Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:45:48
============================================================

Article 17507
From: ChemSleuth@earthlink.net (Dennis Doms)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 01:18:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Drug Testing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39DBA940.5E6DD6E4@aol.com>, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:

>Since this discussion is open, I thought this might be of interest:
>
>WASHINGTON (AP) - Hearing a case in which women were arrested from their
>hospital beds, Supreme Court justices today vigorously debated whether
>hospitals can test pregnant women for drug use and turn the results over
>to police. ``This is being done for medical purposes,'' suggested
>Justice Antonin Scalia. ``The police didn't show up at the hospital and
>say, `We'd like to find a way to bust your patients.''' But Justice Ruth
>Bader Ginsburg said she did not see how arresting women after they gave
>birth would protect the fetus, the primary concern of a South Carolina
>public hospital. ``I looked at the (hospital) consent form; it doesn't
>say anything about police,'' she said
>
>--
><<Big Charlie>>
>
>Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.

I wonder if the "angle" has to do with child abuse (which localities may
require to be reported).


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17508
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 21:42:31 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39DB85FB.405E2349@rcsis.com>, James Gifford writes...
> Can one (or several) of the resident Libertarians (or libertarians)
> explain to me why _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ is so highly regarded
> in L/libertarian circles?
> 
> Other than some of Prof's commentary about government ideals, I cannot
> see any (positive) L/libertarian aspects to the story or philosophy. I
> ass/u/me my political colorblindness is obscuring something.
> 
> What am I missing?
> 
> Small words, please, and don't assume I know what the buzzwords and
> catch phrases mean. Pretend I'm hailing from Tierra del Fuego.
> 
> Ad(thanks)vance.

I thought you would /never/ ask!  ;-)

TMiaHM presents a society governed by law that does not emanate from the 
state.  It is customary and it is "natural": Mannie tells us that the law 
among Loonies is as it /must/ be, given the way things /are/.

Loonie legal procedure is an anarcho-capitalist's dream.  (If you don't 
know the connection between A-C and libertarianism, it will take a rather 
lengthy digression.)   The plaintiff and defendant jointly pick a judge, 
and pay him directly for his efforts.  The cost of the decision depends 
on the severity of the alleged crime.  The judge pays the jury - if one 
is agreed upon - out of his revenue.  There is no executive branch of 
government: once a plaintiff has the law on his side, he is empowered to 
act directly to execute his own judgment.

The division of labor is keenly displayed in that, while many people act 
as judges from time to time ("who hasn't?" asks Mannie), Judge Brody is a 
full-time judge.  This indicates the market's recognition of the 
expertise involved in judging: Brody is sought out above others.  The 
only thing Mr. Heinlein left out was the possibility of a victorious 
plaintiff selling his judgment to someone else to execute.

Other facts: all schools are private, as is health and life insurance.  
Mr. Heinlein has it carefully emphasized that goods such as air - free on 
Earth - are scarce and so have a price in Luna.  Despite the lack of a 
formal government - the Authority doesn't really concern itself with most 
of Loonie life - there is no "mafia" or ruling oligopoly.  The real Mafia 
don who comes to Luna dies a quick death.

There is Prof's explicit philosophy of "rational anarchism" and moral 
individualism.  Groups of persons are not considered to have any residual 
moral status above that of the individuals that make them up.  And what 
does Prof say is humanity's /most basic/ right?  The right to bargain in 
a free marketplace!  Prof is the key intellectual driving force of the 
story.  When you say "other than some of Prof's commentary", you remind 
me of the joke, "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

And to top is off, what is the most famous bit of Loonie slang: 
Tanstaafl!!  The importance of trading for value in a free market is 
emphasized over and over.  What more do we need?

There is more, of course, but maybe this is enough.  But now you can help 
me.  I think you are perceptive enough a reader to have seen all of this.  
Why the question?  Or do you not see anything positive in these elements?    

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17509
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:35:33 -0700
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

We're a varied group.  Thank you for sharing.  I may have to give "The
Practice" and "Friends" another shot.  I set one VCR by TV Guide to record
the season Premiere of "JAG" last night, fell asleep trying to watch "Dumb
and Dumber" argue semantics on ABC, woke up a little after 8:00 PDT flipped
channels to find TV Guide had the time WRONG!  I joined at the end of the
opening credits, but did get to watch the rest of "JAG."  (got "Dark Angel"
on the other VCR)

I only get network television and UPN and the WB haven't found this market
yet.  I'm not sure if the local station that has been carrying ST:V is going
to continue for the final season.  Two of my favorite sitcoms moved from
ABC's T.G. I.F. to UPN and the WB. <pout>
--
`rita
waiting to find out Who's been hit.

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
William J. Keaton wrote in message <39dabcba.0@news.sff.net>...

"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@jps.net> wrote
>
>   Otherwise, Friends.
>
>
My co-workers got me started watching Friends a few years ago. I missed much
of the last season, thanks to my new satellite dish.

Non-SF. Hmmm, This Old House. Northern Exposure reruns. Not much else.
Unless it's on while I'm at work, I don't watch much network TV. I'll have
to check out the new lineup!

WJaKe





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17510
From: Madge Van Ness <madgevn@angelfire.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:21:52 -0400
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Actually, I do have an opinion. But you have convinced me that there is no
need to preach. But..."No greater love is there than to lay down one's life
for a friend..."

MadgEdith

lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:

>
> I can't see how internet babble can possibly contribute anything to this
> heartbreaking situation. The family must have already heard way too many
> opinions from all sides that only contribute to their agony in this no-win
> situation.
>
> But that won't stop the web-savvy. We are nothing if not opinionated. And
> quite aggressive in making sure others are aware of those opinions.
>
> If you are truely, in any way, involved with this situation I would hope
> you think better of your plan to "share ... with the parents" and keep your
> mouth shut.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17511
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 01:25:56 -0400
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Madge Van Ness wrote:

> Actually, I do have an opinion. But you have convinced me that there is no
> need to preach.

Aww, ME, don't let whatsisname badger you into silence. While there is much
wisdom in his suggestion that the parents in this case be left to their private
grief, the ungenerous spirit with which that "wisdom" was delivered entirely
undercuts it. Gentle counsel that passing our thoughts on to the parents might
not be kind would have been welcome; abrupt and sarcastic comments about
"aggressiveness" and "babble" are just obnoxious. Don't knuckle under to them.

The parents, doctors, lawyers, and judges who have been directly involved in
this heartbreaking case no doubt have their own private demons to wrestle with,
and their dignity should be respected... but that doesn't mean that it's
illegitimate for the rest of us to talk about the case. I find that
articulating, explaining, and defending my thoughts on situations like this
helps me to develop and refine my own understanding of the underlying ethical
issues... that it, in effect, helps make me a more moral person.[1] One of the
great values of a community like this, Web-savvy "babble" or no, is that it
provides a forum for that sort of personal exploration.

On the substance of the case, I side with Jim: Assuming the reported facts of
the case are accurate, and that neither twin has any reasonable chance of
survival absent the surgery, I think going forward with the separation is the
only life-affirming choice. As a Catholic myself, I was recently reminded from
the pulpit that "respect life" issues range far more broadly than merely
abortion; that all life is worthy of dignity and protection. How could watching
two children die and doing nothing POSSIBLY be more respectful of life than
acting to save one of them? If you accept the notion of God at all (and I
respect the fact that not everyone here does), how can you imagine that He
created us to stand passively by and watch our children die? The outcome may be
in His hands, but why should we assume that we are not His fingers?

Wrt "first, do no harm," we routinely consider it a "harm" when parents allow
children to die through neglect; why would we not consider it a "harm" for
doctors to do so? Is medicine somehow exempt from the concept of sins of
omission?

Additionally, from a sociopolitical point of view, it's well to remember that
children are NOT the property of their parents. The proper relationship of
parents to children, IMHO, is one of *stewardship*, not *sovereignty* (note,
though, that I understand stewardship to include a certain appropriate level of
authority; it's not as liberal a position as it might at first sound).
Protection of the child's life is the first duty of stewardship, and society
regularly "fires" parents who fall short in performing that duty.

Finally, I believe this is the best available solution for these parents: They
get (or at least, hopefully they *will* get) the best possible medical outcome
-- one live child -- without having to shoulder the anguish and grief of having
"killed" her sister. They may never say so out loud, but for as long as that
child lives, they will be grateful, in some secrect place in their hearts, that
they were "forced" to keep her. I salute the moral courage of the doctors and
lawyers who fought to give them that gift.

-JovBill

[1] Case in point: Though I had heard of, and thought briefly about, this case,
I had no idea how strongly I felt until I started to write this post. I now feel
a sense of clarity about the issue that had previously eluded me. Thanks for
listening


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17512
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 01:42:32 -0400
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Lorrita Morgan wrote:

> waiting to find out Who's been hit.

Well, now you know, don't you? ;^)

I agree with you (or at least I think I'm agreeing with you when I say this)
that _The West Wing_ is the best thing on TV right now (barring perhaps _Sex
and the City_ or _The Sopranos_; I don't get HBO, and so can't evaluate all the
buzz those shows get). I suspect the politics of the Bartlett administration
are waaaaay too liberal for many here, but the show is just so well crafted in
every respect that I don't see how you can fail to love it.

My other faves are also NBC dramas: _ER_ and _Law and Order_. I know both are a
bit long of tooth and probably past their prime, but they continue to exhibit
the same characteristics that make _TWW_ so compelling: great writing and a
dedicated cast of actors who truly bring to life characters you care about.

As for sitcoms, my pick is _Frasier_. I love _Friends_ (though I don't get to
see it often, because it deals with adult themes at 8:00pm when my 9 yr old is
awake <sigh>), but it's merely very good TV; _Frasier_, at its best, is true
comic art, every bit as valuable as a great comic film or stage play (the
episode about Maris' fencing teacher causes me severe humor-related abdominal
distress every time I see it). I also used to love _Mad About You_... but that
may just have been because of my secrect crush on Helen Hunt ;^)

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17513
From: Max <max@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:50:11 +0100
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
>The parents, doctors, lawyers, and judges who have been directly involved in
>this heartbreaking case no doubt have their own private demons to wrestle with,
>and their dignity should be respected... but that doesn't mean that it's
>illegitimate for the rest of us to talk about the case. I find that
>articulating, explaining, and defending my thoughts on situations like this
>helps me to develop and refine my own understanding of the underlying ethical
>issues... that it, in effect, helps make me a more moral person.[1] One of the
>great values of a community like this, Web-savvy "babble" or no, is that it
>provides a forum for that sort of personal exploration.

Agreed. If we shy away from discussion of painful subjects, we have less
cause for complaint if decisions are made for us, with which we decide
we don't perhaps agree after all. I know exactly what you mean about
making oneself more moral: thinking through such issues and dilemmas
makes a person a better human being, irrespective of whatever religious
beliefs they might hold.
I'm not aware of any reason why we ourselves shouldn't exercise our
consciences by considering the situations of others. Some may call it
babble if they will: giving something an unsavoury name does not detract
from its usefulness at a personal level.

>On the substance of the case, I side with Jim: Assuming the reported facts of
>the case are accurate, and that neither twin has any reasonable chance of
>survival absent the surgery, I think going forward with the separation is the
>only life-affirming choice. As a Catholic myself, I was recently reminded from
>the pulpit that "respect life" issues range far more broadly than merely
>abortion; that all life is worthy of dignity and protection. How could watching
>two children die and doing nothing POSSIBLY be more respectful of life than
>acting to save one of them?

Contrariwise, how can killing one to (hopefully) save the other be
excused? Might this not lead towards a path where the taking of a life
may become, in future, justified for less extreme reasons?

> If you accept the notion of God at all (and I
>respect the fact that not everyone here does), how can you imagine that He
>created us to stand passively by and watch our children die? The outcome may be
>in His hands, but why should we assume that we are not His fingers?

Nicely put. However, assume that one accepts that God exists, and a
Judaeo-Christian philosophy. Death, then, is not an occurrence that is
to be avoided at *any* cost, given the survival of the soul.

>Wrt "first, do no harm," we routinely consider it a "harm" when parents allow
>children to die through neglect; why would we not consider it a "harm" for
>doctors to do so? Is medicine somehow exempt from the concept of sins of
>omission?

Not intervening to attempt to prevent a person from dying is not, of
itself, omission or medical neglect: individual circumstances dictate
whether intervention is appropriate.
In terms of parenting, how much harm may a parent impose on their other
children to benefit one?

[...]

>Finally, I believe this is the best available solution for these parents: They
>get (or at least, hopefully they *will* get) the best possible medical outcome
>-- one live child -- without having to shoulder the anguish and grief of having
>"killed" her sister. They may never say so out loud, but for as long as that
>child lives, they will be grateful, in some secrect place in their hearts, that
>they were "forced" to keep her.

I hope you're right, and I hope the remaining girl grows up normal and
healthy and happy.

> I salute the moral courage of the doctors and
>lawyers who fought to give them that gift.

And the defending counsel who chose not to appeal, after the High Court
had given him leave so to do? Assuming, of course, that he had not, in
fact, been so instructed by the family. (He appeared to say it was his
decision in a radio interview).
>
>-JovBill
>
>[1] Case in point: Though I had heard of, and thought briefly about, this case,
>I had no idea how strongly I felt until I started to write this post. I now 
>feel
>a sense of clarity about the issue that had previously eluded me. Thanks for
>listening
>

Thanks for taking the trouble to write it down and share it, JovBill: it
helps.
-- 
Max
"I may not practice what I preach,
 but God forbid I should preach what I practice" - G K Chesterton

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17514
From: Max <max@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:09:52 +0100
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote:

[...]

>I believe that the weight of legal opinion in the US is that the wishes
>of parents contrary to medical advice with respect to children can be
>overridden by the courts. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot let children
>die rather than receive a life-saving transfusion, although adults can
>make that choice.

Such is the case here. I wasn't arguing about whether they should be
able to, just whether they ought to have done so here.

>From what I understand of the case, I think the UK government made the
>right choice. As a parent of new twins (as well as other children), I
>found reading about the case was intensely painful. But the choice is
>the loss of both children, or the chance of saving the healthier,
>stronger child by sacrificing her brain-damaged and underdeveloped twin.

A lot of the argument centred on whether the weaker twin could be
considered to be "alive" at all. If one accepts that, then a lot of
objections become meaningless.

>When the choices are equal (more or less), the parents's wishes should
>have some sway. But to let both children die, or at best live a limited,
>abnormal life, based on religious convictions (which the children are
>not capable of sharing), in the face of contrary medical opinion, is not
>a decision I would like to see any government or society support.

I'm not against courts ruling that parents' wishes shouldn't be
paramount. It was just I'm unclear in my own mind as to whether the
choice was right.
-- 
Max
"Laugh, and the world laughs with you,
 snore, and you sleep alone." - Anthony Burgess

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17515
From: Max <max@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 17:33:09 +0100
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:

[...]
>I can't see how internet babble can possibly contribute anything to this
>heartbreaking situation. 

I didn't claim it would. It might help the onlookers, however, and a
synopsis of ideas and views might help the family subsequently: if only
for knowing that many others shared their mental agonies.

>The family must have already heard way too many
>opinions from all sides that only contribute to their agony in this no-win
>situation.

The court's position is that there *is* a win option: the course it has
decreed. As to the family, they will either feel (as JovBill says)
grateful that they were spared, or never forgive themselves for coming
to a country where such a decision could be made.

>But that won't stop the web-savvy. We are nothing if not opinionated. And
>quite aggressive in making sure others are aware of those opinions.

While I confess to being opinionated on occasion, I do not share in your
"we" with regard to aggressive proselytising.

>If you are truely, in any way, involved with this situation I would hope
>you think better of your plan to "share ... with the parents" and keep your
>mouth shut.

Sharing opinions with the parents may be done by a letter in the
national press. A sympathetic letter in a public forum would be likely
to be brought to their attention. I do not have any involvement with the
case, and I do not see how you interpret my words to mean so.
-- 
Max
"Morality, thou deadly bane,
Thy tens o' thousands thou has slain!" - Robert Burns

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17516
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:57:28 -0700
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <39DB85FB.405E2349@rcsis.com>, James Gifford writes...
>> Can one (or several) of the resident Libertarians (or libertarians)
>> explain to me why _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ is so highly regarded
>> in L/libertarian circles?

> TMiaHM presents a society governed by law that does not emanate from the
> state.  It is customary and it is "natural": Mannie tells us that the law
> among Loonies is as it /must/ be, given the way things /are/.

[large snip of details]

Thanks. I *thought* that was what was meant, but I'd gotten conflicting
comments over the years.

> There is more, of course, but maybe this is enough.  But now you can help
> me.  I think you are perceptive enough a reader to have seen all of this.
> Why the question?  Or do you not see anything positive in these elements?

I saw all of it, yes. But I was still unclear on why the novel is so
beloved of L/libertarians. Thanks to your summary, I now at least
understand what L/l's find admirable about it, which confirms some of my
darker suspicions.

I'll stop there, except to say that one can create, justify and "prove"
anything... in fiction.

-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17517
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:49:15 -0500
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford" <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:39DCC108.F47158B4@rcsis.com...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>
> > In article <39DB85FB.405E2349@rcsis.com>, James Gifford writes...
> >> Can one (or several) of the resident Libertarians (or libertarians)
> >> explain to me why _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ is so highly
regarded
> >> in L/libertarian circles?
>
> > TMiaHM presents a society governed by law that does not emanate from
the
> > state.  It is customary and it is "natural": Mannie tells us that the
law
> > among Loonies is as it /must/ be, given the way things /are/.
>
> [large snip of details]
>
> Thanks. I *thought* that was what was meant, but I'd gotten conflicting
> comments over the years.
>
> > There is more, of course, but maybe this is enough.  But now you can
help
> > me.  I think you are perceptive enough a reader to have seen all of
this.
> > Why the question?  Or do you not see anything positive in these
elements?
>
> I saw all of it, yes. But I was still unclear on why the novel is so
> beloved of L/libertarians. Thanks to your summary, I now at least
> understand what L/l's find admirable about it, which confirms some of my
> darker suspicions.
>
> I'll stop there, except to say that one can create, justify and "prove"
> anything... in fiction.
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> |   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |
>

I would like to throw my two cents in here.

The book states plainly that the lack of government is forced upon the
loonies.  The warden allowed no other government and did none himself, but
after they rebelled a government was formed and it seemed pretty much like
most.  I think RAH was saying the such a situation can only come about in
such an artificial way and that some government is the norm.  This is why
I don't understand the libertarians regard for the society since it is not
stable.  Mannie thought of it as 'normal' but he 'grew' up with it and we
always think the situation we grow up with as 'normal' no matter how
strange it seems to outsiders.

Dean



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17518
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:00:12 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39DCC108.F47158B4@rcsis.com>, James Gifford writes...
....
> I saw all of it, yes. But I was still unclear on why the novel is so
> beloved of L/libertarians. Thanks to your summary, I now at least
> understand what L/l's find admirable about it, which confirms some of my
> darker suspicions.
> 
> I'll stop there, except to say that one can create, justify and "prove"
> anything... in fiction.

Ah, shucks, just when I was warming up.  ;-)

I hope we can all agree that novels don't /prove/ anything - except 
perhaps the genius of their authors.  Mr. Heinlein's first-person 
narratives have the impact of... well, of a grain barge catapulted from 
the Moon to hit the Earth.  We are fortunate indeed that he did not write 
a novel that appealed to skin heads.  (Of course, some sorry excuses for 
literary critics claim that he did.)  In the case of TMiaHM, this 
narrative has thrilled libertarian readers by giving their ideals an 
expression that seems as real and matter-of-fact as... well, as real and 
matter-of-fact as Mr. Heinlein made space travel.

Now I have long maintained that Mr. Heinlein not only wrote a great 
libertarian story, but was sympathetic to libertarian ideas, indeed, that 
he was a libertarian, although I certainly don't claim that he was a 
typical USENET libertarian.  He wasn't a "typical" anything.

In the case of TMiaHM, while a novel alone may prove nothing, the effect 
of this novel was to induce David D. Friedman to take anarcho-capitalism 
seriously enough to work out his own theory of it.  (See the credit he 
gives to Mr. Heinlein and TMiaHM in his /The Machinery of Freedom/.)  
This theory has been favorably reviewed by James Buchanan, a Nobel-prize-
winning economist, so, whether it is convincing or not, I think it is 
fair to say that it has some substance to it (but, then, Friedman has a 
number of close personal friends who are economists  ;-)).  It would be 
ironic indeed if Mr. Heinlein's own personal beliefs were antithetical to 
libertarianism. 

--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17519
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:31:19 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39dcdb3b.0@news.sff.net>, Dean White writes...
.... 
> The book states plainly that the lack of government is forced upon the
> loonies.  The warden allowed no other government and did none himself, but
> after they rebelled a government was formed and it seemed pretty much like
> most.  I think RAH was saying the such a situation can only come about in
> such an artificial way and that some government is the norm.  This is why
> I don't understand the libertarians regard for the society since it is not
> stable.

"Stable" is a relative term with regard to human societies, unless you 
think that human ingenuity will outwit the decay of the protons in this 
universe.  Is our society "stable"?  Is it the same "stable" society it 
was 200 years ago?

