed using American military force to take control of more of the oil resources of the Arabian peninsula. I have no doubt that Iraq was the major Bush target well before 9/11, and he was just waiting for a reason that could be used (or twisted in the case of 9/11) for his war.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What's Next Then? Iran? Syria? Korea? -- frisby, 09:49:19 11/11/04 Thu

If Iraq was the 'major' target even before 9/11, then what were/are the minor targets? And what will be next? And does Saudi Arabia 'really' own trillions of dollars of the US? And if most of the other countries of the world quit investing in the dollar, and sell their US stocks, then will we fall apart economically like the USSR did when it happened to them?

[> [> [> I'm sorry, but it IS that simple. -- Corwin of Amber, 20:14:28 11/04/04 Thu

Look at the 2000-2004 election results by county here.

The little blue islands in the sea of red are shrinking. The Republicans only have to bag a few more counties in New York and Calfiforina and the democratic party ceases to exist as a national force in politics. After that, what happens?

[> [> [> [> I like color maps -- Sophist, 20:43:01 11/04/04 Thu

Here's one:

Purple States

It's pretty divisive (to say nothing of silly) to paint the country in red and blue when the reality is far more complex. The "few more counties" you mention collectively contain more people than most of the Lousiana Purchase. The chances of converting a few thousand voters in, say, NM, NV and IA are far greater than the chances of any such massive swing as you envision.

And I think you missed Jefferson's point.

[> [> [> [> [> I love this map -- Caroline, 18:24:48 11/05/04 Fri

and with it you've restored some of my hope. Thank you.

[> [> [> [> [> Maps by population -- dmw, 09:50:05 11/06/04 Sat

While the purple map is excellent for showing the complexity of the situation, you might also find this map informative, which sizes the voting regions by population:


[> [> [> How apposite -- Tchaikovsky, 02:49:37 11/05/04 Fri

It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt.

That's just scarily prescient.

Jefferson was a liberal elite, you know.

LOL.

TCH

[> [> [> You rock! -- Rahael, 14:23:58 11/05/04 Fri

But you know that I think that already.

[> [> To fail, or not to fail, that is the something or other. -- OnM, 20:33:54 11/06/04 Sat

*** When I fail at something, what I do is sit down and analyze what I did wrong. I don't try to blame anyone but myself when I fail. ***

A few months ago, the company I work for changed ownership as the original owner is going to retire at year's end. While many things have stay the same, one change has been in the health insurance provider.

The previous provider was a fairly standard insurance policy with a $275 yearly deductible, and good prescription drug coverage (important to me, as I currently take three daily prescription drugs for various health-related issues, all of them 'normal' age-related infirmities.

The new company has a different provider who utilizes a 'health savings plan'. Under this plan, the amount I pay per month for premiums is much less, but the deductible rises to $1750 per year. Perscription drug coverage is very poor-- one prescription which previously cost me $25 per month is now $125 per month. A second one which was $15 for a 3 month supply is now $50.

Therefore, when all the figures are adjusted, I am now failing to earning as much money than I was just two months ago, by a very respectable amount.

So now my question to you is: How did I fail, and what can I do about it?

[> [> [> Whoops-- incoherency much. -- OnM, 20:37:23 11/06/04 Sat

Try:

Therefore, when all the figures are adjusted, I am now failing to earn as much money as I was just two months ago, and by a very respectable amount.

[> [> Understanding the other side -- matching mole, 16:06:20 11/07/04 Sun

This election struck me as dramatically different from all others that I have observed in that I can't understand the mindset of people who voted for Bush. I can understand why Reagan was elected in 1980 and re-elected in 1984. I can see why people might have voted for Bush I in 1988 or in 1992. Or Dole in 1996 or even Bush II in 2000. I might disagree with the decisions of those voters but their decisions are comprehensible to me.

But what I see is the most disasterous term in office in my memory. And I'm not talking in ideological terms but in purely practical terms and in general moral terms (i.e. not moral issues in which liberals and conservatives might differ but ones that are generally held).