It may well be that Mr. Heinlein thought that the Loonie society he 
invented could only be an accident - a happy one, if I am right about his 
libertarian sympathies - comparable in duration to a human life span.  Of 
course, at the end Mannie is looking to the migrate to the asteroid belt.  
There is good reason to believe that Mr. Heinlein thought that an ideal 
human life could only be lived on a frontier or other situation in which 
the bureaucratic force of the state was held in check.  The fact (if it 
is a fact) that all frontiers become crowded is not a reason to give up 
the ideal - rather it is a reason to keep striving for new frontiers.  
Need I belabor the obvious connection to Mr. Heinlein's thought?

Perhaps you (or James) believes that the correct political ideal must be 
both just and stable (and peaceful and ...), but I see no reason to think 
that humanity has been spared from being the butt of a joke on this one.  
Nor any reason to think that Mr. Heinlein would disagree with me.         

>  Mannie thought of it as 'normal' but he 'grew' up with it and we
> always think the situation we grow up with as 'normal' no matter how
> strange it seems to outsiders.

What is strange about Loonie society?  It's perfectly understandable to 
any anarcho-capitalist.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17520
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 00:39:13 -0400
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Max wrote:

> >How could watching
> >two children die and doing nothing POSSIBLY be more respectful of life than
> >acting to save one of them?
>
> Contrariwise, how can killing one to (hopefully) save the other be
> excused?

Well, if the premise here -- that *both* will surely die if nothing is done -- is
true, then either way you're killing one of them (i.e., the strong one through
neglect if you take no action, or the weak one directly if you do take action); the
only question left is whether to *save* one of them. For me, it's not even a close
call. If, OTOH, there's some reasonable (though small) chance that they might both
survive to have lives of any significant length, it becomes a *much* harder
question (and a correspondingly much sadder story).

> Might this not lead towards a path where the taking of a life
> may become, in future, justified for less extreme reasons?

I don't think so. I'm generally suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments anyway,
but a case like this is so rare and strange in its details that I wouldn't worry
too much about its setting precedents.

> ...assume that one accepts that God exists, and a
> Judaeo-Christian philosophy. Death, then, is not an occurrence that is
> to be avoided at *any* cost, given the survival of the soul.

True. One somewhat ironic thought I've sometimes toyed with is this: Shouldn't
belief in the survival of the soul and in a merciful, all-loving God make folks
*more* accepting of captial punishment, rather than less? After all, surely any
errors we mere humans make in meting out justice can be repaired by the eternal
reward of life in the Presence? I'm not really making that argument wrt capital
punishment, mind you, but there is some comfort in that sort of logic for
Christians grappling with this current case: If you act in good faith but get it
"wrong," God can fix it.

> Not intervening to attempt to prevent a person from dying is not, of
> itself, omission or medical neglect: individual circumstances dictate
> whether intervention is appropriate.

Sure, and I'm mostly in sympathy with the Right to Die movement (though assisted
suicide makes me queasy... *there's* a slippery slope for you) and with the concept
of living wills and DNR orders. But we're not talking about the end of a full life
here, or about easing the suffering of a terminal patient. We're talking about a
child, all of whose life is ahead, to be saved or lost. IMHO, failure to provide
life-saving medical care to a child (absent a terminal condition or other special
circumstances) is neglect, whether the care is withheld by a parent *or* a doctor.
OTOH...

> In terms of parenting, how much harm may a parent impose on their other
> children to benefit one?

....by all accounts, the weaker twin *IS* a terminal patient, and her sister is the
"extraordinary means" keeping her alive; this surgery would be (to my way of
thinking) more akin to "pulling the plug" than to "killing." As you point out, it
may not be a harm at all to allow a terminal patient to die.

> > I salute the moral courage of the doctors and
> >lawyers who fought to give them that gift.
>
> And the defending counsel who chose not to appeal, after the High Court
> had given him leave so to do?

Yes, him too. As you tell the story, it seems to me that everyone has acquitted
hirself well, doing what had to be done with dignity and respect.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17521
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 08:40:54 GMT
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


> But to let both children die, or at best live a limited,
>abnormal life, based on religious convictions (which the children are
>not capable of sharing)

  That's a common argument but not at all a valid one in such
situations. While the children are not capable of sharing the parent's
beliefs neither are they capable of sharing the opposition's beliefs.
There is no neutral base from which to view this--no default moral
position from which all others deviate. There are only differing sets
of beliefs, _none_ of which the children are capable of sharing. 

  JovBill and others made some good and interesting religious
comments, but did none of you-all see the obvious Biblical corollary
to this? It's Solomon's judgement on splitting the baby when ownership
was claimed by two different women. In that case Solomon proposed
dividing the baby in a way that was technically fair but would end its
life. The real mother chose to have the child live. 

  Personally, though, I could not/would not choose one over the other
but would be relieved if the decision was made out of my hands.

  BTW, discussion here amongst us is fine but I really wouldn't want
any of this purposely repeated to the parents--they have enough to
deal with.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17522
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 03:23:58 -0600
Subject: A Day in the Life of a Line-holder... pt. I
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A LINE-HOLDER"
(or, "Mr. Browne goes to Denver and Clay gets to meet him")


PART I

Damned good thing that Monday, October 2 was a day off from my "day
job". It isn't every day that you meet a honest-to-goodness
Presidential Candidate -- especially one who IS, in fact, honest to
the point of "goodness", whatever that may mean these days.

My day was to be full of intense interest, moderate excitement, and
strong regret. I was intensely interested in what the man (and those
others I'd hear speak that day) had to say, moderately excited at
getting to put on a suit and simulate importance as a somewhat
simulated candidate myself, and strongly regretful at having pulled up
short in my candidacy -- choosing to "occupy ink" on the ballot for
the party, instead of diving in head first and "running to win".

Put another way, I was a sort of paper tiger who was about to meet the
guy who had the biggest fangs in the party: Harry Browne, Libertarian
Candidate for President and heap big source of fear for the
Republocrats. If only we could make him a bigger source of that fear
THIS year <sigh>.

But that's getting ahead of myself.

After securing our favorite babysitter's services (Adrienne, we love
ya!) and washing our shiniest car (most of you know the one), my wife
Kim and I set out for the Colorado Capitol. My knowledge of the
Capitol Hill area served me well, and I was able to grab prime parking
on the east side of the building in a lot I'd used before. This even
impressed Kim, who grew up here but shies away from downtown. The
rally, of course, was on the west steps, where there is NO parking
unless you're a guest of the Governor. (Our state Libertarian Party
Chair, BetteRose Smith, apparently rates this as her van was there.
Way to go, BetteRose!)

We were very pleased to have Marlen Morgan, a longtime family friend,
join us at the Capitol rally (and the reception/fundraiser afterward)
with his son Jeff (who skipped the reception in favor of an evening of
heckling an event that had something to do with Janet Reno, with the
Tyranny Response Team). I believe that some other folks may have
attended at their invitation, based on a conversation among them that
I half-overheard taking place behind me while I was listening to a
speaker at the podium.

After hearing many folks speak (including Dr. Shawn Elke Glazer from
Wheat Ridge, our best bet for getting a Libertarian into the Colorado
State House, and one inexplicably invited gentleman from the
Constitution Party who made the hair on both our necks stand up with
his abortion rhetoric), The Man arrived. It was time for Harry Browne.

I'll have to be honest here; Harry didn't say much that you can't
access via his books or the website (http:www.HarryBrowne2000.org), or
the many e-mails (most of) you have already received from me (the
Heinlein Forum on sff.net is, by the way, excluded from this entire
paragraph). No matter; it's an incredibly strong message and one that
bears repeating. If you haven't already investigated, then I've
already lost you, and you should send me your "unsubscribe" message
yesterday. :-)

But it was truly cool to hear those words with which I have SO
come to agree, and then those that FINALLY articulate my feelings on
nearly every issue better than my own have doen so far, spoken by the
man right there in front of me.

The crowd, of course, was overwhelmingly supportive and cheered
loudly.

Comes the time when Harry needs to leave. I've already gotten close,
only to find Harry talking to a reporter; I smell ink and so I step
back. I find myself instead involved in a conversation with Steve
Willis, Harry's right-hand man, and I make him laugh once or twice.
Steve is now looking at his watch, then Harry, and then the reporter
-- and then seemingly trying to estimate the importance of the
reporter. I get the feeling that Steve is worried about actually
FINDING the hotel, and I ask him, "Do you have good directions to the
Tech Center Sheraton?"

Steve gives me a shrug/look that says 'I hope so'.

To which I say, "Would it help to have a conspicuous car to follow?"

Steve: "How conspicuous?"

Me: "A red Corvette."

Steve (looking relieved): "That would be GREAT."

Fast-forward to: Steve decides it's safe to leave Harry to walk with
Kim and me around the south side of the Capitol while he cuts back
throught the crowd to get their car from the north side, then to meet
us on the east side. Harry asks me to clarify the plan for him as we
start around the building. During that walk,I'm able/honored to talk
with Harry about several things: my flaccid candidacy and the
attached regrets; my friends who it seems I've gotten fired up on
Libertarian ideas (several of you were mentioned here); his regretting
being behind on sending out his e-mail campaign journal; my being a
juggler and writer and how I'm consequently impressed with his ability
to do both (which got a laugh); and then where the hotel is.

Kim remembers complimenting Harry on his suit while I left them on the
east side of the Capitol (in the east plaza's no-parking zone), got
the Vette out of the lot and staged it up in front of Kim and Harry. I
had these two distinct thoughts, one after the other:

1) Hey, I can get away with it, the guy's running for President after
all; any cop would be reasonable about that.

2) WTF? _I'M_ gonna be leading HARRY BROWNE around Denver???

Then I committed a gaffe which Harry politely failed to notice: he
stepped up to the passenger's side and opened the door -- at which I
began getting out and making noises like, "Uh, sir, I'm afraid I may
have confused the plan...", thinking that he was about to climb in...

He looked at me over the car and said something like, "I'm sorry, what
did you say?", as Kim got in. He had opened the door for my wife. With
colossal effort, I successfully refrained from smacking myself in the
forehead.

Harry's phone rang; it was Steve, reminding him about an interview
he's scheduled to give during the drive. After some more chit-chat
Steve appeared and pulled into the zone behind us, in the lovely
rented Lincoln Town Car with the malfunctioning trunk lid he'd
described to me before (it wouldn't close). Harry then climbed into
the correct car without my help, and we were off to the Tech Center
Sheraton... Kim & I in our red Corvette, with our Presidential
Candidate flapping his rented trunk lid behind us...



(Part II as soon as I can, folks.)

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian candidate for Colorado House District 36
http://www.lp.org     http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." - unknown


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17523
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 09:12:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Drug Testing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dennis--
     There are several issues raised with this post.  (A newspaper
article that went into quite a bit more detail was discussed extensively
with my co-workers.)

     Child abuse cannot be sustained since the courts have ruled (in
abortion cases) that the fetus has no legal rights to start with.  Once
the child is born, he can't be abused by what is in his Mother's blood.

     Could this lead to the police being on call when pre employment
drug screenings show positive?  Why not?

     Could the road checkpoints commonly being used for alcohol testing
be extended to cover drug testing?  There is an (Indiana) case now
before the supreme court about extending these "random" checkpoints to
drug searches.  The rational for alcohol testing is imparment.  But the
drug tests show use
long after the imparment had passed.

     Did the patients consent to the drug tests?

     If this becomes common, won't it result in persons avoiding medical
treatment?

     I might add that the newspaper article did say that the program was
initiated by hospital workers and police planing it together.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17524
From: Madge Van Ness <madgevn@angelfire.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 19:33:09 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Sharon Green recently wrote that a system remains "Stable" for about 250 years
and then must either be reset or totally changed, in order to avoid total
collapse.

By that criteria, we're getting awfully close, folks.

MadgEdith


"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> "Stable" is a relative term with regard to human societies, unless you
> think that human ingenuity will outwit the decay of the protons in this
> universe.  Is our society "stable"?  Is it the same "stable" society it
> was 200 years ago?
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17525
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:45:48 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39DE6134.86E9EBF7@angelfire.com>, Madge Van Ness writes...
> 
> Sharon Green recently wrote that a system remains "Stable" for about 250 years
> and then must either be reset or totally changed, in order to avoid total
> collapse.
> 
> By that criteria, we're getting awfully close, folks.

Right.  David Friedman likes to point out that medieval Iceland had a 
society with many anarcho-capitalist elements that was stable for over 
300 years.  By that standard, the "jury" will be out at least another 75 
years on the U.S. political system.  Who knows what intellectual and 
moral giants we will have running for office by then, based upon recent 
trends?

But somehow I doubt that any of the "utopian democrats" ( ;-)) here will 
cut anarcho-capitalists any slack based on that.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17526
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 21:56:22 -0400
Subject: Re: A Day in the Life of a Line-holder... pt. I
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39dd9924.0@news.sff.net>, Clay Steiner writes...
....
> Harry then climbed into
> the correct car without my help, and we were off to the Tech Center
> Sheraton... Kim & I in our red Corvette, with our Presidential
> Candidate flapping his rented trunk lid behind us...

Too bad you don't have videotape of this to show in New Jersey.  The man 
who invented the Internet tied up rush hour traffic on the Turnpike here 
for an additional hour with his 21 car motorcade yesterday.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17527
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 00:41:45 -0400
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> did none of you-all...

Now, I may have recently become a Yankee, but I still know it's spelled
"y'all"! <VBG>

> ...see the obvious Biblical corollary
> to this? It's Solomon's judgement on splitting the baby when ownership
> was claimed by two different women.

I think this is actually the mirror image of the Solomon case: Solomon's
challenge to the two "mothers" threatened to kill a single, otherwise
healthy child by splitting it in two; in this case, the "splitting" would
change two dying children into one living one. Ironically, if this were a
Solomonic situation, the mother-claimants might make the same choices --
the false mother might choose division (because that way she'd at least
get one child) while the true mother might reject division (out of
empathy for the weaker, doomed twin) -- but in this case the true
mother's choice would not, IMHO, be the correct one.

>  Personally, though, I could not/would not choose one over the other
> but would be relieved if the decision was made out of my hands.

This is the position I hope/believe the parents in this case are in:
Unable to make the choice themselves, but willing (and perhaps, as I've
said, secretly grateful) to have it made for them.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17528
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 01:23:25 -0500
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
> This is the position I hope/believe the parents in this case are in:
> Unable to make the choice themselves, but willing (and perhaps, as I've
> said, secretly grateful) to have it made for them.\

This is the third case of this kind (from a medical perspective) which I've
heard about.  In the other two cases the parents did not have to be taken to
court in order for the procedure to take place.  Medically the situations
were identical.  If the twins were allowed to remain co-joined, both would
die.  In separating them, only one child would live.  In both cases the
parents said words to the effect of being relieved at not having to make the
decision.
Margaret




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17529
From: Max <max@sff.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 18:28:06 +0100
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote at least some of this: 

>  BTW, discussion here amongst us is fine but I really wouldn't want
>any of this purposely repeated to the parents--they have enough to
>deal with.

Kindly advice (and the faintly horrified tone) duly noted. You may sleep
easy on that score, Deb.
-- 
Max
" Never take the advice of someone who has
  not had your kind of trouble." - Sidney J. Harris

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17530
From: Max <max@sff.net>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 18:28:24 +0100
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote at least some of this:

[...]

>Well, if the premise here -- that *both* will surely die if nothing is done -- 
>is
>true, then either way you're killing one of them (i.e., the strong one through
>neglect if you take no action, or the weak one directly if you do take action); 
>the
>only question left is whether to *save* one of them. For me, it's not even a 
>close
>call. If, OTOH, there's some reasonable (though small) chance that they might 
>both
>survive to have lives of any significant length, it becomes a *much* harder
>question (and a correspondingly much sadder story).

Fair enough. That, however, is the choice it has come down to. How,
however, is a life deemed to be of "significant" length? For me, it has
to be to survive to an age where choices may be made, which is where the
"greater love hath no man than this ..." argument falls down.
Sacrificing one's own life for another must surely involve volition?

>> Might this not lead towards a path where the taking of a life
>> may become, in future, justified for less extreme reasons?
>
>I don't think so. I'm generally suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments 
>anyway,
>but a case like this is so rare and strange in its details that I wouldn't 
>worry
>too much about its setting precedents.

I envy you your confidence. Living in a country which seeks greater
integration with Europe, and where there are serious questions as to
whether Holland's more liberal "assisted suicide" laws may already have
been abused, I am less happy.

>> ...assume that one accepts that God exists, and a
>> Judaeo-Christian philosophy. Death, then, is not an occurrence that is
>> to be avoided at *any* cost, given the survival of the soul.
>
>True. One somewhat ironic thought I've sometimes toyed with is this: Shouldn't
>belief in the survival of the soul and in a merciful, all-loving God make folks
>*more* accepting of captial punishment, rather than less? After all, surely any
>errors we mere humans make in meting out justice can be repaired by the eternal
>reward of life in the Presence? I'm not really making that argument wrt capital
>punishment, mind you, but there is some comfort in that sort of logic for
>Christians grappling with this current case: If you act in good faith but get 
>it
>"wrong," God can fix it.

Which neatly dovetails with your feeling that "articulating, explaining,
and defending my thoughts on situations like this ... in effect, helps
make me a more moral person". (Please excuse the snip.) I feel that,
whatever the outcome, facing the situation and making a choice helps one
to grow as a human being. Whether the choice is the correct one[1] is
not as important as having the courage to make it. And yes, I do realise
that I've argued myself into a corner here.

[...]
>...by all accounts, the weaker twin *IS* a terminal patient, and her sister is 
>the
>"extraordinary means" keeping her alive; this surgery would be (to my way of
>thinking) more akin to "pulling the plug" than to "killing." As you point out, 
>it
>may not be a harm at all to allow a terminal patient to die.

I agree with you on that, although I'm not quite sure that was how I was
arguing. As regards brain-damaged children being allowed to live, I have
had contact with a couple of them, through the PHAB[2] programme, and
they are, to all intents and purposes, human beings: with all the pain,
anguish and self-doubt that being so involves.

I'll confess my own selfish interest here: my mother was advised during
her fourth pregnancy that no heartbeat was detectable for the foetus,
and, given her difficulties with her previous confinements, it was
advisable to terminate this one. She refused, and asked to be moved to
another hospital. My younger sister now has two children of her own, and
teaches mathematics at a local secondary[3] school. I don't tell her
story here as an anti-abortion argument, simply as an illustration of my
view that the current state of medical knowledge may not have *all* the
answers. Even given that this situation would not pertain today, it
seems to me arrogance to assume that the current medical knowledge knows
best.

>> > I salute the moral courage of the doctors and
>> >lawyers who fought to give them that gift.
>>
>> And the defending counsel who chose not to appeal, after the High Court
>> had given him leave so to do?
>
>Yes, him too. As you tell the story, it seems to me that everyone has acquitted
>hirself well, doing what had to be done with dignity and respect.

I have no doubt that such is the case. I'm simply unconvinced as to
whether the "right" decision was reached.

I'm grateful for your thoughts, JovBill. They've helped.


[1] Who decides?
[2] Physically Handicapped, Able Bodied. A group promoted by Sir Jimmy
Saville to help integrate disabled members of the community into said
community, and to raise awareness among a community that their disabled
members are not merely "cripples".
[3] Age range 11 to 16 years old.
-- 
Max

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17531
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 20:26:27 GMT
Subject: Re: A Day in the Life of a Line-holder... pt. I
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A LINE-HOLDER"
>(or, "Mr. Browne goes to Denver and Clay gets to meet him")

  Too cool, Clay! Looking forward to part 2. 

  Does Browne have Secret Service protection? I'm thinking not if
strangers in red Corvettes can wander off with him <g>.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17532
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 20:26:28 GMT
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Now, I may have recently become a Yankee, but I still know it's spelled
>"y'all"! <VBG>

  I am a Yankee, well Norderner--looks silly if we try to imitate the
proper Southern "y'all". Actually where I'm from I should have used
"youse" or "youse all" as the correct plural form. 

>I think this is actually the mirror image of the Solomon case: Solomon's
>the false mother might choose division (because that way she'd at least
>get one child) while the true mother might reject division (out of
>empathy for the weaker, doomed twin) 

  A decidedly good point, and one I pondered after I wrote my note.
Yeah, I could switch to your view of the Solomon case quite
easily--part of the problem everyone involved in this case must have.
I do think if one is after Biblical corellaries, this is it. But like
so many cases the ultimate guide to the decision is left as an
exercise to the reader. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17533
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 20:26:28 GMT
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Right.  David Friedman likes to point out that medieval Iceland had a 
>society with many anarcho-capitalist elements that was stable for over 
>300 years. 

  Iceland is a curious case. It was, in many ways, akin to the
Freetraders in "Citizen of the Galaxy." The head of household and the
family groups had considerable freedom, but within the family group
there could be ridged control. The country had no cities, everthing
was independent farmsteads. The Icelanders were slaveholders and, when
still pagen, used slaves as human sacrifices. Yet, by the same token,
a freed slave might marry the bosses daughter and be accepted into the
society on a pretty well accepted footing. 

  They had direct democracy but the vote was limited to the head of
each household. Women had considerable rights, both in property and
person and showing up to vote as head of household wasn't unknown.
Enforcement of many of the voted decisions (like outlawing someone)
was by force--it was a very violent society but very casual about it.
Part of the casualness was an ingrained indiffererence to death that
was part of the pagen religion (even the gods died so death was no big
deal). 

  Yet they also had something we have--an acceptance of voted
decisions without dispute. In the year 1000 they voted to convert the
entire country to Christian. At time of the vote they were about 50/50
Christian and pagen and could not reach a decision other than that it
was important for the country to be only one religion, whichever that
was. So they went to the head pagen priest and asked him to make the
decision. The pagen priest chose Christianity and the entire country
converted without dispute or incident and--unlike many other places in
Europe, Norway included--never backslid into paganism. As you can see,
it was not a conversion of beliefs but of practicality and practise.
This conversion also ended slavery there but, it can be argued,
slavery was becoming economically unnecessary and would have ended
anyhow.

  Part of the stability was that these were the Viking raiders and
each summer they went out and pillaged and adventured, explored and
conquered. The ability to expand to new territories was important.
When the exploration and expansion era ended so did the dynamic sort
of democracy they had and they allowed themselves to be subjugated to
a foreign king. It strikes me that a lot of the ability to maintain
the sort of democracy they had, with those anarcho-capitalist
elements, springs directly from the participants self-image as free
and independent people. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17534
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 02:39:48 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:39e18110.1703435@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >Right.  David Friedman likes to point out that medieval Iceland had a
> >society with many anarcho-capitalist elements that was stable for over
> >300 years.
>
>   Iceland is a curious case.

<Interesting stuff about Iceland snipped>

Here in Washington DC, Iceland Air advertises heavily, trying to lure
travelers to Europe to travel with them. I've looked at some of their web
deals, and they have some good prices, especially for short stays in
Iceland. I've been toying with the idea of a quick vacation some time.

Thanks for the interesting historical info!


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17535
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 03:05:28 -0600
Subject: Re: A Day in the Life of a Line-holder... pt. I
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


> In article <39dd9924.0@news.sff.net>, Clay Steiner writes...
> ...
>> Harry then climbed into
>> the correct car without my help, and we were off to the Tech Center
>> Sheraton... Kim & I in our red Corvette, with our Presidential
>> Candidate flapping his rented trunk lid behind us...
>
> Too bad you don't have videotape of this to show in New Jersey.  The man
> who invented the Internet tied up rush hour traffic on the Turnpike here
> for an additional hour with his 21 car motorcade yesterday.  ;-)

LOL. Too bad, indeed. A handicap of no media coverage/selective
coverage of the other guys. Harry could never stomach that sort of
(what's the word I want? Frippery? Flappery?).

At any rate, you'd never see that motorcade mentality from a guy who,
as a running joke in his campaign journal, calls Denny's his "Official
Late Night Restaurant of the Harry Browne Campaign".

Not to mention that this is a candidate who refuses many thousands of
$$$$ in "Federal matching" (read: stolen from you) campaign funds.

Uh, oh -- I'm starting to sound serious <g>.

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17536
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 03:23:14 -0600
Subject: Re: A Day in the Life of a Line-holder... pt. I
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule) wrote:


> 
>>"A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A LINE-HOLDER"
>>(or, "Mr. Browne goes to Denver and Clay gets to meet him")
>
>   Too cool, Clay! Looking forward to part 2.
>
>   Does Browne have Secret Service protection? I'm thinking not if
> strangers in red Corvettes can wander off with him <g>.

Not likely -- as I mentioned in my reply to Gordon, Harry refers to
Denny's as his "Official Late Night Restaurant of the Browne
Campaign".

And we ALL know how friendly Denny's is to the Secret Service. LOL

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown
 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17537
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 13:56:17 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e18110.1703435@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
> 
> >Right.  David Friedman likes to point out that medieval Iceland had a 
> >society with many anarcho-capitalist elements that was stable for over 
> >300 years. 
> 
>   Iceland is a curious case. It was, in many ways, akin to the
> Freetraders in "Citizen of the Galaxy."...

Deb, rather than quibble over any of the interpretive details of your 
post, please allow me to simply post the URL for a detailed discussion of 
the anarcho-capitalist elements in medieval Iceland by David Friedman:

http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Section three is particularly relevant, though I find the entire paper 
fascinating, and certainly readable by this group.  I should also point 
out that Friedman's interpretations are not unchallenged by other 
researchers.  I had another URL to a "competing" view, but I seem to have 
lost it, at least temporarily.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17538
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:42:31 GMT
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Deb, rather than quibble over any of the interpretive details of your 
>post, please allow me to simply post the URL for a detailed discussion of 
>the anarcho-capitalist elements in medieval Iceland by David Friedman:

  Okay... and?  I'm more interested in your quibbles, makes me refine
my own views and analysis.

  He didn't seem to deal with the Viking raider elements at all.
Icelandic economy wasn't purely internal. Wealth came from outside.
Overflow population, and those who couldn't cope with the system,
could leave. 

  Good descriptions of the law/government but he does make it seem
much more stodgy and orderly than the sagas (which, as he points out,
are meant to be entertaining stories). 

  Hey, WJaKe--get some of the sagas to read before you go to Iceland.
Great stories. Or, for that matter, read my own Viking Iceland stories
on my web page <g>, Season of Marvels "scrapes the serial numbers off"
of several of the sagas.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17539
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:02:30 -0500
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14470382da2b91859896d0@news.sff.net...
> In article <39dcdb3b.0@news.sff.net>, Dean White writes...
> ...
> > The book states plainly that the lack of government is forced upon the
> > loonies.  The warden allowed no other government and did none himself,
but
> > after they rebelled a government was formed and it seemed pretty much
like
> > most.  I think RAH was saying the such a situation can only come about
in
> > such an artificial way and that some government is the norm.  This is
why
> > I don't understand the libertarians regard for the society since it is
not
> > stable.
>
> "Stable" is a relative term with regard to human societies, unless you
> think that human ingenuity will outwit the decay of the protons in this
> universe.  Is our society "stable"?  Is it the same "stable" society it
> was 200 years ago?
>
> It may well be that Mr. Heinlein thought that the Loonie society he
> invented could only be an accident - a happy one, if I am right about
his
> libertarian sympathies - comparable in duration to a human life span.
Of
> course, at the end Mannie is looking to the migrate to the asteroid
belt.
> There is good reason to believe that Mr. Heinlein thought that an ideal
> human life could only be lived on a frontier or other situation in which
> the bureaucratic force of the state was held in check.  The fact (if it
> is a fact) that all frontiers become crowded is not a reason to give up
> the ideal - rather it is a reason to keep striving for new frontiers.
> Need I belabor the obvious connection to Mr. Heinlein's thought?
>
> Perhaps you (or James) believes that the correct political ideal must be
> both just and stable (and peaceful and ...), but I see no reason to
think
> that humanity has been spared from being the butt of a joke on this one.
> Nor any reason to think that Mr. Heinlein would disagree with me.

No I don't think those things.  In fact I really don't care what the
system is, just like the prof, he did'nt care what the political system
was he would work with any, or not, as 'he' choose.

>
> >  Mannie thought of it as 'normal' but he 'grew' up with it and we
> > always think the situation we grow up with as 'normal' no matter how
> > strange it seems to outsiders.
>
> What is strange about Loonie society?  It's perfectly understandable to
> any anarcho-capitalist.  ;-)
>

But I really doubt that it was a comfortable society to live in for the
common run of humanity.

> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com

  I just don't think Mr. Heinlein was a libertarian.  IMHO libertarians
are not taking into account the fact that most people just will not live
according to the libertarian ideals.  This simple fact makes it an
interesting ideal but impractical.  There is just too much room for the
human predators to take advantage of people, at which point they scream
for someone to 'take care' of the problem because they won't.  In MiaHM
Mr. Heinlein was trying to show that some kind of 'government' is a
requirement for human society.  Here is a link to an article that I find
more interesting then the accepted left right political systems.
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm  To show where I'm coming from you
can place me at the 2.5 by 2.5' position, about where I think Hr. Heinlein
would stand.  It just seems to me humans just can't seem to understand
that governments are a necessary evil and should be kept as small as
possible, it's just that appealing to reason does not work some other
method is needed, now what that would be I don't know.  I don't claim to
have answers just questions.

Dean




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17540
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 20:58:06 -0700
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dean White wrote:
> I just don't think Mr. Heinlein was a libertarian.

Whoops. Don't say that around Brad Linaweaver. He'll call you names.
Narsty ones.

:)

-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17541
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 00:16:58 -0600
Subject: Aw, jeez -- part II
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


It's almost an "aw jeez" part III... I wrote this and thought I posted 
it back in early August. But I just found it in my "drafts" folder
under my ng ID tonight -- which ID I haven't opened but twice since I
dunno when. Sheesh.

YES, folks, vote for me -- I'm less disorganized than my opponents!
<weak grin>


<begin original post>

Well, folks, as I have had some time pass and was given occasion to
think about/react to/learn about this "being a candidate" business,
the sad fact is that I'm just not gonna be able to really run an
honest to <insert deity> CAMPAIGN this time. Still, what a valuable
education this has been, even for this "just a line holder".

To those of you who wanted to contribute time, money and/or effort
(BC, Deb and Bob come immediately to mind) -- thank you deeply. But
there are strict laws about such things, and if I accept so much as a
bus token or even spend any of my own money on it, I will open up a
veritable Pandora's Box of paperwork...

....one which I will WELCOME in 2002, the year in which I was already
planning on actually RUNNING, as distinct from "walking", a campaign.
Please keep me in mind then.

The Adams County LPers are putting together a "cookie-cutter" web page
for each candidate, which apparently is okay under the aforementioned
rules. I'll post the URL when it happens.

(October update: my presence on that site didn't happen, other than a
simple listing that I'm a candidate.)

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown
    

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17542
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:31:27 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e12735.0@news.sff.net>, Dean White writes...
....
> > Perhaps you (or James) believes that the correct political ideal must be
> > both just and stable (and peaceful and ...), but I see no reason to
> think
> > that humanity has been spared from being the butt of a joke on this one.
> > Nor any reason to think that Mr. Heinlein would disagree with me.
> 
> No I don't think those things.  In fact I really don't care what the
> system is, just like the prof, he did'nt care what the political system
> was he would work with any, or not, as 'he' choose.

"Not caring" is apparently not the same as "not having reasons to 
dislike", since you seem to have such reasons against anarcho-capitalism, 
although they remain largely unarticulated.
 
> > What is strange about Loonie society?  It's perfectly understandable to
> > any anarcho-capitalist.  ;-)
> >
> 
> But I really doubt that it was a comfortable society to live in for the
> common run of humanity.

Well, first, as the story goes, Loonies were an immigrant population, 
with many of them forced to immigrate.  I think that would make many of 
them fairly "common" in one sense, but "uncommon" in another.  Second, it 
may well not be a "comfortable" society, for many of the reasons (risk of 
death, skewed gender ratio, etc.) that Mr. Heinlein gives.  Third, 
however, is what does any of that have to do with the anarcho-capitalist 
features of the society?  Again, my point is that it may turn out that 
the best "we" can get - in some situations - is not very good.  It may be 
strange for an anarcho-capitalist "utopian" such as myself to have to 
keep pointing this out to more "main-stream" political thinkers, but 
there it is.  And fourth, since you adopt Prof's point of view, what do 
you care about how it works out for the "common run"?       
 
....
>   I just don't think Mr. Heinlein was a libertarian.  IMHO libertarians
> are not taking into account the fact that most people just will not live
> according to the libertarian ideals.

Anarcho-capitalism does not require them to.  It produces libertarian 
results without an explicit libertarian ideology.

>  This simple fact makes it an
> interesting ideal but impractical.  There is just too much room for the
> human predators to take advantage of people, at which point they scream
> for someone to 'take care' of the problem because they won't.  In MiaHM
> Mr. Heinlein was trying to show that some kind of 'government' is a
> requirement for human society.

You seem to believe that it is some sort of contradiction to think that 
human societies will have governments /and/ be a libertarian.  Mr. 
Heinlein's sympathies - not just in TMiaHM, but any of his stories that 
deal with frontiers and immigration - are with those who will move on to 
where the state is weakest.  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17543
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 09:31:29 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e0ce02.1283045@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
> 
> >Deb, rather than quibble over any of the interpretive details of your 
> >post, please allow me to simply post the URL for a detailed discussion of 
> >the anarcho-capitalist elements in medieval Iceland by David Friedman:
> 
>   Okay... and?  I'm more interested in your quibbles, makes me refine
> my own views and analysis.

I think you know more about the society than I do, but my "quibbles" 
related to:

"it was a very violent society" - relative to other societies of it's 
time?

and

"When the exploration and expansion era ended so did the dynamic sort
of democracy they had and they allowed themselves to be subjugated to
a foreign king."

You don't explain why the "era ended".  I don't remember the details of 
the endgame, but I thought that there was some political intrigue in the 
"allowed themselves" part.

There is also your presentation of the society as "democratic".  But, as 
I said, these are quibbles, and quibbles of interpretation.  Given your 
familiarity with the society, I thought it would be more interesting to 
refer you to Friedman's detailed analysis.  My knowledge of the period 
comes only from his work, plus one other book.
 
>   He didn't seem to deal with the Viking raider elements at all.
> Icelandic economy wasn't purely internal. Wealth came from outside.
> Overflow population, and those who couldn't cope with the system,
> could leave.

Friedman has discussed these elements elsewhere - I expected to find 
another article of his to be on his webpage, but I couldn't find it. 
 
>   Good descriptions of the law/government but he does make it seem
> much more stodgy and orderly than the sagas (which, as he points out,
> are meant to be entertaining stories).

Well, it's an academic piece, in a refereed journal. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17544
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:01:28 -0500
Subject: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

    I can't figure it out--no postings since Monday morning?  Has something
gone wrong with my connection, or is that correct?  The latest thiing that
shows up for me is a replyof Gordon's re: MIAHM confusion.
--Dee2



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17545
From: James Hunt" <jhunt@txcyber.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:55:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Deanna S. Higginbotham <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:39e57ec4.0@news.sff.net...
>     I can't figure it out--no postings since Monday morning?  Has
something
> gone wrong with my connection, or is that correct?  The latest thiing that
> shows up for me is a replyof Gordon's re: MIAHM confusion.
> --Dee2
>
Don't know.  I'm here though.
GemStone



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17546
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:18:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:39e57ec4.0@news.sff.net...
>     I can't figure it out--no postings since Monday morning?  Has
something
> gone wrong with my connection, or is that correct?  The latest thiing
that
> shows up for me is a replyof Gordon's re: MIAHM confusion.
> --Dee2
>
>

Well I had nothing more to say about that subject.  Figured we had pretty
much all said our pieces.

Dean







------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17547
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:10:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dean--
    Actually, I was confused tht that was the last posting _anywhere_ on the
HF.  But my test msg and your repply & Gordon's show up now, so I guess it
has just been a really slow week (or maybe I should say really busy for
everyone.)  I was just having a hard time believing no activity on the forum
since  0831 Monday.  Glad to know I didn't "lose" my connection to you all.
Thanks for the reply.
--Dee2


Dean White <WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote
> "Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote
> >     I can't figure it out--no postings since Monday morning?  Has
something
> > gone wrong with my connection, or is that correct?  The latest thiing
that
> > shows up for me is a replyof Gordon's re: MIAHM confusion.
> > --Dee2
> Well I had nothing more to say about that subject.  Figured we had pretty
> much all said our pieces.
> Dean




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17548
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:11:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

GemStone--
    Thanks for the reply.  Sorry I confused you with Gordon in my reply to
Dean.  Brain fade.
--Dee2


James Hunt <jhunt@txcyber.com> wrote in message
news:39e5d114.0@news.sff.net...
> Don't know.  I'm here though.
> GemStone
>
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17549
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:24:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:10:26 -0500, "Deanna S. Higginbotham"
<ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
>  I was just having a hard time believing no activity on the forum
>since  0831 Monday.  Glad to know I didn't "lose" my connection to you all.
>Thanks for the reply.
>--Dee2
>
I'm usually reading with Daniel in my lap/arms (as I am now ;), so
it's tougher to type out responses or start threads.  Not that I'm a
high-volume poster these days anyway. <g>

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17550
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:10:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deanna S. Higginbotham <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:39e57ec4.0@news.sff.net...
>     I can't figure it out--no postings since Monday morning?

I'm here.  Just been busy the last couple of evenings.  Came here wondering
how much I had to get caught up on.  Answer was not much.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17551
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 08:35:15 GMT
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>I think you know more about the society than I do, but my "quibbles" 
>related to:

  Ah, good. Thanks. 

>"it was a very violent society" - relative to other societies of it's 
>time?

  In some ways very like the US now--the sagas often read like gang
battles. In some ways like the classic American Old West--with the
casualness to the violence (even more reasonable in that the
comparison is between two somewhat fictionalized societies, the people
passing on the more sensational tales rather than the bland everyday
sort of life). The casualness of the violence stands out to me. Very
much an accepted part of their world. Can't really compare to other
societies at the time, don't know enough about them, and many of them
were getting regularly stomped by the Vikings. 

  Internally, the violence was probably mainly between the big
guys--the warriors--not so much things like assaults on women or
robberies or such. Recorded incidents of domestic violence generally
ended with the man very much regretting he ever hit the female.
Externally, these are the guys who every summer went out viking, and
cowed, conquered, and colonized most of England, Scotland, France,
Russia, and to lesser extents, even beyond. Though they didn't always
fight to conquer (sometimes they negotiated a marriage to the local
king's daughter), the Vikings' fearsome reputation was justified.

  There's one interesting story in the sagas about the pagan
equivalent of a Sunday school picnic. Families are gathered, eating,
playing games... generally just a good sociable time, wasn't any
particular religious event solomness going on. Then a young kid (maybe
6 or 7)  murdered someone else and the whole thing degenerated into
years of killing back and forth. 

>"When the exploration and expansion era ended so did the dynamic sort
>of democracy they had and they allowed themselves to be subjugated to
>a foreign king."
>
>You don't explain why the "era ended".  I don't remember the details of 
>the endgame, but I thought that there was some political intrigue in the 
>"allowed themselves" part.

  Yeah. Haven't delved much into that part. The climate, the mini-ice
age, came into play. The dwindling of the colonizing expansion also
did. I guess I see that as the biggie--the end of the sense of dynamic
forwardness (not that all their 'forwardness' was exactly admirable by
our standards). 

>There is also your presentation of the society as "democratic". 

  <shrug> We call our system democratic too. Folks voted, there was no
king. 

  Thanks for the feedback. I enjoy the opportunity to discuss an area
very much of interest to me, but don't feel obliged to continue if you
don't want to, I realize it's not one of your specific areas.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17552
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:02:48 GMT
Subject: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


  Have you been watching the Presidential debates? The first one I
found exceptionally depressing--knowing that either the twerp or the
creep would inevitably be the next president. 

  Then Cheney and Lieberman did their debate and I was soooo impressed
with both of them; lamenting that they weren't the top ones on the
tickets, or better yet, the Cheney/Lieberman ticket. Intelligent,
knowledgeable people who weren't solely performing as instructed (or
programmed) by handlers and advisers. 

  The second Presidential debate started and I again was depressed. I
don't like it that most of the time I could come up with better
answers than either of them were (regardless of side of the issue).
With Cheney and Lieberman I felt I learned something. With Bush and
Gore, especially at first, I felt like I could teach them something.
Sad. Then Gore screwed up big-time. He should fire whoever told him to
do this (why do I think it wasn't his own original idea?)--Gore
started emphasizing Texas. Gore turned the whole debate, every
question toward Texas. And it was Gore's doing it, not Bush's. But it
played entirely into Bush's strengths. Bush may be light on
international politics (and all them big ferign names) but Texas is
something he knows and knows well. It showed. Now Bush was coming
across as knowledgeable and confident and well-informed, and Gore was
looking more and more annoyed and petulant (he looks a bit like a
Vulcan who's had his ears bobbed). And because he wasn't allowed to
sigh he had to settle for making little irritated noises in his
throat. 

  You've heard the big fuss over wrist watches in the debates, haven't
you? Bush-the-first glanced at his several times in one debate and it
became a huge issue (that he was bored or whatever). So at the end of
the Cheney/Lieberman debate Cheney commented to Lieberman that he took
his watch off before they started. Lieberman said that they hadn't let
him wear his either. So... at the end of this last debate, it was
kinda funny, first thing after the handshakes with Gore and Lehrer,
Bush snatched up his wrist watch and hooked it back on his wrist fast,
like he'd been feeling utterly naked without it. Then he hurried into
the audience and hugged Collin Powell. Whereupon Gore had to hug
everyone in sight (when did this hugging thing start? it's sort of...
invasively personal, and a little too cutesy, in what should be a
business-like situation). 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17553
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:37:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

And I don't post much anymore at all.  I've been sleeping with pain meds and
other not so good drugs for the latest flare of Fibromyalgia which included
pleurisy and an inflamation of the joints between the ribs and the sternum I
can pronounce but can't spell.  I'm fine other than the PAIN and I can't
breathe.