Specifically I'm talking about -

extreme fiscal irresponsibility which has produced mediocre short-term economic performance and enormous deficits

incredibly irresponsible environmental policy which is based on either blindness masquerading as optimism or incredible cynicism

increases in government secrecy even in areas that have nothing to do with national security

denying basic human rights (right to a trial and legal defense) for a lengthy and indefinite period

going from a nation of immense power and moral influence to one that is currently significantly hindered in international action and is viewed with grave suspicion by the populations of most nations on earth. I'm not weighing in on who is right here - but this doesn't bode well for getting things done in the 'war on terror'

hyping the evidence for WMD as a rationale for the war in Iraq beyond the merits of that evidence. Using that as a justification for a war that has been enormously costly in both lives and dollars and seems, if you want to be charitable, to be equivocal in terms of its effect on the war on terror.

Failing to prepare properly for this war. The process of deciding to go to war in Iraq and the process of actually going to war in Iraq and then managing it afterward seem to be the most dramatic mis-step of my adult life.

If a Democratic president had this kind of record with completely different ideological rationales I wouldn't vote for them (hopefully they would fail to get renominated).

So, Corwin of Amber (or Vegeta) what disturbs me primarily is not that conservatives won (although I'm not happy about that) but that a president that I consider to have failed miserably on non-ideological grounds appears to have been re-elected by people who appear (and I don't want to be insulting here but I can think of no other way to phrase this) to have not given any thought to what the administration has actually done.

I would like to reach out and breach the gap but I can't reach out to something I find so incomprehensible. Maybe it is some essential Canadianess in me (despite 20 years in the U.S. including substantial periods in conservative areas like Oklahoma and Arizona) that believes in peace, order and good government as being of central importance.

I would like to understand - so any explanations would be appreciated.

[> [> [> Consider this possibility! -- frisby, 18:40:21 11/07/04 Sun

Either those 59 million voted for bush 2 out of spite, simply because they hate the way the east and west coasts think of them as stupid bible thumping homophobes, or, there were not 59 million people who voted for bush 2 -- the election was hijacked by fraud, and the number of votes increased to 59 million from, say, maybe, 46?

[> Ick -- BuffyObsessed, 14:44:41 11/06/04 Sat

Ick... Bush Sucks. Thats all I have to say.

[> Bush cheats again.. see msnbc url. (READ THIS!) -- frisby, 17:47:25 11/08/04 Mon

It's finally coming out. I told you so. See
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240
for example. Both Florida and Ohio cheated in favor of bush 2. For example, in Holmes county in Florida, 10,982 people were registered to vote (7988 democrats and 2344 republicans) and 8298 actually voted (1810 voting democrat and 6410 voting republican). This means that one-half of all registered democrats came out to vote and voted republican! If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you. This happened in 2-3 dozen counties, and in all of those counties there is no paper trail, and the results run counter (almost exactly) to the exit polls. And this happened in no counties that do have paper trails, and in those counties the results match the exit polls.

There is no doubt. The votes were switched in those counties that went for kerry. The exit polls (as Dick Morris said) were not wrong. It 'was' a kerry landslide, but Karl Rove played the machiavellian card and cheated. According to the msnbc report, the homeland security office played some kind of role.

Also check out
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

Plato taught in the _Republic_ that it is important for the rulers to control any 'chance' event from behind the scenes so the people 'think' one think with reality being another (the famous nupital number passage). In this case, it's important for the bush administration that the american people 'believe' he won by a landslide with a mandate while in reality he lost. The rulers give themselves permission to lie in the name of the good and to cheat in the name of jusice.

As Buffy said to Giles, "lie to me," the truth is just too bitter.