For the medical people among us, I'm allergic to almost every NSAID out
there and I have other allergies and sensitivities.

--
`rita
Hanging in here in rainy Finley, Washington.
pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
Deanna S. Higginbotham wrote in message <39e57ec4.0@news.sff.net>...
    I can't figure it out--no postings since Monday morning?  Has something
gone wrong with my connection, or is that correct?  The latest thiing that
shows up for me is a replyof Gordon's re: MIAHM confusion.
--Dee2





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17554
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:29:11 -0700
Subject: USS Cole
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

You raise your right hand,
You swear to support and defend,
You put on the uniform,
You pray every day that you will not have to fulfill your oath.

The sailors of the USS Cole had to fulfill their oath on October 12, 2000.
Some will get the chance to pray for their oath again.  Some will come home
in pain or pieces their oath satisified.  Some will come home in Flag
drapped boxes their oath complete.

The Oath binds us,
That barely remembered handful of words repeated in some Federal Building
with a bunch of other recruits,
Resonates in our souls,
Words and phrases surfacing in times of stress.

All of us who wear or wore the uniforms of our Country swore The Oath.
At times like this, I think, we all remember Our Oath.

--
`rita
Remembering my oath; 13Feb76 Spokane, WA
pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17555
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:36:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C034D7.9B29E140
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Lorrita--

    I'm terribly sorry to hear that you are going through what sounds =
like a particularly bad time.  Is fibromyalgia one of the autoimmuine =
problems?  If so, then the multiple allergie don't surprise me, but they =
must surely add to your misery.  I don't have any advice to offer, =
medical, folk-remedy, or any other category, and even if I thought I =
did, I wold be wary of presumptuousness when you have spent so many =
years living with and learning about this condition.  However, if happy =
thoughts, prayers, and good wishes do any good, know that many are =
coming your way.

   Some people say that laughter helps alleviate (or distract from) =
chronic pain, so I will offer you the best lawyer joke I have seen =
recently--at least from a lawyer's point of view:
        George and Lenny decide to cross North America in a hot air =
balloon. However, neither were particularly experienced balloonists, and =
Lenny's mind quickly drifted from navigation to thoughts of how clouds =
look like cuddly little bunny rabbits. Upon realizing that they were =
lost, George declared, "Lenny -- we are going to have to lose some =
altitude so we can figure out where we are."
        George lets some hot air out of the balloon, which slowly =
descended below the clouds, but he still couldn't tell where they were. =
Far below, they could see a man on the ground. George lowered the =
balloon, to ask the man their location.
        When they were low enough, George called down to the man, "Hey, =
can you tell us where we are?" The man on the ground yelled back, =
"You're in a balloon, about 100 feet up in the air."
        George Called down to the man, "You must be a lawyer." "Gee, =
George," Lenny replied, "How can you tell?" George answered, "Because =
the advice he gave us is 100% accurate, and is completely useless".
        The man called back up to the balloon, "You must be a client." =
George yelled back, "Why do you say that?" "Well," the man replied, "you =
don't know where you are, or where you are going. You got into your =
predicament through a lack of planning, and could have avoided it by =
asking for help before you acted. You expect me to provide an instant =
remedy. The fact is you are in the exact same position you were in =
before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."
    Best wishes to you Lorrita, and I hope that today is a better day =
than yesterday was.

--Dee2


Lorrita Morgan <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message =
news:39e6d57a.0@news.sff.net...
> I've been sleeping with pain meds and other not so good drugs for the =
latest flare of Fibromyalgia. . . .

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C034D7.9B29E140
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Lorrita--</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    I'm terribly sorry =
to hear that=20
you are going through what sounds like a particularly bad time.  Is =

fibromyalgia one of the autoimmuine problems?  If so, then the =
multiple=20
allergie don't surprise me, but they must surely add to your =
misery.  I=20
don't have any advice to offer, medical, folk-remedy, or any other =
category, and=20
even if I thought I did, I wold be wary of presumptuousness when you =
have spent=20
so many years living with and learning about this condition.  =
However, if=20
happy thoughts, prayers, and good wishes do any good, know that many are =
coming=20
your way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>   Some people say that =
laughter=20
helps alleviate (or distract from) chronic pain, so I will offer you the =
best=20
lawyer joke I have seen recently--at least from a lawyer's point of=20
view:</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    George and Lenny =
decide to=20
    cross North America in a hot air balloon. However, neither were =
particularly=20
    experienced balloonists, and Lenny's mind quickly drifted from =
navigation to=20
    thoughts of how clouds look like cuddly little bunny rabbits. Upon =
realizing=20
    that they were lost, George declared, "Lenny -- we are going to have =
to lose=20
    some altitude so we can figure out where we are."</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    George lets some =
hot air out=20
    of the balloon, which slowly descended below the clouds, but he =
still=20
    couldn't tell where they were. Far below, they could see a man on =
the=20
    ground. George lowered the balloon, to ask the man their=20
    location.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    When they were =
low enough,=20
    George called down to the man, "Hey, can you tell us where we are?" =
The man=20
    on the ground yelled back, "You're in a balloon, about 100 feet up =
in the=20
    air."</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    George Called =
down to the=20
    man, "You must be a lawyer." "Gee, George," Lenny replied, "How can =
you=20
    tell?" George answered, "Because the advice he gave us is 100% =
accurate, and=20
    is completely useless".</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    The man called =
back up to=20
    the balloon, "You must be a client." George yelled back, "Why do you =
say=20
    that?" "Well," the man replied, "you don't know where you are, or =
where you=20
    are going. You got into your predicament through a lack of planning, =
and=20
    could have avoided it by asking for help before you acted. You =
expect me to=20
    provide an instant remedy. The fact is you are in the exact same =
position=20
    you were in before we met, but now it is somehow my=20
  fault."</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    Best wishes to you =
Lorrita, and=20
I hope that today is a better day than yesterday was.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>--Dee2</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Lorrita Morgan <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:lorrita-m@prodigy.net">lorrita-m@prodigy.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
href=3D"news:39e6d57a.0@news.sff.net">news:39e6d57a.0@news.sff.net</A>...=
</FONT></DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>> I've been sleeping with pain meds =
and other not so=20
good drugs for the latest flare of Fibromyalgia. . . =
..</FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C034D7.9B29E140--


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17556
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:48:14 -0500
Subject: Re: USS Cole
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Lorrita--

    Feeling like a real dummy, I have to ask what happened yesterday?  I
haven't seen much news lately--I have either been working or asleep.  If I
sit still long enough to watch the news (or the debates) I nod off and wake
up with a crick in my neck and no idea what was said.  I will check out the
news, and in the meantime, the crew of the USS Cole will be in my thoughts.
Thanks for letting us know.

    I have a good friend who is a disabled Marine (and I once made the
mistake of introducing is as a "former" Marine. <G>)  I am sure that Percy
would have a special understanding of your post.  People like me, who have
never offered ourselves in this kind of service, can only empathize with and
feel grateful to our servicepeople and vets.  Here's to all those brave men
and women--past, present and future.

--Dee2

Lorrita Morgan <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:39e6d588.0@news.sff.net...
> The sailors of the USS Cole had to fulfill their oath on October 12, 2000.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17557
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 06:35:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C034DF.B99D0280
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Deb--

    I've tried, but I can't stay awake.  "When I works, I works hard.  =
When I plays, I plays loose.  When I thinks, I falls asleep."

    Gad, this whole election is depressing.  You said it more succinctly =
than I have ever seen--the twerp and the creep.  Since I think Alabama's =
electoral votes are pretty well sewn up tight, this may very well be the =
time I vote Libertarian in a notional election. =20

    BTW, I know that Bush's death penalty cheerleading plays well with a =
lot of people, but Texas's death penalty record does not recommend =
itself or Bush to me. =20
        "The death penalty conviction process in Texas has all the =
integrity of a professional wrestling match," writes Stephen Bright in =
the July issue of The Champion, the monthly legal journal of the =
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). "A =
politically-motivated Texas Court of Criminal Appeals regularly turns a =
blind eye and a deaf ear to even extreme travesties of justice where =
court-appointed lawyers have actually fallen asleep during trials or are =
clearly incompetent and unable to offer proper representation to people =
facing the death penalty."=20
    . . .
        Bright says that the absence of fairness and integrity on the =
part of the Texas courts has resulted in that state's having the =
"fastest assembly line to the death chamber in the country." Egregious =
abuses Bright cites in his article include cases where:
        The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stridently enforced a =
deadline blocking any hearing in a case where the accused was defended =
by a lawyer who had previously prosecuted him, had a serious cocaine =
problem and was conveniently paid by the judge who appointed him almost =
the identical amount the lawyer owed to the IRS.
        The court irresponsibly appointed a federal prosecutor to =
represent a condemned inmate, unaware that the lawyer was an Assistant =
U.S. Attorney, and thus could not represent a death-sentenced inmate.
        The criminal appeal court also upheld at least three death =
sentences in a Houston case in which the lawyer for the defendant slept =
during the trial.
    . . .
        Texas voters -- and politicians-- apparently are getting what =
they want: Texas will soon carry out its 200th execution since the U.S. =
Supreme Court allowed the resumption of capital punishment in 1976. That =
is two-and-a-half times the number of executions carried out in =
Virginia, the state with the second highest numbers.=20
--From the Nationl Criminal Defens Lawyers Association

    BTW, both candidates wanted to align themselves with "licensing" =
while dissacioating themselves from "registration."  So how come no one =
mentioned  the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 "To amend the =
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, =
and for other purposes"?

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message =
news:39e8c978.8524543@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>=20
>   Have you been watching the Presidential debates?=20

------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C034DF.B99D0280
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Deb--</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    I've tried, but I =
can't stay=20
awake.  "When I works, I works hard.  When I plays, I plays=20
loose.  When I thinks, I falls asleep."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    Gad, this whole =
election is=20
depressing.  You said it more succinctly than I have ever seen--the =
twerp=20
and the creep.  Since I think Alabama's electoral votes are pretty =
well=20
sewn up tight, this may very well be the time I vote Libertarian in a =
notional=20
election.  </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    BTW, I know that =
Bush's death=20
penalty cheerleading plays well with a lot of people, but Texas's death =
penalty=20
record does not recommend itself or Bush to me.  </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    "The death =
penalty=20
    conviction process in Texas has all the integrity of a professional=20
    wrestling match," writes Stephen Bright in the July issue of The =
Champion,=20
    the monthly legal journal of the National Association of Criminal =
Defense=20
    Lawyers (NACDL). "A politically-motivated Texas Court of Criminal =
Appeals=20
    regularly turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to even extreme =
travesties of=20
    justice where court-appointed lawyers have actually fallen asleep =
during=20
    trials or are clearly incompetent and unable to offer proper =
representation=20
    to people facing the death penalty." </FONT></DIV>
    <DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>. . .</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    Bright says that =
the absence=20
    of fairness and integrity on the part of the Texas courts has =
resulted in=20
    that state's having the "fastest assembly line to the death chamber =
in the=20
    country." Egregious abuses Bright cites in his article include cases =

    where:</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    The Texas Court =
of Criminal=20
    Appeals stridently enforced a deadline blocking any hearing in a =
case where=20
    the accused was defended by a lawyer who had previously prosecuted =
him, had=20
    a serious cocaine problem and was conveniently paid by the judge who =

    appointed him almost the identical amount the lawyer owed to the=20
    IRS.<BR>    The court irresponsibly appointed a =
federal=20
    prosecutor to represent a condemned inmate, unaware that the lawyer =
was an=20
    Assistant U.S. Attorney, and thus could not represent a =
death-sentenced=20
    inmate.<BR>    The criminal appeal court also upheld =
at least=20
    three death sentences in a Houston case in which the lawyer for the=20
    defendant slept during the trial.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV align=3Dcenter><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>. . .</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    Texas voters -- =
and=20
    politicians-- apparently are getting what they want: Texas will soon =
carry=20
    out its 200th execution since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the =
resumption=20
    of capital punishment in 1976. That is two-and-a-half times the =
number of=20
    executions carried out in Virginia, the state with the second =
highest=20
    numbers. </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>--From the Nationl Criminal Defens =
Lawyers=20
Association</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    BTW, both candidates =
wanted to=20
align themselves with "licensing" while dissacioating themselves from=20
"registration."  So how come no one mentioned<STRONG>  =
</STRONG>the=20
Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 <TTITLE>"To amend the =
Internal=20
Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for =
other=20
purposes</TTITLE>"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Deb Houdek Rule <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:debrule@jps.net">debrule@jps.net</A>> wrote in message =
<A=20
href=3D"news:39e8c978.8524543@NEWS.SFF.NET">news:39e8c978.8524543@NEWS.SF=
F.NET</A>...</FONT></DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>> <BR>>   Have you been watching the =
Presidential=20
debates? </FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0052_01C034DF.B99D0280--


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17558
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:44:15 -0500
Subject: Re: USS Cole
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:39e6e946.0@news.sff.net...
> Lorrita--
>
>     Feeling like a real dummy, I have to ask what happened yesterday?  I
> haven't seen much news lately--I have either been working or asleep.  If
I
> sit still long enough to watch the news (or the debates) I nod off and
wake
> up with a crick in my neck and no idea what was said.  I will check out
the
> news, and in the meantime, the crew of the USS Cole will be in my
thoughts.
> Thanks for letting us know.
>
> --Dee2

Well if you haven't heard yet, what seems to have happened is that a small
boat load of explosives with two aboard in a busy harbor came along side
the USS Cole, an escort destroyer that was refueling, then exploded
killing 5 and maybe two more injuring 40 creating a large hole at the
water line.  So far it seems to be a terrorist act that may be linked to
the current Mid East crises.

I used to think that there could be peace in that area but now my opinion
has shifted to selling all sides all the small arms they want and let them
burn out their hostilities over each others bodies.

Dean




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17559
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:05:37 -0400
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e6c1f0.6597130@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
....
>   In some ways very like the US now--the sagas often read like gang
> battles. In some ways like the classic American Old West--with the
> casualness to the violence (even more reasonable in that the
> comparison is between two somewhat fictionalized societies, the people
> passing on the more sensational tales rather than the bland everyday
> sort of life).

I'm glad you added the parenthetical.  At least one study of death rates 
in the Old West does not support the standard mythology of that period.  
Economist Terry L. Anderson was one of the authors, but I can't think of 
the title of the study right now.

> The casualness of the violence stands out to me. Very
> much an accepted part of their world. Can't really compare to other
> societies at the time, don't know enough about them, and many of them
> were getting regularly stomped by the Vikings.

Fine.  I simply did not want any lurkers to this exchange to come away 
with the idea that the violence was directly traceable to the political 
institutions of the Icelanders. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17560
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:19:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e8c978.8524543@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
> 
>   Have you been watching the Presidential debates?

No.  Masochism doesn't appeal to me.  ;-)

> The first one I
> found exceptionally depressing--knowing that either the twerp or the
> creep would inevitably be the next president. 
> 
>   Then Cheney and Lieberman did their debate and I was soooo impressed
> with both of them; lamenting that they weren't the top ones on the
> tickets...

Here is my prediction: if they were at the top of their tickets, then 
they would sound just like Bush and Gore.  It is the system as much - or 
more - than the people.  Every now and then, a Jesse Ventura upsets the 
typical campaign process and wins, but, for the most part, the handlers 
and advisors actually know what motivates the average U.S. voter.  That 
is what /I/ find depressing.  ;-) 

....
> Bush snatched up his wrist watch and hooked it back on his wrist fast,
> like he'd been feeling utterly naked without it. Then he hurried into
> the audience and hugged Collin Powell. Whereupon Gore had to hug
> everyone in sight (when did this hugging thing start? it's sort of...
> invasively personal, and a little too cutesy, in what should be a
> business-like situation). 

Can you say "Oprah Winfrey"?  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17561
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:43:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:02:48 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:
>
>  Have you been watching the Presidential debates? The first one I
>found exceptionally depressing--knowing that either the twerp or the
>creep would inevitably be the next president. 
>
I watched a few minutes of the first.  Couldn't take it after two
questions and turned it off.

Watched a little more of the veep debate.  Those guys got real
questions because nobody cares about the veep--so the answers were
less scripted.

Didn't watch the second prez debate.

My vote is already decided, and it's not for either of them, so I'm
not wasting my time.  I'll be watching too much of one of them soon
enough....Sigh.....

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17562
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:43:46 GMT
Subject: Re: USS Cole
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:29:11 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
>All of us who wear or wore the uniforms of our Country swore The Oath.
>At times like this, I think, we all remember Our Oath.
>
....and civilians, too. June 2, 1991.  I believe it's the same oath.
At least, it's the same one the President takes, or very similiar.
Federal Buildings are easy targets, even after OK City.

I think 5 of the dead (last count I saw was 17, I think) are from the
MD area, and local news has had a lot to say about them.  So young,
and such a great sacrifice.  My heart goes out to all those families
that have to cope with the ultimate loss.

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17563
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:08:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C03562.1E9AC320
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

  Deanna S. Higginbotham <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message =
news:39e6f444.0@news.sff.net...

  >>    Gad, this whole election is depressing.  You said it more =
succinctly than I have ever seen--the twerp and the creep.  Since I =
>>think Alabama's electoral votes are pretty well sewn up tight, this =
may very well be the time I vote Libertarian in a notional >>election. =20
  I actually have a dilemma over this election.  Florida and its =
electoral votes are *not* sewn up.  It's close here.  My intention was =
and my preference is to vote for Nader.  But can I really throw my vote =
away?  To paraphrase a certain writer whom we all know, among the two =
candidates there's no one I want to vote for, but there's someone I want =
to vote against.

  >>BTW, both candidates wanted to align themselves with "licensing" =
while dissacioating themselves from "registration."  So how >>come no =
one mentioned  the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 "To amend =
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to >>require the registration of =
handguns, and for other purposes"?
  I'm not familiar with this one.  Can you tell me more about it?

  Margaret

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C03562.1E9AC320
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
  <DIV>Deanna S. Higginbotham <<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:ke4lfg@amsat.org">ke4lfg@amsat.org</A>> wrote in =
message <A=20
  =
href=3D"news:39e6f444.0@news.sff.net">news:39e6f444.0@news.sff.net</A>...=
</DIV>
  <DIV> </DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>>    Gad, this =
whole=20
  election is depressing.  You said it more succinctly than I have =
ever=20
  seen--the twerp and the creep.  Since I >>think Alabama's =
electoral=20
  votes are pretty well sewn up tight, this may very well be the time I =
vote=20
  Libertarian in a notional >>election.  </FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>I actually have a dilemma over this election.  Florida and =
its=20
  electoral votes are *not* sewn up.  It's close here.  My =
intention=20
  was and my preference is to vote for Nader.  But can I really =
throw my=20
  vote away?  To paraphrase a certain writer whom we all know, =
among the=20
  two candidates there's no one I want to vote for, but there's someone =
I want=20
  to vote against.</DIV>
  <DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>>BTW, both candidates wanted =
to align=20
  themselves with "licensing" while dissacioating themselves from=20
  "registration."  So how >>come no one =
mentioned<STRONG> =20
  </STRONG>the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 <TTITLE>"To =
amend the=20
  Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to >>require the registration of =
handguns,=20
  and for other purposes</TTITLE>"?</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm not familiar with this one.  =
Can you=20
  tell me more about it?</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV> </DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Margaret</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C03562.1E9AC320--


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17564
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:14:30 -0500
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:39e6c1f0.6597130@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>   Thanks for the feedback. I enjoy the opportunity to discuss an area
> very much of interest to me, but don't feel obliged to continue if you
> don't want to, I realize it's not one of your specific areas.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm finding the information to be
fascinating.  I've never studied anything about Viking history.

>   Internally, the violence was probably mainly between the big
> guys--the warriors--not so much things like assaults on women or
> robberies or such. Recorded incidents of domestic violence generally
> ended with the man very much regretting he ever hit the female.
Okay, Deb, you can't just drop that in and leave it.  Why did the man very
much regret ever hitting the female.  And do you think the fact they men had
the opportunity to regularly and in a socially acceptable manner channel
their aggressive instincts on their enemies resulted in a lower rate of
assaults on women and robberies?

>   There's one interesting story in the sagas about the pagan
> equivalent of a Sunday school picnic. Families are gathered, eating,
> playing games... generally just a good sociable time, wasn't any
> particular religious event solomness going on. Then a young kid (maybe
> 6 or 7)  murdered someone else and the whole thing degenerated into
> years of killing back and forth.
Yet another case where you give us only part of the story.  Deb, are you
enjoying whetting my appetite then leaving me hanging?

Margaret




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17565
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:46:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I think posted that I fell asleep trying to watch the first "Dumb and Dumber
Show."  It wasn't just the drugs.

I hadn't planned on watching the "Dick and Joe Love Fest" but I went to the
kitchen and got hooked on what I heard from there.  I watched the whole
thing.  I like those guys.  I'm not voting for either of them, but I like
what they had to say and the way they said it.

Wednesday night I had a meeting from 6-8 so I was spared the live version of
"Dumb and Dumber II."  Local PBS station ran it at 10; I lasted 15 minutes
and couple commercial flips.

I probably won't try to watch round three.  I've requested several good
videos from the library.   Even "Plan 9 From Outer Space" would be better
than what I caught of Wednesday's show.

--
`rita
Live? from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
Deb Houdek Rule wrote in message <39e8c978.8524543@NEWS.SFF.NET>...

  Have you been watching the Presidential debates? The first one I
found exceptionally depressing--knowing that either the twerp or the
creep would inevitably be the next president.

  Then Cheney and Lieberman did their debate and I was soooo impressed
with both of them; lamenting that they weren't the top ones on the
tickets, or better yet, the Cheney/Lieberman ticket. Intelligent,
knowledgeable people who weren't solely performing as instructed (or
programmed) by handlers and advisers.

  The second Presidential debate started and I again was depressed. I
don't like it that most of the time I could come up with better
answers than either of them were (regardless of side of the issue).
With Cheney and Lieberman I felt I learned something. With Bush and
Gore, especially at first, I felt like I could teach them something.
Sad. Then Gore screwed up big-time. He should fire whoever told him to
do this (why do I think it wasn't his own original idea?)--Gore
started emphasizing Texas. Gore turned the whole debate, every
question toward Texas. And it was Gore's doing it, not Bush's. But it
played entirely into Bush's strengths. Bush may be light on
international politics (and all them big ferign names) but Texas is
something he knows and knows well. It showed. Now Bush was coming
across as knowledgeable and confident and well-informed, and Gore was
looking more and more annoyed and petulant (he looks a bit like a
Vulcan who's had his ears bobbed). And because he wasn't allowed to
sigh he had to settle for making little irritated noises in his
throat.

  You've heard the big fuss over wrist watches in the debates, haven't
you? Bush-the-first glanced at his several times in one debate and it
became a huge issue (that he was bored or whatever). So at the end of
the Cheney/Lieberman debate Cheney commented to Lieberman that he took
his watch off before they started. Lieberman said that they hadn't let
him wear his either. So... at the end of this last debate, it was
kinda funny, first thing after the handshakes with Gore and Lehrer,
Bush snatched up his wrist watch and hooked it back on his wrist fast,
like he'd been feeling utterly naked without it. Then he hurried into
the audience and hugged Collin Powell. Whereupon Gore had to hug
everyone in sight (when did this hugging thing start? it's sort of...
invasively personal, and a little too cutesy, in what should be a
business-like situation).


Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17566
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:21:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Deanna S. Higginbotham wrote in message <39e6e6a4.0@news.sff.net>...
Lorrita--
<snip>Is fibromyalgia one of the autoimmuine problems?  <more snips>
+++++

Fibro= the fibrous conective tissue usually found in the joints.  My=the
muscles.  Algia=*P*A*I*N*
Fibromyalgia syndrome is a condition that can affect every joint and muscle
in the body.  It used to be called Fibrositis.  Some researchers and doctors
classify it with Chronic Fatigue Immune Deficiency Syndrome; others place it
with Arthritis.  It can be annoying or debilitating depending on the number
and severity of symptoms.

My case is leans toward debilitating.  We "fix" one problem and three others
come out of hiding.  I have links to two Fibromyalgia sites on my page, I
hope they're still good.  (I haven't checked them since June 2000, I last
did my page the end of August<eep!>)

The joke was pretty good.  I kind of like lawyers.  Social Security didn't
like mine they gave me disability payments only two and a-half years after I
hired him.  Others disabled by Fibromyalgia have fought the SSA for five
years or more before getting payments.
--
`rita
Live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17567
From: fader555@aol.com
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 05:58:41 -0500
Subject: Test - but read/ reply please
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I finally got the new computer working, more or less correctly (I
think) Just got Free Agent installed & can read the HF again. If
someone would reply so I know it working I'd be forever grateful (or a
reasonable facsimile<g>)

Thanx,

Fader

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17568
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:14:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Test - but read/ reply please
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Fader--

    Good to see you.

--Dee2

<fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hjeguskpspu52bsum6utudk6iuj2kbjurl@4ax.com...
> If someone would reply so I know it working I'd be forever grateful (or a
> reasonable facsimile<g>)
>
> Thanx,
>
> Fader
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17569
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:43:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Test message--Where is everybody?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Lorrita--

> others place it with Arthritis
    Yeah, the arthritis connection is what I was halfway remembering.  I
think rheumatoid arthritis is being considered as an autoimmune problem.
Not certain about that, just a "memory-nibble."  Took a fibromyalgia patient
in on our ambulance several years ago--no treatment for us to give enroute,
just transport a lady who was spasming up so bad it almost looked like
seizures and she had to go on a stretcher.  It has been a long time, so
memory is cloudy, but I think she had been unconscious for a short time
before we arrived, and thus her daughter called us--we probably administered
O2.  I do remember that  massaging back muscles was the only that  kept them
from the worst spasms.  Reaching her back left me in a very awkward position
when the ambulance driver was forced into a swerve, and I would have fallen
over her if the other medic hadn't caught me with a hand in the upper chest
like the block you learn in lifeguarding.  False modesty doesn't last long
in emergency work.

> I kind of like lawyers.  Social Security didn't like mine they gave me
disability payments only two and a-half years after I
> hired him.
    I don't do SS work, but form what I hear, that's damned good.  The
really frustrating thing with SSI, unemployment comp, worker's comp, etc. is
how difficult it can be for those in real need combined with those cases
where the "loafers" seem to find & immediately "qualify" for all sorts of
payments.   Sometimes it feels as if all the anti-fraud stuff works hardest
against the people who are not fraudulent in any way.  If I ever become a
genius, maybe I will have a solution to that problem.  I am glad that you
were not one of the five-year people.

    All my best wishes for better days.

--Dee2



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17570
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:51:31 -0500
Subject: Re: USS Cole
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dean--

    Thanks for the post.  I got a chance to see the front-page item Friday
while I spent all morning in court, just sitting around waiting for my turn.
(Of course, that was Thursday night news.)

    I keep a television in the office for CNN and Weather Channel
(hurrucane information is important down here.)  I kept CNN turned low while
I was alone in the office, hoping to find out something about our response,
but I couldn't get anything substantive.  Of course, I was listening "with
one ear" while I worked, and I missed a lot.

--Dee2



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17571
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 08:27:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C035B8.8EA4E640
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Margaret

    You can get the full text of the bill from the LOC.  Here is the =
summary from the Library of Congress site at =
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/Dd106:1:./temp/~bdRAnc:@@@D&summ2=3D=
m&|/bss/d106query.html|:

S.2099 Sponsor: Sen Reed, Jack (introduced 2/24/2000)=20
Latest Major Action: 2/24/2000 Referred to Senate committee=20
Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the =
registration of handguns, and for other purposes. SUMMARY AS OF: =
2/24/2000--Introduced.=20
Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 - Amends chapter 53 (Machine =
Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms) of the Internal =
Revenue Code to, among other things: (1) require the registration of =
handguns in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; (2) =
provide for the sharing of registration information with Federal, State =
and local law enforcement agencies; and (3) provide for the imposition =
of the five dollar transfer tax on handguns and a $50 tax upon the =
making of each handgun. .=20

>I'm not familiar with this one.  Can you tell me more about it?

    Yeah, the best news I hear is that Fla. is a long way from locked =
up.  As to the quote, It's so bad that I am having a hard time deciding =
who I _most_ want to vote against. =20

>I actually have a dilemma over this election.  Florida and its =
electoral votes are *not* sewn up.  It's close here.  My intention was =
>and my preference is to vote for Nader.  But can I really throw my vote =
away?  To paraphrase a certain writer whom we all know, >among the two =
candidates there's no one I want to vote for, but there's someone I want =
to vote against.

--Dee2

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C035B8.8EA4E640
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Margaret</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>    You can get the full =
text of the=20
bill from the LOC.  Here is the summary from the Library of =
Congress site=20
at <A=20
href=3D"http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdquery/Dd106:1:./temp/~bdRAnc:@@@D&=
amp;summ2=3Dm&|/bss/d106query.html|">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/bdq=
uery/Dd106:1:./temp/~bdRAnc:@@@D&summ2=3Dm&|/bss/d106query.html|<=
/A>:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>S.2099</B> Sponsor: <A=20
href=3D"http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=3Dd106&querybd=
=3D@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Reed++Jack))+00949))">Sen=20
Reed, Jack</A> (introduced 2/24/2000) <BR>Latest Major Action: 2/24/2000 =

Referred to Senate committee</LACTD></LACT> <BR>Title: A bill to amend =
the=20
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the <B>registration</B> of=20
<B>handguns</B>, and for other purposes. <A name=3Dsummary><B>SUMMARY AS =
OF:</B>=20
2/24/2000--Introduced. </A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><B>Handgun</B> Safety and =
<B>Registration</B> Act=20
of 2000 - Amends chapter 53 (Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and =
Certain=20
Other Firearms) of the Internal Revenue Code to, among other things: (1) =
require=20
the <B>registration</B> of <B>handguns</B> in the National Firearms=20
<B>Registration</B> and Transfer Record; (2) provide for the sharing of=20
<B>registration</B> information with Federal, State and local law =
enforcement=20
agencies; and (3) provide for the imposition of the five dollar transfer =
tax on=20
<B>handguns</B> and a $50 tax upon the making of each <B>handgun</B>. . =
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>>I'm not familiar with this =
one.  Can you=20
tell me more about it?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>    Yeah, the best news I hear is that Fla. is a =
long way=20
from locked up.  As to the quote, It's so bad that I am having a =
hard time=20
deciding who I _most_ want to vote against.  </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>>I actually have a dilemma over this election.  Florida and =
its=20
electoral votes are *not* sewn up.  It's close here.  My =
intention was=20
>and my preference is to vote for Nader.  But can I really throw =
my vote=20
away?  To paraphrase a certain writer whom we all know, >among =
the two=20
candidates there's no one I want to vote for, but there's someone I want =
to vote=20
against.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--Dee2</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C035B8.8EA4E640--


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17572
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:09:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e86007.0@news.sff.net>, Deanna S. Higginbotham writes...
.... 
> Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns,

Wonderful what the tax code can be used for!  Thank God we were able to 
go after that evil Al Capone with the tax laws.  No /honest/ citizen need 
ever fear the IRS!

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17573
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:24:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e7cc9c.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
>   I actually have a dilemma over this election.  Florida and its electoral 
> votes are *not* sewn up.  It's close here.  My intention was and my preference 
> is to vote for Nader.  But can I really throw my vote away?
  
I predict (and am willing to bet money) that no matter how close you 
perceive the race in Florida to be, it will /not/ be decided by one vote.  
Take a look at the binomial distribution sometime if you have any doubts.

As such, I think you would be throwing your vote away if you failed to 
vote your conscience.  In any election involving thousands or more 
voters, your voting to ensure that a certain candidate wins (or loses) 
makes no sense.  Voting to express your beliefs, however, does make 
sense.  At any rate, the effect your vote has on the total percentage 
that Nader gets will be much larger than the effect on the total of 
either major party candidate you could vote for.  That is a real 
quantitative difference that your vote can make.

I say all this, even knowing that if you take it seriously you will 
(apparently) vote for the worst candidate I can imagine, just to show how 
objective (and helpful) libertarians can be.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17574
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:44:19 -0500
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Madge--
     I think the signs (of collapse) are there.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17575
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 23:42:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:08:30 -0500, "Margaret Albrecht"
<mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>  I actually have a dilemma over this election.  Florida and its =
>electoral votes are *not* sewn up.  It's close here.  My intention was =
>and my preference is to vote for Nader.  But can I really throw my vote =
>away?  To paraphrase a certain writer whom we all know, among the two =
>candidates there's no one I want to vote for, but there's someone I want =
>to vote against.

And as someone who happens to believe in our democratic system, for
all its flaws, I can't help but believe it is important to vote for
someone who actually has a chance of winning.  Especially if you live
in a "swing" state (as opposed to mine, KS, where the outcome is
pre-determined).

To vote for a candidate who has no chance is the same as voting for
the guy (or gal) you like least.  If you really hate both of the two
main candidates, then I guess that doesn't matter.  But if you do
consider one to be worse than the other, I feel one should at least
vote against the greater evil.

Your milage may vary.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17576
From: fader555@aol.com
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 05:38:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Test - but read/ reply please
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 07:14:35 -0500, "Deanna S. Higginbotham"
<ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:

>Fader--
>
>    Good to see you.
>
Thanx. Dee
Seems like it's all working.

Fader


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17577
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 12:42:20 -0500
Subject: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I'm thinking about the dilemma of "throwing away my vote" and how to get out
of the problem that a candidate might be able to win if only people thought
that the person had a decent chance to win.

Here is  thought on how to make that happen -- it seems half-baked, and I
thought this would be a good group to discuss it.  You'll be able to
criticize my ideas without attacking me -- I'll bet.

****************************************************
If you think that either of the two major political parties represent you
well, delete this message and continue with your life.

You've received this message because the person who sent it to you believes
that you are an independent thinker.  Even independent thinkers want to have
some impact on the political system, and most do not want to throw away
their vote.  I would like for you to consider a halfway measure that allows
you to choose the lesser of the two evils when there truly isn't any chance
for anyone else to win, and yet give candidates that may be better for our
country the chance they deserve to win.

Lie to political polling organizations.

The system is this.  Choose the candidate that you would vote for if you
were the only person allowed to vote in the election.  If anyone asks who
you are going to vote for, tell them the person who in your heart you want
to win the election.  If you don't know who you would want to win, but
merely don't like any of the two major candidates, choose the third-party
candidate that is doing best.  For the US 2000 presidential election that
person would be Ralph Nader of the Green Party.  Then set yourself a limit
where you believe that the third party candidate(s) have a chance to win.  I
suggest 20%.  If the polls before the election indicate that all of the
third party candidates have a combined total of 20% of the vote, it is
likely that no candidate will get 50%.  When your criterion is met, then on
election day vote for the candidate of your conscience rather than the
lesser of two evils.

Of course, in order for this to work, most of the independent thinkers need
to be aware of the system.  Only a few people are actually polled in any
given political cycle.  So, you must forward this message to other
independent thinkers for the system to work.  Being an independent thinker,
you may want to change some part of it.  Feel free to do so -- messages are
better when they are written individually than when they are
re-re-re-forwarded.  Let me put below what I think are the essential points
of the system.

1) If you must vote for the lesser of the two evils in the voting booth, at
least tell political polling organizations that you intend to vote for the
candidate of your conscience.
2) Tell all your US independent thinking friends to do the same. (very few
other countries have our two party system).
3) If it looks like a third party candidate could actually win, then all of
the people who were lying (or intending to lie) to the political polling
organizations will vote their conscience.

Join the revolution, and urge your friends to tell their friends to tell ...
**********************************************************

So, what do you think?  Is the idea useful?  Is it useful enough to mitigate
its propagation through a chain letter?  Could it work?  Will it have
negative consequences even if it doesn't work?  Suggestions welcome.

Frank Fujita








------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17578
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:43:39 GMT
Subject: Re: MiaHM Confusion
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

..
>Okay, Deb, you can't just drop that in and leave it.  Why did the man very
>much regret ever hitting the female.  And do you think the fact they men had
>the opportunity to regularly and in a socially acceptable manner channel
>their aggressive instincts on their enemies resulted in a lower rate of
>assaults on women and robberies?

  I think because of the possibility of retaliation. If a man hit his
wife she'd divorce him and take all his property--the law was on her
side. If there was a fuss her male relatives would do nasty things to
him--not that many of the women weren't perfectly capable of putting a
knife in him herself (though not many recorded incidents of such).
Strength of family/clan/friends backing was important. People alone,
without friends, were in a bit of a tough spot. 

  Distances, I think, helped keep down things like random assaults.
There were no lonely streets for women to walk down at night, no
towns, no cities. If she was attacked on her own farmstead they'd have
dealt with the fellow right on the spot, and they had real vicious
imaginations. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17579
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e8ee2d.6104414@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
....
> And as someone who happens to believe in our democratic system, for
> all its flaws, I can't help but believe it is important to vote for
> someone who actually has a chance of winning.  Especially if you live
> in a "swing" state (as opposed to mine, KS, where the outcome is
> pre-determined).

Does this mean that you will not vote?  If the outcome is known, the only 
point in voting seems to be to show your support for the candidate you 
believe in.  If so, why shouldn't you show the same support for your 
candidate regardless of winning chances?

When tens of thousands (and more) of voters are involved, the odds that 
your vote will determine the outcome are so small that you should be more 
worried about dying in a car accident on the way to the polls.  But, 
regardless of odds, voting allows you to indicate the candidate that you 
believe ought to win.

Please note that, although I am not known for being a great proponent of 
democracy, the above is not an argument against voting; only against 
voting for the wrong reasons.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17580
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:18:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39e9ec85.0@news.sff.net>, Frank Fujita writes...
....
> Lie to political polling organizations.

I have a simpler system.  Always vote your conscience and don't lie.

What is the flaw in that?

I have a hard time believing that many posters here actually think that a 
U.S. presidential election is ever going to be decided by one vote; or 
that their vote mysteriously influences the votes of others through time 
and space.

Yet, that seems to be what some folks here are wrestling with.  Why?

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17581
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------

Article 17582
From: postmaster@sff.net
Date: 5 Jan 2001 20:45:51 GMT
Subject: No articles presently in newsgroup.
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This newsgroup has no articles yet; however, if
you were to post something, it would.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17583
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 16 Oct 2000 11:28:37 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.

To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17584
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:15:44 -0400
Subject: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17585
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:22:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Election Year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charles Graft wrote:
>      Where things get sticky is: when does a campaign contribution become a
> bribe?  Either for future consideration or in payment for past favors.

When is a contribution is a bribe?  I'd say:  Always!

But what's wrong with bribes?

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17586
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:41:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote
> Frank Fujita writes...
> ...
> > Lie to political polling organizations.
>
> I have a simpler system.  Always vote your conscience and don't lie.
>
> What is the flaw in that?

No flaw with your system.  It has been around for years, and has many
adherents.  It has the additional benefit that not lying is a good and
simple rule to follow.  My system is designed for those people who are
incapable of appreciating the clarity of your logic (the main point of which
is that a single vote (almost) never determines anything).  I am frustrated
by people who will not vote for the candidate that they believe in.  I was
also frustrated by the voters who seem to look to political polls to figure
out who is going to win, so that they can vote for that person.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17587
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:56:37 -0400
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

John Paul Vrolyk wrote:

> Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.
>
>

Congratulations! Hope it goes well for all of you. I am reaching the
end of the road now; 3 weeks to go, so the stage you're at is a
distant memory but tell Les to make the most of being able to reach
her toes and sleep on her tummy :-)

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17588
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:37:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39eb0580.0@news.sff.net>, Frank Fujita writes...

> My system is designed for those people who are
> incapable of appreciating the clarity of your logic (the main point of which
> is that a single vote (almost) never determines anything).

OK, perhaps fooling such folks into taking the right action is the best 
we can hope for.

>  I am frustrated
> by people who will not vote for the candidate that they believe in.

Me too!

>  I was
> also frustrated by the voters who seem to look to political polls to figure
> out who is going to win, so that they can vote for that person.

A sad commentary on democracy.  I am reminded of Governor Lester Maddox's 
comment when a journalist asked him when would the quality of prisons in 
Georgia improve.  Maddox said, "We'll get better quality prisons when we 
get better quality prisoners."  ;-)

Actually, given the odds that a single vote will affect the outcome, the 
behavior you mention is perfectly rational.  That is why anarcho-
capitalism is better than democracy.  ;-) 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17589
From: Manfred A. Kodila" <makodila@earthlilnk.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:48:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Heinlein Long Range Plan?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


--------------CF8D5728E3DE06B52425DF30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> >Before the later books came out, I asumed he died too, Deb.  I still
> >tend to think RAH intended it so, but left the door open enough that
> >he could ressurect him later.
>
>   Good, a seconding vote. I agree about the leaving the door open
> part--I think RAH wouldn't have wanted to totally end options for a
> character as strong as Lazarus--but the foreshadowing throughout the
> books sure suggested to me he meant it  to be Lazarus's finale.
>
> Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.sff.net/people/Deb

I agree with you also, though RAH did leave the door open.
Definitely one of my favorite works by the master.