[> [> Okay, now I am really, really freakin scared... -- DorianQ, 18:19:25 11/08/04 Mon


[> [> [> We should be ... those crazy christians WANT their armageddon -- frisby, 20:23:01 11/08/04 Mon

I was raised to be a crazy christian, and only the university provided some enlightenment. I was crazy myself. I didn't care for the earth -- it was cursed. Life on earth including the animals? Nothing to do with 'us' -- we were going to heaven. We lived every day anxiously awaiting, no, desiring, the last days, when the dead would rise again and we'd all be together again in the 'other' world. To bring about the final days we crazy christians have to take over america so as to get our hands on the power -- will we have to use biologial weapons to erase all who are not saved by the blood of jesus? ok. There's a special argot, an esoteric language, that secular types pass off as nonsense, not understanding it. It's not all that different than the inquisition days: those who don't have the correct beliefs must be punished for the good of their eternal souls, and then they can die. Look at the history of christianity! All the 'people of the book' -- how can they ever permit buddhists and hindus to exist? And the modern secular humanity? who say we're apes? That belief must not even be allowed to be spoken much less thought. The political philosophy of the crazy christians is a very dangerous reality and we really should be freakin scared. The truth is that religion is indeed very important, and the religions are eventually forced to fight in some manner or other for dominance. I today stand for the religion of modernity, which includes science and engineering and technology, and which celebrates progress and democracy and liberalism, and even capitalism. Nietzsche is the prophet of modernity. His position is that God is dead and we must now unlearn many things but most of all we must learn to be true to the earth.

A little persecution anyone? Maybe some heresy? For moslems apostasy is the one unforgivable sin, punishable by death. The next decade will make history, again.

[> [> Bush Didn't Cheat, but you can keep the bridge -- Russ, 20:31:11 11/09/04 Tue

I have to rise out of lurkdom to respond to this. Florida was part of the Confederacy, and as is the case with all of the Confederate States, voted solidly Democratic for about a century. Many people have retained their Democratic registration while actually voting Republican. Here are the election results for Holmes County for Presidential Elections since 1980, (the oldest results available on the Florida Secretary of State s web site).

Year Rep. Dem.
1980 3208 2767
1984 4547 1231
1988 4221 1639
1992 3196 1877
1996 3248 2310
2000 5011 2177
2004 6410 1810

As you can see, there is nothing unusual about this year s results. This pattern is repeated for counties throughout the state.

[> [> [> Thanks for clearing up some of the confusion... -- frisby, 03:47:14 11/10/04 Wed

I still suspect something amiss in election-land, but I've also leanred that you're likely correct with regard to the phenomenon of the dixiecrats. It's still hard to swallow that over one-half of the democrats in those counties voted for bush though. Thanks for emerging from lurkdom to clear up some of the confusion. I remain suspicious, somewhat angry, and would still prefer totally public elections. There's nothing like a cool head when events heat up. Thanks again.

[> [> [> [> Thank you for the kind words: -- Russ, 23:18:55 11/12/04 Fri

Too often, in this highly charged political atmosphere, questioning an assertion from someone on either side results in anger and denial. Your graciousness is much appreciated.

One other factor helps to explain the Dixiecrat vote. Until very recently, (and still true in many cases), state and local elections were completely dominated by Democrats. The winner of the Democratic Primary was for all practical purposes the guaranteed winner of the general election. As many states do not allow cross-over voting in primaries, these voters had to maintain their Democratic registration to have any input into who their state and local officials were.

[> [> [> [> [> You're Welcome. But you understand how I might ... -- frisby, 09:12:08 11/13/04 Sat

But without knowing about the dixiecrats you likely can understand just how 'bad' it looks --

I know now, but I must say, when I first learnt about the votes in those counties it seemed beyond doubt that there had been fraud ...

I've seen learned that 'those' people associate loosely with that previously democratic senator (zell?) who spoke at the republican convention ... (so now i say 'no wonder')

overall though, i remain convinced that our election process needs an oversite (who watches the watchers --) -- maybe the League of Women Voters?

If the journalism world really were 'neutral' and/or 'objective' to some degree, maybe they could run the elections?

maybe that's simply the main problem: if politics trumps everything (even truth often says Arendt) then what possible mechanism or institution can force it to conform to law of some sort and insure morality of some sort?

otherwise, it's all just raw or disguised power....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: who watches the watchers ? -- Rich, 12:31:48 11/13/04 Sat

In theory, they're supposed to watch each other - hence 3 branches of government, 2 houses of Congress (and a sincere thank you to our British cousins for that idea). How you translate that concept to the electoral process is another matter. The media DO have a role here, as do various NGOs - but they're ultimately not accountable to the public (which is one of the problems with using exit polls,BTW). I don't really have an answer to this one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "Dixiecrat" joke -- Rich, 14:01:47 11/13/04 Sat

This one could be as much as a 100 years old:

In a rural Southern precinct, election officials discovered a single vote for a Republican candidate. This was so unprecedented that it led to a complete recount - which revealed *2* votes for the Republican candidate !! The result:
"The son of a bitch musta voted twice, so we won't count either of 'em".