Manfred

--------------CF8D5728E3DE06B52425DF30
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
 
<p>Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>Before the later books came out, I asumed he died
too, Deb.  I still
<br>>tend to think RAH intended it so, but left the door open enough that
<br>>he could ressurect him later.
<p>  Good, a seconding vote. I agree about the leaving the door open
<br>part--I think RAH wouldn't have wanted to totally end options for a
<br>character as strong as Lazarus--but the foreshadowing throughout the
<br>books sure suggested to me he meant it  to be Lazarus's finale.
<p>Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
<br><a href="http://www.sff.net/people/Deb">http://www.sff.net/people/Deb</a></blockquote>
I agree with you also, though RAH <i>did</i> leave the door open.
<br>Definitely one of my favorite works by the master.
<p>Manfred</html>

--------------CF8D5728E3DE06B52425DF30--


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17590
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:38:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai--

     I believe it is far more important top make your statement for what
candidate, philosophy or government you believe that to vote for who
your perceive as the less evil of the probable winners.  Otherwise
nothing can or will change.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17591
From: Manfred A. Kodila" <makodila@earthlilnk.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:48:08 -0400
Subject: Re: The end justifies the means?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


--------------99A6AEEC8F71CFD135738FF7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




>
>
> When the choices are equal (more or less), the parents's wishes should
> have some sway. But to let both children die, or at best live a limited,
> abnormal life, based on religious convictions (which the children are
> not capable of sharing), in the face of contrary medical opinion, is not
> a decision I would like to see any government or society support.
>
>  I believe that more harm would be done by letting both girls die
> than by making a medically justified attempt to save the stronger at the
> cost of the damaged, nonviable other.
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> |   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

I would have to agree with you totally, James.  Should the surviving twin live
to
become a mature human, what do you suppose her opinion about the decision
would be?!?

Manfred

--------------99A6AEEC8F71CFD135738FF7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
 
<br> 
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> 
<p>When the choices are equal (more or less), the parents's wishes should
<br>have some sway. But to let both children die, or at best live a limited,
<br>abnormal life, based on religious convictions (which the children are
<br>not capable of sharing), in the face of contrary medical opinion, is
not
<br>a decision I would like to see any government or society support.
<p> I believe that more harm would be done by letting both girls die
<br>than by making a medically justified attempt to save the stronger at
the
<br>cost of the damaged, nonviable other.
<p>--
<p>| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com
|
<br>|   See <a href="http://www.nitrosyncretic.com">http://www.nitrosyncretic.com</a>
for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |</blockquote>
I would have to agree with you totally, James.  Should the surviving
twin live to
<br>become a mature human, what do you suppose <i>her</i> opinion about
the decision
<br>would be?!?
<p>Manfred</html>

--------------99A6AEEC8F71CFD135738FF7--


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17592
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:42:58 -0500
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JP and Les --

     My congratulations.  I was wondering why you two were looking so
good when I saw you last weekend.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17593
From: Manfred A. Kodila" <makodila@earthlilnk.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:02:06 -0400
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



John Paul Vrolyk wrote:

> Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.
>
> --
> John Paul Vrolyk
> jp@vrolyk.org

My congratulations to you!

Manfred


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17594
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 16 Oct 2000 23:27:37 GMT
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Congratulations to you both!

Filksinger
"Thoughts good! Slogans bad! Thoughts good! Slogans bad!"

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17595
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:54:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:28 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>Does this mean that you will not vote?  If the outcome is known, the only 
>point in voting seems to be to show your support for the candidate you 
>believe in.  If so, why shouldn't you show the same support for your 
>candidate regardless of winning chances?

I will vote because it is my civic duty to vote.  Period.
Altho I must admit, there IS an important House race going on in my
district.

>When tens of thousands (and more) of voters are involved, the odds that 
>your vote will determine the outcome are so small that you should be more 
>worried about dying in a car accident on the way to the polls.

By that logic, your one vote for a third party candidate won't make
any difference to that candidate's (or his party's) national standing.
People will not pay one iota more attention to the Libertarians (fory
example) if Mr. Brown gets 100,000 votes or 100,001.

Personally, I do believe it makes a difference.  But not by your
logic, or lack thereof.

>  But, 
>regardless of odds, voting allows you to indicate the candidate that you 
>believe ought to win.
>
>Please note that, although I am not known for being a great proponent of 
>democracy, the above is not an argument against voting; only against 
>voting for the wrong reasons.

Well, fortunately I don't have to vote for your reasons.  I happen to
believe that one main reason to vote is to help determine the outcome
of the election.  In my case, that will not apply this year.  But then
there's still that "duty of citizenship" reason.  Much lower on the
list is any personal satisfaction I might get from supporting a
particular candidate, or for that matter supporting this nation's
political process--note:  I'm not denying that I do occasionally feel
such satisfaction.  Sorry (not) if you think I'm "voting for the wrong
reasons."  I guess I'll have to find a way to live without your
approval.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17596
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:55:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:38:52 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:

>     I believe it is far more important top make your statement for what
>candidate, philosophy or government you believe that to vote for who
>your perceive as the less evil of the probable winners.  Otherwise
>nothing can or will change.

And I very much respect your belief, BigC.  I just don't happen to
agree with it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17597
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:59:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Al Gore and The Hanford Reach
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <395337e3.1767486@news.sff.net>, Cecil Rose writes...
> >       The recidivism rate among executed murderers is very low.  Thus we
> > know that at least some crime is deterred.
> 
> I don't think so.  The idea of deterrence is to give someone a motivation
> not to commit a crime.  A dead person does not have a motivation for or
> against anything.

He doesn't?  How do you know that?

I find other's motivations to be, in general a very hard
problem.  Better than trying to guess their movtivations,
just look at the results.  You may prefer the word "prevention"
to "deterrence", but, except in cheesy horror films, a dead
murderer does not murder anyone else.  

> you have to be 
> concerned about a process that kills people who do not deserve to die.

Oh, certainly.  In practice, the death penalty is often
handled very poorly.  I don't want a single innocent
person killed.  But I have no moral objection to executing
murderers.  The trick is telling the difference.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17598
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 02:06:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:18:02 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>I have a hard time believing that many posters here actually think that a 
>U.S. presidential election is ever going to be decided by one vote; or 
>that their vote mysteriously influences the votes of others through time 
>and space.

I really doubt anyone here thinks either of those to be true.

>Yet, that seems to be what some folks here are wrestling with.  Why?

Because you don't understand collective will.  And, on a more
philosophical level, that the whole can be greater than the sum of its
parts.
One argument for universal conscription.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17599
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:25:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:28 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> >When tens of thousands (and more) of voters are involved, the odds that
> >your vote will determine the outcome are so small that you should be more
> >worried about dying in a car accident on the way to the polls.
> 
> By that logic, your one vote for a third party candidate won't make
> any difference to that candidate's (or his party's) national standing.
> People will not pay one iota more attention to the Libertarians (fory
> example) if Mr. Brown gets 100,000 votes or 100,001.

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on how Gordon's logic
implies that illogic.  Gordon only mentioned the odds that
who's elected would be decided by a single vote.

But "who's elected" isn't the only consideration.  More
attention, in general, will be payed to people who get
more votes, even if they didn't get elected.

> Personally, I do believe it makes a difference.  But not by your
> logic, or lack thereof.

If one is certain that a hated candidate 'A' was going to win,
what is the logic in voting for a disliked 'B' over a liked
'C'?  I can see it if 'A' and 'B' are too close to call, but
if you're sure 'A' will win?  (Or likewise even if you're sure
'B' will win.)  Why would you want more attention for someone
that you dislike than someone you like, if the question of
who's elected is already "pre-determined"?

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17600
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:47:48 -0400
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"John Paul Vrolyk" <jp@vrolyk.org> wrote
> Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.


Way to go! I hope you and Les are very happy! Take care of them!



--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17601
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:33:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39ebad96.3251328@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:28 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> >Does this mean that you will not vote?  If the outcome is known, the only 
> >point in voting seems to be to show your support for the candidate you 
> >believe in.  If so, why shouldn't you show the same support for your 
> >candidate regardless of winning chances?
> 
> I will vote because it is my civic duty to vote.  Period.

But that doesn't explain who you will vote for when you vote.
....
> >When tens of thousands (and more) of voters are involved, the odds that 
> >your vote will determine the outcome are so small that you should be more 
> >worried about dying in a car accident on the way to the polls.
> 
> By that logic, your one vote for a third party candidate won't make
> any difference to that candidate's (or his party's) national standing.

No, by that logic my vote will not determine the outcome - and it won't.  
My vote will, however, make a difference in the total of the candidate I 
vote for.

> People will not pay one iota more attention to the Libertarians (fory
> example) if Mr. Brown gets 100,000 votes or 100,001.

But my vote for Brown will make a larger contribution - however small - 
to his total than my vote for Gore would make to Gore's total.  So there 
is at least /some/ logic to my "helping" Brown - since I prefer him to 
Gore - by giving him my vote, even though my vote will not determine the 
election.
 
> Personally, I do believe it makes a difference.  But not by your
> logic, or lack thereof.

I haven't been arguing that voting fails to make a difference, only that 
a single vote /does/ fail to determine the outcome (of any large race).  
And it does.  The evidence is all around us, election after election.  
Now, do you have any /reason/ for your personal belief?  
 
> >  But, 
> >regardless of odds, voting allows you to indicate the candidate that you 
> >believe ought to win.
> >
> >Please note that, although I am not known for being a great proponent of 
> >democracy, the above is not an argument against voting; only against 
> >voting for the wrong reasons.
> 
> Well, fortunately I don't have to vote for your reasons.

What is special about "my" reasons?  Not that they are mine, surely.    

> I happen to
> believe that one main reason to vote is to help determine the outcome
> of the election.  In my case, that will not apply this year.

In what years /has/ it applied?

>  But then
> there's still that "duty of citizenship" reason.

Fine, but unless the ballot has a choice of "voted" on it, you exercise 
this duty only by voting for some /one/.  Now the question is, who?  
Someone with "a chance to win" or the person you think ought to win?   

>  Sorry (not) if you think I'm "voting for the wrong
> reasons."  I guess I'll have to find a way to live without your
> approval.

I don't see how approval enters into it.  I would approve of your voting 
for Brown, although it might be quite irrational of you to do so.  What I 
am getting at is, "what is rational voter behavior?"  So far as I can 
see, voting for X so that a voter doesn't "throw away" his vote, when he 
actually thinks Y ought to win, in any large contest makes no sense.  But 
I could be wrong, and if you would be so good as to point out how I am 
wrong, I would appreciate it.       

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17602
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:41:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39ebb2a1.4543333@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:18:02 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> >I have a hard time believing that many posters here actually think that a 
> >U.S. presidential election is ever going to be decided by one vote; or 
> >that their vote mysteriously influences the votes of others through time 
> >and space.
> 
> I really doubt anyone here thinks either of those to be true.

They why the expressed concern by at least one poster over "throwing away 
my vote"?
 
> >Yet, that seems to be what some folks here are wrestling with.  Why?
> 
> Because you don't understand collective will.

I'll grant you that.  But once you offer your explanation of it, perhaps 
I will understand it.

>  And, on a more
> philosophical level, that the whole can be greater than the sum of its
> parts.

On a more practical level, when the whole of the votes is more than the 
sum of the candidates's votes, that's a sign of fraud.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17603
From: fader555@aol.com
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:17:02 -0500
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:15:44 -0400, John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
wrote:

>Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.

Oh.goody more HF babies. If this keeps going the way it's been, we
won't have to worry about whether 1 vote can win an election.<bg>

Congrats

Fader

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17604
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:26:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon--

    If you will set aside the terminology of "throwing my vote away," for
just a moment, I will try to explain the concern on this issue, at least for
myself.
    Suppose that I oppose both major party candidates--Mr. Morris, the Cat
nominee, and Mr. Cujo, the Dog nominee, but I particulary despise Cujo and
everything he and the Dog party stand for.  Now, I think very highly of the
small Bird party, and their candidate Ms. Polly.  Since I believe that
Polly's support is far more likely to come from people who would otherwise
vote Cat than Dog (like me) I believe that most votes for Polly come at
Morris's expense.  That's okay with me, so long as Cujo doesn't get elected.
    If the election of Morris or Cujo looks fairly certain, then I am more
likely to vote for Polly.  Maybe, over time, the Bird party will build up to
the point that the Bird candidate has a realistic chance of winning a future
election.  (My single vote won't accomplish that, either.)
    But if it looks like a close race, I am more likely to vote for Morris.
Not because I expect the election to be decided on one vote, but because I
fear that the collective vote for Polly would have made the difference
between the Dog or Cat candidate being elected.  In other words, at that
point voting against Cujo is more important to me than voting for Polly.  It
is not exactly a question of "throwing my vote away,"  but of inadvertently
helping to elect the candidate I truly despise.
--Dee2

>When tens of thousands (and more) of voters are involved, the odds that
>your vote will determine the outcome are so small that you should be more
>worried about dying in a car accident on the way to the polls.
.. . .
>[B]y that logic my vote will not determine the outcome - and it won't.
.. . .
> So far as I can see, voting for X so that a voter doesn't "throw away" his
vote, when he
> actually thinks Y ought to win, in any large contest makes no sense.  But
> I could be wrong, and if you would be so good as to point out how I am
> wrong, I would appreciate it.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17605
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:24:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39ec2a07.0@news.sff.net>, Deanna S. Higginbotham writes...
> Gordon--
> 
>     If you will set aside the terminology of "throwing my vote away," for
> just a moment, I will try to explain the concern on this issue, at least for
> myself.

Thanks for your more detailed explanation.
....
>     But if it looks like a close race, I am more likely to vote for Morris.
> Not because I expect the election to be decided on one vote, but because I
> fear that the collective vote for Polly would have made the difference
> between the Dog or Cat candidate being elected.  In other words, at that
> point voting against Cujo is more important to me than voting for Polly.

Here is my problem.  I don't see how voting against Cujo has become more 
important /unless/ you think that the likelihood that /your/ vote will 
determine the election has vastly increased.  Perhaps you do think this, 
but if you have a probability book with the binomial distribution in it, 
I urge you to make some calculations.  The probability, modeled in this 
way, remains tiny that your vote will determine the outcome in even a 
"very, very close" race that involves millions of voters.  I also urge 
you to look at historical election results.

Now it may well turn out that the total vote for Polly /does/ indirectly 
elect Cujo.  But, and this is the other part of my post, the fact that 
/you/ vote for Polly does not - I think we can assume - somehow influence 
others to vote for Polly - although your /campaigning/ for Polly might, 
indeed, influence some voters.  So even if Cujo is elected, again, it is 
not because of /your/ vote.  So far as I can tell, the rational thing is 
for each voter to simply vote her conscience (or to not vote at all - but 
I am assuming a person who has /some/ reason to vote).

Here is what I /suspect/ is going on.  In a /very/ close race, it seems 
that it /might/ happen that the outcome is determined by one vote.  So a 
voter thinks, "I would like to vote for Polly, but think how terrible I 
would feel if Cujo got in by one vote!"  It is the hypothetical, but 
/very/ deep, regret that you would feel that motivates you (I conjecture) 
to vote Morris.  Making decisions on this basis has a name among decision 
theorists - it's called "minimizing the maximum regret" or "minmax 
regret" for short.  If something like this is part of your reasoning, I 
think I can show you good reasons why this is not a good way to make 
decisions. 

-- 
Gordon "if you vote, vote your conscience" Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17606
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:32:20 GMT
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:15:44 -0400, John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
wrote:

>Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.

Please pass along my very best wishes and congratulations to Les.  OK,
you can keep some for yourself too <g>.

Hard to imagine "our Les" as bein' a mama.  She was _so_ young way
back when this group started.  'Course, my "baby" wasn't 6'1" and
growing chin hair back then either.  Sigh....


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17607
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:36:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Excellent explanation, Dee2.  Much better than my feeble attempt.

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:26:00 -0500, "Deanna S. Higginbotham"
<ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:

>    Suppose that I oppose both major party candidates--Mr. Morris, the Cat
>nominee, and Mr. Cujo, the Dog nominee, but I particulary despise Cujo and
>everything he and the Dog party stand for.  Now, I think very highly of the
>small Bird party, and their candidate Ms. Polly.  Since I believe that
>Polly's support is far more likely to come from people who would otherwise
>vote Cat than Dog (like me) I believe that most votes for Polly come at
>Morris's expense.  That's okay with me, so long as Cujo doesn't get elected.
>    If the election of Morris or Cujo looks fairly certain, then I am more
>likely to vote for Polly.  Maybe, over time, the Bird party will build up to
>the point that the Bird candidate has a realistic chance of winning a future
>election.  (My single vote won't accomplish that, either.)
>    But if it looks like a close race, I am more likely to vote for Morris.
>Not because I expect the election to be decided on one vote, but because I
>fear that the collective vote for Polly would have made the difference
>between the Dog or Cat candidate being elected.  In other words, at that
>point voting against Cujo is more important to me than voting for Polly.  It
>is not exactly a question of "throwing my vote away,"  but of inadvertently
>helping to elect the candidate I truly despise.
>--Dee2


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17608
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:46:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:25:08 -0400, John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
wrote:

>> By that logic, your one vote for a third party candidate won't make
>> any difference to that candidate's (or his party's) national standing.
>> People will not pay one iota more attention to the Libertarians (fory
>> example) if Mr. Brown gets 100,000 votes or 100,001.
>
>I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on how Gordon's logic
>imp lies that illogic.  Gordon only mentioned the odds that
>who's elected would [not] be decided by a single vote.
>
>But "who's elected" isn't the only consideration.  More
>attention, in general, will be payed to people who get
>more votes, even if they didn't get elected.

True, one vote won't change an election result.  Neither will one vote
make any difference in how much attention is paid to a third party
candidate.  I don't know how much clearer I can make it than that
(except maybe Dee2's explanation, where she says essentially the same
thing).

>If one is certain that a hated candidate 'A' was going to win,
>what is the logic in voting for a disliked 'B' over a liked
>'C'?  I can see it if 'A' and 'B' are too close to call, but
>if you're sure 'A' will win?  (Or likewise even if you're sure
>'B' will win.)  Why would you want more attention for someone
>that you dislike than someone you like, if the question of
>who's elected is already "pre-determined"?

Well, that's what I said -- that it was especially important in a
"swing state," as opposed to a state like mine.  Sorry if I was not
clear. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17609
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 15:35:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:33:36 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>> I will vote because it is my civic duty to vote.  Period.
>
>But that doesn't explain who you will vote for when you vote.

Is that relevant?  I suppose the persons here who know me well know
darn well whom I will vote for.  I will vote for the candidate I think
is best qualified, who also happens to be a major party candidate.  If
I liked a 3rd party candidatute better, I would probably vote for
him/her, but _only_ because I know who will win the electoral college
votes in this state.  If I thought there were a descent chance of the
"other guy" not winning here, I would it consider it important to vote
for his opposition, even if he (the opposition) were not my first
choice.

>No, by that logic my vote will not determine the outcome - and it won't.  
>My vote will, however, make a difference in the total of the candidate I 
>vote for.

to which I reiterate:
>> People will not pay one iota more attention to the Libertarians (for
>> example) if Mr. Brown gets 100,000 votes or 100,001.

>But my vote for Brown will make a larger contribution - however small - 
>to his total than my vote for Gore would make to Gore's total.  So there 
>is at least /some/ logic to my "helping" Brown - since I prefer him to 
>Gore - by giving him my vote, even though my vote will not determine the 
>election.

OK, I can buy the "large fish in a small pond" theory.  Certainly,
your vote will be a larger percentage of the whole when the whole is
relatively small.  But I still think you take a far too "left-brained"
approach to the whole issue <g>.  Buying two lottery tickets, instead
of one, cuts your odds of losing in half, but you still don't have
much more chance than a snowball in...

>I haven't been arguing that voting fails to make a difference, only that 
>a single vote /does/ fail to determine the outcome (of any large race).  
>And it does.  The evidence is all around us, election after election.  
>Now, do you have any /reason/ for your personal belief?  

You've got no argument from me on that score.  But to my mind, that's
not the point.
 
>What is special about "my" reasons?  Not that they are mine, surely.

I didn't say your reasons were "special" or even wrong--for you.  You
may recall that in my original response, I granted that "your milage
may vary."  Voting is a public act, but based on a very personal
decision.  I expect anyone to follow his/her own conscience.  But YOU
stated that you are against "voting for the wrong reasons":  by
implication, MY reasons.  I only meant that you can be against them; I
can live with that.

>> I happen to
>> believe that one main reason to vote is to help determine the outcome
>> of the election.  In my case, that will not apply this year.
>
>In what years /has/ it applied?

IMHO, every year except 1980 when I "threw my vote away" on a
write-in.  [Btw, I have not used that expression in any previous
post.]  And no, I have not voted for the "winner" in my own state
since 1976.  Or was in '72?  Harder to remember who your state went
for when you vote absentee.

>>  But then
>> there's still that "duty of citizenship" reason.
>
>Fine, but unless the ballot has a choice of "voted" on it, you exercise 
>this duty only by voting for some /one/.  Now the question is, who?  
>Someone with "a chance to win" or the person you think ought to win?   

You seem fixated on what is really none of your business.  In my case,
my choice of all the candidates who will be named on the ballot
happens to belong to a major party.  Note:  he's not the one person
who would be my first choice in all the world, but he'll do.

But that makes me wonder... since you believe it is more important to
vote for the candidate you think is best, regardless of his/her
chances of winning, why limit yourself to ANY party?  Why not write in
the person you think would make the best president, period?  Yourself,
your mom, Mother Teresa (OK, she's dead, but you get my point).


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17610
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:52:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> > Because you don't understand collective will.
>
> I'll grant you that.  But once you offer your explanation of it, perhaps
> I will understand it.