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another Souther political joke ( I'm on a roll) -- Rich, 14:14:28 11/13/04 Sat

This one is even older:

During the Civil War (ours), a Southern politician gave a speech in which he claimed "We could beat the damn Yankees with popguns !!"

After the war, he ran again, & visited the same town. A spectator confronted him: "Didn't you say we could beat the Yanks with popguns ??"
he replied: "I did - & I was right..We coulda done it. But the bastards just wouldn't fight us that way !!"

[> It's not over yet...(Dec 7th congressional hearing!) -- frisby, 09:21:51 11/19/04 Fri

Common Cause is still investigating election problems and possibly election fraud - they are joining a lawsuit in Ohio and there's a congressional hearing December 7. See their website for details of what they are doing - www.commoncause.org
Angel fans --- come one, come all. -- deathless one, 14:01:57 11/03/04 Wed

I am a huge fan of Angel and felt like staking myself when the show was canceled. I was browsing the internet looking for anything Angel, and came across ATS-NoLimits, the virtual season 6 of Angel. After reading the first four episodes, I was left breathless. ATS-NoLimits is brilliant. It s as if I am watching the new season, well, reading it. A lot of fanfic, I ve noticed, usually presents itself as "kind of close" to the characters, and their behavior, but somehow, to me, they always fall short. ATS is blessed with writers that stick directly to the "Angelic" nature. It is dead on target. It s as if the writers of Angel were reincarnated into these people. From the comedic and bitter-sweet chemistry between Angel and Spike, to Illyria s blunt and morbid personality, along with her extensive vocabulary, and to the story lines and how they unfold, is absolutely the way any Angel fan would want. ATS-no limits is perfect. If those evil "Wolfram & Hart" wannabes at the WB hadn t of canceled our beloved Angel, this is what I think the direction of the show would have taken. Joss himself would be tickled and proud. So, come on down and get your fix, you will not be disappointed.

Tonight, Nov. 3rd, at 9pm, Episode 6.5 is airing. But if I were any one of you who is interested, get caught up before tonight s ep, otherwise, you will be left in absolute darkness, having no clue how tonight s ep got up to this point.

Go here: http://ats-nolimits.com/index.php

Sincerely me,
me

Replies:

[> Personally, I don't like it. -- monsieurxander, 15:31:49 11/03/04 Wed

Simply put, Angel: No Limits is too much.

If Angel had started as a Showtime-esque show, I could but it. But not suddenly transforming it into a different being altogether. I love slashy subtext as much as the next guy, but setting up Wesley as the object of Angel's tragic, repressed affections is a bit much for me. Also, the nudity and language showcased in the transcripts come off as more than a bit gratuitious... for the sake of "ooh, look what we can make the characters do!" It's a bit alienating.

"Nina leans over in her bathrobe, it falls open, and we see everything." [paraphrased] Sorry, kids. I don't buy it. It's too big of a leap for this particular show. If these guys all got together and wrote their own original material, I could possibly see myself reading it. But, as of right now, I just don't see the point.

[> I'm a fan -- Seven, 07:22:11 11/04/04 Thu

I've read the first couple episodes and enjoyed them immensely. I somewhat agree with monsieurxander, but I still am able to enjoy it. I did like the way they handled the ending of last season. It made it more ambiguous and it really seemed like the way ME might have handled it. (and I thought the dragon burns thing was really funny, especially in "A Temp is Just a Temp," when Wes confirmed that the ointment would work.

I do, however, feel that ATP's season six will be much more fun for us philosophical types. I can't wait to read more. Great job Masq and company!!! Keep it up!!!

7

Current board | More November 2004