Let me talk about a related concept, super-rationality, that was proposed by
Douglas Hofstadter.  The idea of super-rationality is that you assume that
all super-rational people will follow the same thought process you do, since
you are all super-rational.  As a very simple demonstration, if you say,
"What is 2+2=?" I will say four, and I believe that all others will say four
to the same question, not because my "four" has mysteriously changed
everyone else's mind, but because everyone will follow the same process.

    In the demonstration that Hofstadter tried (and failed) to show
super-rationality, he had Scientific American put up money that would be
paid to twenty of his friends that Hofstadter believed to be extremely
rational.  Each person was told they were chosen on that basis, and that
they would receive an amount of money to be determined by their response.
If a person chooses "cooperate" they would receive three dollars for every
other person who chooses "cooperate" and zero dollars for every other person
who chooses "defect."   If a person chooses "defect" they receive five
dollars for every other person who chooses "cooperate" and one dollar for
every other person who chooses "defect".
    They were told that if everyone chose "cooperate" everyone would get
$57, while if everyone chose "defect" they would get $19.  Of course, if
everyone but you chose to cooperate, and you chose to defect, you'd get $95,
and if everyone but you chooses to defect, and you chose to cooperate, you'd
get $0.
    What Hofstadter was hoping to see was that his friends would say to
themselves, if we are all rational, we will all use the same thought
processes.  If we all use the same thought processes, then the only possible
outcomes are for all of us to cooperate or all of us to defect.  If those
are the two choices, I chose to cooperate so that we will all get $57
instead of $19.  Nobody thought this way, and the actual outcome was six
cooperators and fourteen defectors, and nobody made the super-rational
argument (not even any of the six cooperators).

So, moving back into the voting booth, If I believe that by following my
values which I share with x% of the population and rationality I will come
to a decision that x% of the people will also come to the same decision
because we are all following the same rules of logic and start with the same
values, our x% of the votes become important in determining the election
even if my single vote is irrelevant.  I find this to *not* be voodoo
thinking, as long as one recognizes that x is going to be very small, since
very few people share my values, and even fewer will follow a completely
rational train of logic from those values (not to mention differences in
shared information about the candidates).  Even a small x could be important
in some elections, while a single vote determines a vanishingly small
percentage of elections.

Or so I think.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17611
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:10:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:41:10 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>> >I have a hard time believing that many posters here actually think that a 
>> >U.S. presidential election is ever going to be decided by one vote; or 
>> >that their vote mysteriously influences the votes of others through time 
>> >and space.
>> 
>> I really doubt anyone here thinks either of those to be true.
>
>They why the expressed concern by at least one poster over "throwing away 
>my vote"?

Because, to borrow Dee2's example, there is a point where the number
of folks voting for Polly instead of Morris CAN make a difference in
contributing to Cujo's election.  If I believe that is a problem, I
cannot in good conscience contribute to it.

>I'll grant you that.  But once you offer your explanation of it, perhaps 
>I will understand it.

I'm not sure I can explain what I meant, or even if I used the terms I
should have.  But I know it exists.  Let me give it more thought and
I'll try to come back to it.

>>  And, on a more
>> philosophical level, that the whole can be greater than the sum of its
>> parts.
>
>On a more practical level, when the whole of the votes is more than the 
>sum of the candidates's votes, that's a sign of fraud.  ;-)

LOL.  Cute.  But I did say "philosophical" by which I meant, it is
important (to me) to be a part of the political process.  Each vote,
taken by itself, means little.  But together, they give us a "system"
that I happen to think is the best that exists, and quite possibly the
best that CAN exist.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17612
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 14:24:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:

> Because, to borrow Dee2's example, there is a point where the number
> of folks voting for Polly instead of Morris CAN make a difference in
> contributing to Cujo's election.  If I believe that is a problem, I
> cannot in good conscience contribute to it.

     I consider that a worthy goal in itself.  Should we get there, the larger
parties will HAVE to pay attention to your goals; platform, philosophy, whatever.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17613
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:11:55 GMT
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:15:44 -0400, John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
wrote:

>Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.
>
Congrats!  It will be nice for Danny to have so many playmates at the
2003 Gathering. <VBG>

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17614
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:46:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:39ec861c.52041726@news.sff.net...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:41:10 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> >They why the expressed concern by at least one poster over "throwing away
> >my vote"?
>
> Because, to borrow Dee2's example, there is a point where the number
> of folks voting for Polly instead of Morris CAN make a difference in
> contributing to Cujo's election.  If I believe that is a problem, I
> cannot in good conscience contribute to it.

I have replied to Dee2's example.  If there is anything wrong with my
reasoning, please let me know.  If you think that you or Dee2 is using
reasoning based on what I called "minmax regret", I'll be happy to explain
the surprising side effect of making decisions based upon that rule.
....
> Each vote,
> taken by itself, means little.  But together, they give us a "system"
> that I happen to think is the best that exists,

Along with a bunch of other features like separation of powers, BIll of
Rights, and other provisions and amendments that limit majority choice.

> and quite possibly the
> best that CAN exist.

That is certainly possible, but I have some reasons for hoping we can do
better.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17615
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:08:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Frank Fujita <ffujita@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:39ec75db.0@news.sff.net...
....
> So, moving back into the voting booth, If I believe that by following my
> values which I share with x% of the population and rationality I will come
> to a decision that x% of the people will also come to the same decision
> because we are all following the same rules of logic and start with the
same
> values, our x% of the votes become important in determining the election
> even if my single vote is irrelevant.  I find this to *not* be voodoo
> thinking, as long as one recognizes that x is going to be very small,
since
> very few people share my values, and even fewer will follow a completely
> rational train of logic from those values (not to mention differences in
> shared information about the candidates).  Even a small x could be
important
> in some elections, while a single vote determines a vanishingly small
> percentage of elections.

It may well be true that when you input a given set of values into a
rational procedure, the resulting vote will always be the same.   So /if/
you knew what X was going to be, and /if/ it was enough to tip the election
to your least preferred candidate, then you ought to worry about voting your
conscience as opposed to voting "strategically".

HOWEVER...  Do you really have any good information on how many people share
your values, i.e., how large X will be?  Also, the larger X is, the less
chance that your changing your vote will reduce X by enough not to tip the
election.  Unless, of course, most of your fellow X-ers are super-rational.
But Hofstadter's own evidence is that they are not.  But, the smaller X is,
the less chance it will actually tip the election.

Suppose I think that Harry Brown will get 400,000 votes this year, and that
that is enough to tip the election to Gore (which in fact I'm not sure it
is, especially when to take the effect of the electoral college into
account), whom I less prefer (let's assume; in fact I'm not really sure)
than Bush.  Should I rationally conclude that I should reduce Brown's total
to 399,999 in order to keep Gore out?  Again, I have to think that one vote
will make the difference, not out of millions of votes, of course,  but
"only" out of 400,000!  But it's worse than that.  Another person thinking
of voting for Brown might prefer Gore to Bush, so when we follow your
reasoning, they just cancel my (reluctant) Bush vote, and the net result is
that we have both reduced Brown's, our most preferred candidate, total for
no good reason.

I conclude that it is better to simply vote your conscience, if you are
going to vote.

--
Gordon G. Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17616
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:29:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> Here is my problem.  I don't see how voting against Cujo has become more
> important /unless/ you think that the likelihood that /your/ vote will
> determine the election has vastly increased....
>
> Now it may well turn out that the total vote for Polly /does/ indirectly
> elect Cujo.  But ... the fact that
> /you/ vote for Polly does not - I think we can assume - somehow influence
> others to vote for Polly....  So even if Cujo is elected, again, it is
> not because of /your/ vote.

I'm sure you're correct that a single vote is vanishingly unlikely to affect the
outcome of any large election (Town Council in Two Egg, TX, might be an exception
<g>), either directly (by being the actual deciding vote) or indirectly (by
magically influencing vast numbers of other votes), and so the advice you're
giving here is undoubtedly correct... AS LONG AS YOU ONLY GIVE IT TO ONE (OR A
SMALL NUMBER STATISTICALLY CLOSE TO ONE) VOTER! Here's the deal: One vote may not
swing an election, but (depending on the size of the pool) 10,000 or 50,000
might. What your analysis misses is that each and every one of those 50,000 votes
is some one person's *one vote*.

If I might borrow Dee2's hypothetical:

Suppose all 50,000 registered Bird voters attend their convention (unlikely that
the entire party would show up, I know, but bear with me; it *IS* a hypthetical
after all <g>). Now further imagine that Morris (and the Cat party platform in
general) is sufficently to the Birdwise side of Cujo (and the Dog party platform)
that it's reasonable to expect fully 80% of Bird voters would vote Morris if
forced to choose between the two. Now finally imagine that the Morris/Cujo race
is so close that a net swing of 30,000 votes would certainly be decisive.

Against this backdrop, Candidate Polly addresses the convention: "Friends," she
begins, "fellow Birds, I regret to admit that we cannot possibly prevail at the
polls tomorrow." <Alright, just *hush*; don't ask *ME* why they're having their
convention the day before election day!> "A victory by Morris would be
disappointing, dismaying, unfortunate... but the thought of Cujo winning, of
those Dogs ruling this society we all love so deeply, should fill us with dread
and mortal revulsion. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart, but with clear
purpose, that I release you all and beg you not to vote for me, but instead to
vote against the Dogs by casting your vote for Morris."

Stunned and thoughtful, the Birds begin to shuffle out of the convention hall,
prepared to do their duty. If at this point one Dr. Gordon Sollars, radical Bird
activist...

[a] ...pigeonholes Dee2 on her way out of the hall and says, "Don't listen to
her. You know she's the one you *really* like, and your one vote won't affect the
outcome anyway. Ignore her advice and vote your conscience..." and Dee2 listens,
and votes her conscience, even while 40,000 other Bird voters are helping defeat
Cujo... well then, no harm was done, and Sollars was "right."

[b] ...leaps to the stage and cries "Wait! All of you! Listen to me: Each of you
only has one vote, anyway. Since your *one* vote won't decide the election, why
give it to a candidate you don't truly respect. Vote your conscience!"... and
they all believe him, and they all do in fact vote for Polly... well then, as
they all weep in their beers and perhaps make plans to move to New Zealand <g>
while listening to the pundits enthuse over what an unexpectedly strong fight
Polly gave eventual winner Cujo, each one can think back to Sollars' stirring
speech and say to hirself, "well, at least this disaster isn't *MY* fault."

....but, of course, each of the Birds of [b] would be quite wrong in hir
conclusion. (IMHO, of course.)

You might say, well of course I wouldn't give that speech to the whole group like
that... but I think you *are* giving exactly that speech by posting your thoughts
here. <Note that in NO WAY do I mean to suggest you shouldn't say what you
think.>

> So far as I can tell, the rational thing is
> for each voter to simply vote her conscience

I think I can actually agree with this, but I believe I have a diferent
definition "vote [hir] conscience" than you. I feel I'm voting my consience when
my vote supports what I (conscientiously) judge to be the best *possible*
outcome. In politics, as in so many things in life, it's often true that "the
perfect is the enemy of the good, and the good is the enemy of the good enough."
IMHO, a vote *against* the perceived greatest evil *IS* a vote of conscience.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17617
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:36:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Charles Graft wrote:

> I believe it is far more important top make your statement for what
> candidate, philosophy or government you believe that to vote for who
> your perceive as the less evil of the probable winners.  Otherwise
> nothing can or will change.

This post -- and much of this whole thread -- is predicated on the notion
that the major parties offer no real choice (in this election in
particular, but implicitly in general as well). I believe that to be a
false an misleading notion... and I'll expound on that belief for y'all's
benefit <benefit??? ;^) > in a day or two... once I've taken my midterm
<sigh>. See ya' then.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17618
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:57:20 +0900
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

>   Bush snatched up his wrist watch and hooked it back on his wrist fast,
>
> like he'd been feeling utterly naked without it. Then he hurried into
> the audience and hugged Collin Powell. Whereupon Gore had to hug
> everyone in sight (when did this hugging thing start? it's sort of...
> invasively personal, and a little too cutesy, in what should be a
> business-like situation).

I guess we can be thankful Bush didn't lay a big, wet one on Powell.  Gore
seems to have decided that there's a direct correlation between his poll
numbers and the number of times he kisses his wife in public.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17619
From: SpaceCadet <cdozo@hotmail.com_delete_this>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:05:07 -0500
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

John Paul Vrolyk wrote:
> 
> Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.

Congratulations! I'm very happy for you both.

Carol

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17620
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:08:59 +0900
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I'm happy for all three of you.  My best wishes and prayers are with you
all!

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17621
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:18:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:46:18 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


>> Because, to borrow Dee2's example, there is a point where the number
>> of folks voting for Polly instead of Morris CAN make a difference in
>> contributing to Cujo's election.  If I believe that is a problem, I
>> cannot in good conscience contribute to it.
>
>I have replied to Dee2's example.  If there is anything wrong with my
>reasoning, please let me know.

You have replied to Dee2's example, but not to my point, which only
uses Dee2's example.  So the bionomial distribution proves that one
vote will not determine the election.  Do you deny that 100,000 or
1,000,000 or 10,000,000 votes might?  When do the number of votes
become significant to you?

>If you think that you or Dee2 is using
>reasoning based on what I called "minmax regret", I'll be happy to explain
>the surprising side effect of making decisions based upon that rule.

LOL.  With a masters in Quantitative Analysis and having taught
decision theory and practice at the post-graduate level, I hardly
think that necessary.

But if you were to examine your underlying assumptions, and make an
attempt to understand MY assumptions, you might see that the minmax
model really doesn't apply.

>...
>> Each vote,
>> taken by itself, means little.  But together, they give us a "system"
>> that I happen to think is the best that exists,
>
>Along with a bunch of other features like separation of powers, BIll of
>Rights, and other provisions and amendments that limit majority choice.

True, of course, but irrelevant to the discussion.

>> and quite possibly the
>> best that CAN exist.
>
>That is certainly possible, but I have some reasons for hoping we can do
>better.

I think we can improve our system, but I don't think there's a better
replacement around.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17622
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 00:19:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39ec6659.43909277@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:33:36 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> >> I will vote because it is my civic duty to vote.  Period.
> >
> >But that doesn't explain who you will vote for when you vote.
> 
> Is that relevant?  I suppose the persons here who know me well know
> darn well whom I will vote for.

I'm not expecting anyone to volunteer who they are voting for if they do 
not wish to; I am trying to focus on the /reasons/ one would have for 
voting one way or another.

>  I will vote for the candidate I think
> is best qualified, who also happens to be a major party candidate.  If
> I liked a 3rd party candidatute better, I would probably vote for
> him/her, but _only_ because I know who will win the electoral college
> votes in this state.  If I thought there were a descent chance of the
> "other guy" not winning here, I would it consider it important to vote
> for his opposition, even if he (the opposition) were not my first
> choice.

I think that this simply describes rational behavior; I would expect 
anyone to use this approach.  Certainly I would.  What puzzles me is your 
notion of "decent chance of winning".  I don't know of a single 
presidential election in which my failure to vote for one of the major 
party candidates has cost him the election.  And I can give good 
theoretical reasons why it won't ever happen.
   
> 
> >No, by that logic my vote will not determine the outcome - and it won't.  
> >My vote will, however, make a difference in the total of the candidate I 
> >vote for.
> 
> to which I reiterate:
> >> People will not pay one iota more attention to the Libertarians (for
> >> example) if Mr. Brown gets 100,000 votes or 100,001.

No, but /I/ know that I have made a bigger difference adding to a smaller 
total.  You go on to grant this, calling it the "large fish, small pond" 
theory.
 
>  But I still think you take a far too "left-brained"
> approach to the whole issue <g>.  Buying two lottery tickets, instead
> of one, cuts your odds of losing in half, but you still don't have
> much more chance than a snowball in...

But I am addressing persons who have already decided to "by a ticket" so 
to speak, so they are apparently unfazed by the fact that they stand a 
better chance of dying on the way to the polls than that they vote will 
determine the outcome.  I can't think of any rational reason for these 
people to do anything other than simply vote their conscience.  Yet I 
have 
often over the years heard people say that they are concerned about doing 
so.  
....
> >What is special about "my" reasons?  Not that they are mine, surely.
> 
> I didn't say your reasons were "special" or even wrong--for you.  You
> may recall that in my original response, I granted that "your milage
> may vary."  Voting is a public act, but based on a very personal
> decision.  I expect anyone to follow his/her own conscience.  But YOU
> stated that you are against "voting for the wrong reasons":  by
> implication, MY reasons.

Not at all.  You just said you expect anyone to follow her own 
conscience; that's exactly what I am arguing for: vote your conscience.

I would think that anyone would what to make decisions, personal or 
otherwise, in the best way that they could.  Do you disagree?  If I have 
been making a mistake all these years by voting my conscience and thereby 
taking a risk of putting my least preferred candidate into office, I 
would like to know about it.  But I don't see any reason to believe that 
I have been taking such a risk.  What am I missing?  

....
> >> I happen to
> >> believe that one main reason to vote is to help determine the outcome
> >> of the election.  In my case, that will not apply this year.
> >
> >In what years /has/ it applied?
> 
> IMHO, every year except 1980 when I "threw my vote away" on a
> write-in.

In every year but 1980 you really believed that the outcome of the 
presidential election would hinge on, say, two or three votes?  Why?

....
> >Fine, but unless the ballot has a choice of "voted" on it, you exercise 
> >this duty only by voting for some /one/.  Now the question is, who?  
> >Someone with "a chance to win" or the person you think ought to win?   
> 
> You seem fixated on what is really none of your business.

Of course I agree that it is none of my business who you will actually 
vote for.  What I am focusing on is the /reasons/ that people use to 
decide who to vote for.  That may not be any of my business either, but I 
don't see why a person would be unwilling to discuss them.  Such 
discussions could only lead to better decisions in the long run. 

> In my case,
> my choice of all the candidates who will be named on the ballot
> happens to belong to a major party.  Note:  he's not the one person
> who would be my first choice in all the world, but he'll do.

Well, fine.  But my participation in this thread began when someone 
(Dee2?) said that, unlike you, she would /like/ to vote for X, but was 
concerned that this would put Z in office when she thought Y was better.

I have been trying to explain to people here in that situation that they 
have every reason to go ahead and vote for X. 
 
> But that makes me wonder... since you believe it is more important to
> vote for the candidate you think is best, regardless of his/her
> chances of winning, why limit yourself to ANY party?

Perhaps no reason, if you know of such a person.  To make a very small 
contribution to the total vote for a minor party, if you want to help 
that party.  I don't think that that reason is really sufficient to go to 
the polls over, considering the time and effort, but it is at least 
/some/ reason.  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17623
From: Shane Glaseman <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:36:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

No disrespect to those debating the debates, and the usefullness of
voting, and all that, but I always thought the point of voting at all
was so you had the right to complain, later (i.e., those who don't vote
have no right to complain, post-election).

But I could be wrong...

Shane

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17624
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 13:41:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39ed21ee.91937498@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...
....
> You have replied to Dee2's example, but not to my point, which only
> uses Dee2's example.  So the bionomial distribution proves that one
> vote will not determine the election.  Do you deny that 100,000 or
> 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 votes might?  When do the number of votes
> become significant to you?

Ex post, the minimum (and any higher) number of votes that would tip the 
election the "other" way (given a "two party" system) becomes 
significant.  Ex ante, I don't see any reason for a person to think that 
her vote has any real chance of being necessary for achieving that 
minimum.  Do you?  If so, what?     
 
> >If you think that you or Dee2 is using
> >reasoning based on what I called "minmax regret", I'll be happy to explain
> >the surprising side effect of making decisions based upon that rule.
> 
> LOL.  With a masters in Quantitative Analysis and having taught
> decision theory and practice at the post-graduate level, I hardly
> think that necessary.

Great!  But I assume that even the highly-intelligent and well-educated 
members of this group might not be familiar with the notion of decision 
rules violating independence conditions.  It's a rather specialized 
subject.

So, you are not tempted by minmax regret, knowing full well its problems.  
You must have some other answer to my question above.  May I ask what it 
is?
  
> But if you were to examine your underlying assumptions, and make an
> attempt to understand MY assumptions, you might see that the minmax
> model really doesn't apply.

I agree that it is not the right model to use; but I thought it might 
/apply/ because it provides an explanation for why a person might be 
concerned about tipping an election by her vote.  I'm still unclear about 
what /your/ assumptions, given that they do not include using minmax 
regret, are.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17625
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:33:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39ECD2C9.F134C351@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> If I might borrow Dee2's hypothetical:

[long example cut]

I think this is the same as Frank's point, and I think I have effectively 
replied to it.  I have granted all along that if you /campaign/ for a 
candidate, you might effect the votes of others, and my speech-making in 
your example is a kind of campaigning.  But I have made a solemn vow to 
never campaign again, but simply go into the booth and cast my secret 
vote from here on out.  ;-)

However, you go on to say that making my claim about rationality in a 
public forum is like campaigning in terms of the possible outcome.  OK, 
but I would prefer to look at this in the Hofstadterian fashion that 
Frank introduced.  If what I am claiming is rational, then any rational 
person ought to reach the same conclusion without any sort of input from 
me.  (This is like Hofstadter's point that (almost ;-) ) all of us get 
the same answer to a long division problem without any communication 
among us.)  So... when is it rational for a person to be concerned that 
her vote will tip the election to the least preferred candidate?

For your logic to work, one condition is that I have to be concerned that 
I am in a voting block that /could/ tip the election - so that if 
everyone united in the block were to reason like me, the outcome would be 
changed.  But, I don't think I have any reason to think that I am in such 
a block; so I should vote my conscience - if I vote.  If anyone here 
thinks that they are in such a block, I would greatly appreciate seeing 
their reasoning for this belief.

In general, everyone in the block has to recognize that they are in the 
block.  This is clearly met in your convention example, much less in real 
life.  Except that, of course, political parties provide this sort of 
recognition to their members - less than a real face-to-face convention 
meeting, but, still, an important factor going your way in the argument.  
But, as I pointed out in my reply to Frank, another member of, say, the 
Libertarian Party might choose Bush as the second best while I choose 
Gore.  (After all, both major parties have some (weakly) libertarian 
positions.)  So then we simply cancel each other out, and benefit our 
first choice not at all.  We Libertarians can only prevent that by all 
getting together in some "convention" and getting our vote straight.  
Some of us could even be "allowed" to cancel votes, as long as the total 
was for the "most" libertarian candidate.

But who is that?  Not easy for the L.P. as a group to decide.  And - here 
is the kicker, Bill - if either major party candidate thought that the 
L.P. block would really tip the election, they were free to campaign for 
our Party endorsement.  But they did not.  Were they being irrational?  I 
strongly doubt it, and that is more reason for me to simply vote my 
conscience.       
  
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17626
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:09:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> I think this is the same as Frank's point,

Only superficially. I don't presuppose that the Bird voters are making any
judgments about the rationality (or superrationality) of their fellow Birds.
I only suppose that each is asking hirself this question: "If I don't
believe my favorite candidate can win [Note that this *doesn't* depend on
guesses about what the other Birds will do, since the Birds don't constitute
a controlling majority in any case], is it better to vote for her anyway, or
to vote for my favorite among the candidates that *can* win?" This is the
very question that started this thread, to which your answer has
consistently been "Vote your conscience!" I have no argument with voting
your conscience, but I question how well conscience is served by voting in a
way that ultimately serves to support what you consider to be the *worst*
posible outcome. As far as I'm concerned, the argument that it doesn't
matter because no single vote is responsible  for the outcome is merely a
convenient dodge to avoid taking responsibility for your choice. Consider
that no single vote is any *less* responsible for the outcome than any other
single vote.

> ...my speech-making in
> your example is a kind of campaigning...

But my example would be logically identical (though certainly not
logistically identical!) if I'd had you give the same advice to each Bird
privately. It doesn't matter what the Birds know about each others' choices;
it only matters how many of them follow your advice.

> So... when is it rational for a person to be concerned that
> her vote will tip the election to the least preferred candidate?

By that logic, when would it be rational for a person to be concerned about
her vote at all? Your point that no single vote tips the election to the
least preferred candidate could be generalized to state that no single vote
tips the election to *any* candidate, preferred or otherwise. So since no
individual's vote actually has any impact, why should anyone -- Dog, Cat, or
Bird -- bother to vote at all? The answer is that nobody votes in isolation
(voting booth curtains notwithstanding <g>). Whether you know what the other
votes will be or not, you know that others *will* vote, and that your vote
will be added to the pile, and that one of the piles will end up being
bigger than the other piles. Your vote contributes no less to the final
sizes of the piles than any other vote does. Now, if you know in advance
that one of the piles *won't* be the biggest, and you care about which of
the remaining piles ends up biggest, it behooves you not to put your vote in
the doomed pile. However "worthless" each individual vote may be, together
they *will* decide (in the case of the election we're all really talking
about) who leads our country for the next 4 years (barring unforseen
disasters). It may be that no individual straw truly is the one that breaks
the camel's back, but that's cold comfort to the camel.

To answer your question, I ask myself what vote will support my preferred
outcome from among those outcomes I judge to be possible. If that vote is
not actively morally repugnant to me, I cast that vote, even if it's not for
my absolute preferred candidate. I think this approach is both rational AND
conscientious, and I recommend it to others (even those who will, by this
same approach, arrive at a different conclusion than I do).

> We Libertarians can only prevent that by all
> getting together in some "convention" and getting our vote straight.
> Some of us could even be "allowed" to cancel votes, as long as the total
> was for the "most" libertarian candidate.
>
> But who is that?  Not easy for the L.P. as a group to decide.

No ofense intended to the LP, but I was actually thinking of Nader, whose
candidacy (unlike Brown's, I fear) may well have a real impact on this
election: While it my be tough to figure out which of the to major-party
candidates is "most libertarian," it's not difficult at all to figure out
which one is greenest (or, maybe more to the point, which one is most
green-hostile). I'd be willing to bet that a huge majority (perhaps on the
order of the 80% figure I used in my example) of Nader voters would favor
Gore over Bush if forced to choose between them. If this is true, it means
that virtually all of Nader's votes are coming at Gore's expense, a factor
that might well swing an election as close as this one is shaping up to be
(depending, of course, on the geographical/electoral distribution of Nader's
support). Regardless of how good they may feel about voting Nader, if Green
party voters end up delivering the election to the
All-Oil-Bidness-All-the-Time ticket, they will NOT, IMHO, have truly "voted
their conscience." (Note, BTW, that I'm not a Green, and not basically
hostile to the oil business. We're talking about their consciences in this
example, not mine.)

As an aside, a number of my Republican friends have commented (usually
somewhat grumpily) to me that Clinton never would have been elected in the
first place, if it hadn't been for that meddling so-and-so Ross Perot. Why
are these same folks (not meaning you, Gordon) then surprised when Gore
supporters make essentially the same argument WRT Nader? It's one of them
goose/gander deals, as far as I can tell...

-JovBill

PS: Working on my 3rd SETI@home work unit. My poor antique steam-powered Mac
is doing them verrrry slowly (about 100 hr per unit), but hey, any single
work unit might make the difference, right? <GD&RLH>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17627
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:59:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> > LOL.  With a masters in Quantitative Analysis and having taught
> > decision theory and practice at the post-graduate level, I hardly
> > think that necessary.
>
> Great!  But I assume that even the highly-intelligent and well-educated
> members of this group might not be familiar with the notion of decision
> rules violating independence conditions.  It's a rather specialized
> subject.

Alright, in full knowledge that I'm an ignorant Philistine when it comes to that
"specialized subject," I'll nevertheless risk a skewering at your hands:

Suppose I ask myself (about any sort of action that has ethical implications,
not just voting), "If everyone who shares my values on this subject acts as I
do, will our combined actions tend to support an outcome that offends my
conscience?" If the answer is yes, then I judge the action to be
anti-conscientious, no matter how much it may superficially seem otherwise. Note
that my answer to this question doesn't depend on what all those other folks
*acutally* do; only on what the effect would be *if* they all acted as I do. I
make room for the possibility that a conscientious act may turn out to be a
lonely one. Note also that it isn't about avoiding regret: Think, for instance,
of the conjoined twins case we talked about here recently. If (heaven forfend!)
I were the parent, my conscience might tell me "Defend Life!" (I *know* that's
what my priest would say <g>). Superficially, I might feel that refusing the
surgery, and thereby not actively killing one twin, is right action. But if I
think further about the *outcome* my action will contribute to -- two dead
children and no live ones -- I might conclude that exactly the opposite course
(i.e., agreeing to the surgery) is the truly conscientious action. It's very
difficult to say which of those choices represents the "maximum regret" to a
parent, but *that's* not what the decision is based on. It's based on the value
(according to my conscience) of the outcome my choice tends to support (*even
though* the outcome isn't determined entirely by my action).

In a similar way, if I were the hypothetical Green I mentioned elsewhere, my
choice to vote for Gore rather than Nader would not be based on the fear that
"dude.. I'd be *wicked bummed* if Bush won," but rather that I think
(hypothetically, let me remind everyone) a Bush victory would be a Bad Outcome,
as a matter of principle, and my conscience dictates that I not contribute to
Bad Outcomes. I'm sure you'll deny it, but I strongly believe this is a
rational, rather than an emotional, approach to ethical decisions.

At the end of the day, though, I think this discussion is moot: I suspect you
believe *all* voting is basically irrational. Please correct me if I'm wrong
about that, because I don't mean to be putting words into your (virtual)
mouth... but I believe you've effectively said as much in this thread (i.e.,
people who vote are people who've "already decided to buy a [lottery] ticket"...
aka suckers). If that's what you think, we really don't have much to talk about:
I believe the franchise is our best hedge against tyranny. I'm willing to
consider the possibility that I might be wrong about that, but I'm NOT willing
to take the necessary risk (i.e., trying a radically different form of
government) to find out. So you can go on saying my vote doesn't count, and I'll
go right on voting, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

All that said, I'd be curious to "hear" your disquisition on minmax regret
decision-making, just as a matter of academic interest.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17628
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:15:07 GMT
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Congratulations!  
     A baby couldn't ask for better or brighter parents.

Ed J

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 09:15:44 -0400, John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
wrote:

>Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.
>
>-- 
>John Paul Vrolyk
>jp@vrolyk.org


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17629
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:29:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

John Paul:
    I  follow your logic and it has allowed me to vote for Harry
Browne.  Otherwise, I do tend to accept Heinlein's advice on voting
against the more odious of the two leading candidates.

Ed J

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 22:25:08 -0400, John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
wrote:

>Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:28 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
>> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >When tens of thousands (and more) of voters are involved, the odds that
>> >your vote will determine the outcome are so small that you should be more
>> >worried about dying in a car accident on the way to the polls.
>> 
>> By that logic, your one vote for a third party candidate won't make
>> any difference to that candidate's (or his party's) national standing.
>> People will not pay one iota more attention to the Libertarians (fory
>> example) if Mr. Brown gets 100,000 votes or 100,001.
>
>I'm afraid I don't follow your logic on how Gordon's logic
>implies that illogic.  Gordon only mentioned the odds that
>who's elected would be decided by a single vote.
>
>But "who's elected" isn't the only consideration.  More
>attention, in general, will be payed to people who get
>more votes, even if they didn't get elected.
>
>> Personally, I do believe it makes a difference.  But not by your
>> logic, or lack thereof.
>
>If one is certain that a hated candidate 'A' was going to win,
>what is the logic in voting for a disliked 'B' over a liked
>'C'?  I can see it if 'A' and 'B' are too close to call, but
>if you're sure 'A' will win?  (Or likewise even if you're sure
>'B' will win.)  Why would you want more attention for someone
>that you dislike than someone you like, if the question of
>who's elected is already "pre-determined"?
>
>-- 
>John Paul Vrolyk
>jp@vrolyk.org


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17630
From: Madge Van Ness <madgevn@angelfire.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:32:53 -0400
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Congratulations. I've enjoyed my two... here's to the pleasures &
challenges of raising intelligent, determined, independent-thinking
kids!

MadgEdith

John Paul Vrolyk wrote:

> Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.
>
> --
> John Paul Vrolyk
> jp@vrolyk.org


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17631
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:20:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39EE1175.F7003ED0@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> I have no argument with voting
> your conscience, but I question how well conscience is served by voting in a
> way that ultimately serves to support what you consider to be the *worst*
> posible outcome.

I think we are back where we started.  My vote will not "ultimately" or 
otherwise determine who is elected.  It is true, of course, that 
ultimately one candidate will be elected.

> As far as I'm concerned, the argument that it doesn't
> matter because no single vote is responsible  for the outcome is merely a
> convenient dodge to avoid taking responsibility for your choice.

But I am quite willing to take responsibility for my choice; I am not 
looking for any dodge, convenient or otherwise.  For example, suppose we 
had a system in which each vote was numbered and then a number picked at 
random.  Under this system, my candidate actually could be elected with 
some probability.  I would still make the same choice.  I am willing to 
"stand by" my vote.
....
> But my example would be logically identical (though certainly not
> logistically identical!) if I'd had you give the same advice to each Bird
> privately. It doesn't matter what the Birds know about each others' choices;
> it only matters how many of them follow your advice.

I tried to explain why I don't think this is the right way to look at it.  
It is true that /I/ might be the only bearer of the news concerning what 
is the rational way to vote, but, as such, I am simply stating (if I am 
right) what any rational person ought to be able to figure out on her 
own.
     
> > So... when is it rational for a person to be concerned that
> > her vote will tip the election to the least preferred candidate?
> 
> By that logic, when would it be rational for a person to be concerned about
> her vote at all?

I think I have been clear that I am considering what is rational for a 
person to do who has some reason to vote or who will vote.  Perhaps there 
is no good reason for a given person to vote.  That is another matter.

I happen to believe that the reason that so few people vote is that the 
ones who do not believe that almost every aspect of their lives will go 
on as before regardless of who is in the White House, so why bother?  In 
this, I strongly suspect that they are right.

> Your point that no single vote tips the election to the
> least preferred candidate could be generalized to state that no single vote
> tips the election to *any* candidate, preferred or otherwise. So since no
> individual's vote actually has any impact, why should anyone -- Dog, Cat, or
> Bird -- bother to vote at all? The answer is that nobody votes in isolation

I don't think that is a good answer or reason to vote, if you are 
wondering whether to vote or not.

> Whether you know what the other
> votes will be or not, you know that others *will* vote, and that your vote
> will be added to the pile, and that one of the piles will end up being
> bigger than the other piles. Your vote contributes no less to the final
> sizes of the piles than any other vote does.

You have aptly described the process, Bill, but I don't see any reason to 
vote here.

> Now, if you know in advance
> that one of the piles *won't* be the biggest, and you care about which of
> the remaining piles ends up biggest, it behooves you not to put your vote in
> the doomed pile.

Now we might be getting somewhere.  You have made clear elsewhere that 
you think that the two major party candidates present important 
alternatives.  But a person thinking of voting for a minor party 
candidate almost certainly does not.  I have been addressing myself to 
the person who says, "Well, I would /like/ to vote for minor candidate X, 
but I don't want to waste my vote".

My point is that after the election it will turn out that that vote was 
not going to determine the election, so she should vote for X.  Does 
anyone here really doubt the the outcome will be as I have suggested?
....
> To answer your question, I ask myself what vote will support my preferred
> outcome from among those outcomes I judge to be possible. If that vote is
> not actively morally repugnant to me, I cast that vote, even if it's not for
> my absolute preferred candidate.

What's the point of /that/ caveat?  Even if the vote were repugnant, you 
would still be voting "as best you could".  Should you stay home, an even 
worse candidate /might/ be elected, by your reasoning.  Frankly, I find a 
vote for either Bush or Gore morally repugnant, so I can follow your 
approach, and not vote at all, or mine, and vote for Brown.

> I think this approach is both rational AND
> conscientious, and I recommend it to others (even those who will, by this
> same approach, arrive at a different conclusion than I do).

But, of course, I also recommend my approach even to those who will vote 
differently than I do.
....
> No ofense intended to the LP, but I was actually thinking of Nader, whose
> candidacy (unlike Brown's, I fear) may well have a real impact on this
> election: While it my be tough to figure out which of the to major-party
> candidates is "most libertarian," it's not difficult at all to figure out
> which one is greenest (or, maybe more to the point, which one is most
> green-hostile).

Here is another difference, related to the one above.  You are thinking 
in terms of the next election.  In a one-time choice, voting for the best 
of a bad lot who has a chance to win might be the best you can do.  But 
if you are interested in radical change, your viewpoint must extend well 
into the future, since such change will not come immediately.  Your 
approach is inherently conservative in that top two established political 
parties are the only ones that would get votes, unless within a four year 
period a party could spring from nothing to a serious contender.  This is 
extremely unlikely, and all the more so given the way that the major 
parties control the process. 

> I'd be willing to bet that a huge majority (perhaps on the
> order of the 80% figure I used in my example) of Nader voters would favor
> Gore over Bush if forced to choose between them. If this is true, it means
> that virtually all of Nader's votes are coming at Gore's expense, a factor
> that might well swing an election as close as this one is shaping up to be
> (depending, of course, on the geographical/electoral distribution of Nader's
> support). Regardless of how good they may feel about voting Nader, if Green
> party voters end up delivering the election to the
> All-Oil-Bidness-All-the-Time ticket, they will NOT, IMHO, have truly "voted
> their conscience."

And I think that they will have.  Voting your conscience is not the same 
as getting a certain outcome in the next election.  Your own point about 
"moral repugnance" supports this.

> (Note, BTW, that I'm not a Green, and not basically
> hostile to the oil business. We're talking about their consciences in this
> example, not mine.)

So you'll be voting for Bush, then?  Why not just say so!  ;-)
 
> As an aside, a number of my Republican friends have commented (usually
> somewhat grumpily) to me that Clinton never would have been elected in the
> first place, if it hadn't been for that meddling so-and-so Ross Perot. Why
> are these same folks (not meaning you, Gordon) then surprised when Gore
> supporters make essentially the same argument WRT Nader? It's one of them
> goose/gander deals, as far as I can tell...

I think we can agree completely on this.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17632
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:11:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


> Alright, in full knowledge that I'm an ignorant Philistine when it comes
to that
> "specialized subject," I'll nevertheless risk a skewering at your hands:

Well, perhaps I should wait to see if Jai is going to jump in here.  I might
embarass myself, since I've never taught decision theory at any level, let
alone post-graduate.  ;-)

But that has never stopped me before.  ;-)

> Suppose I ask myself (about any sort of action that has ethical
implications,
> not just voting), "If everyone who shares my values on this subject acts
as I
> do, will our combined actions tend to support an outcome that offends my
> conscience?" If the answer is yes, then I judge the action to be
> anti-conscientious, no matter how much it may superficially seem
otherwise.

I think I dealt with this a little in my other reply.  For one thing, it
matters greatly whether you see your action as part of a larger sequence of
actions or not.  For example, if you are /campaigning/ for a third party,
wouldn't it be hypocritical not to vote for it?  How effective will you be
within your party when your members learn that you didn't vote for the party
candidate, but that, "Of course I would have voted for our guy if I had
thought he had a chance"?  Or will you lie to them?

> Note
> that my answer to this question doesn't depend on what all those other
folks
> *acutally* do; only on what the effect would be *if* they all acted as I
do.

Why wouldn't you act on your best estimate of what they will actually do,
rather than making your judgment rest on a counterfactual hypothetical?
 ...
> It's very
> difficult to say which of those choices represents the "maximum regret" to
a
> parent, but *that's* not what the decision is based on.

I wasn't claiming that such decisions /were/ based upon minmax regret; I was
saying that minmax regret /could/ explain why person who otherwise would
vote for a third party would be concerned about actually doing so.
.....
> In a similar way, if I were the hypothetical Green I mentioned elsewhere,
my
> choice to vote for Gore rather than Nader would not be based on the fear
that
> "dude.. I'd be *wicked bummed* if Bush won," but rather that I think
> (hypothetically, let me remind everyone) a Bush victory would be a Bad
Outcome,
> as a matter of principle, and my conscience dictates that I not contribute
to
> Bad Outcomes. I'm sure you'll deny it, but I strongly believe this is a
> rational, rather than an emotional, approach to ethical decisions.

I'm not saying it is "emotional".  The issues are "contribute" and "Bad
Outcome".  If Bush is going to win by more than one vote, then a vote for
Nader did not "contribute" - as far as I can see - to Gore's defeat.  If I
want to vote for Nader, and I think the outcome wll not depend on one vote -
as I think I have every reason to believe - then why shouldn't I vote for
Nader?

But, suppose I am wrong about what "contribute" really means.  Then we still
have the "Bad Outcome" to access.  If, as I have said, my concern is
strictly with the next election, your approach could well be the right one.
But if I am voting for Nader as part of a larger strategy to help the Green
Party, or, on your own view, if a vote for Bush or Gore is morally
repugnant, then I should vote for Nader, shouldn't I?

> At the end of the day, though, I think this discussion is moot: I suspect
you
> believe *all* voting is basically irrational. Please correct me if I'm
wrong
> about that, because I don't mean to be putting words into your (virtual)
> mouth... but I believe you've effectively said as much in this thread
(i.e.,
> people who vote are people who've "already decided to buy a [lottery]
ticket"...
> aka suckers).

I have voted in the past, when I was actively involved campaigning for the
Libertarian Party.  In that circumstance it semed the rational thing to do.
Now that I am not active, I see little reason to bother, except to add a
very small percent to Brown's total, and that is probably not enough to get
me to the polls.  But I don't see that this disqualifies me from giving good
advice to a person who is thinking about voting - a person can be a great
coach, long after his physical prime.  ;-)

> If that's what you think, we really don't have much to talk about:
> I believe the franchise is our best hedge against tyranny.

It may well be the best hedge we /have/.  If we did not have a number of
other key features in the structure of our institutions, it could be the
/foundation/ of tyranny.  A tyranny of the majority.  The sort of tyranny
that Gore encourages with his "top 1% of wealthy taxpayers" refrain.  But, I
digress.  Bush is no better.

> I'm willing to
> consider the possibility that I might be wrong about that, but I'm NOT
willing
> to take the necessary risk (i.e., trying a radically different form of
> government) to find out.

Well, I don't think you have much to worry about.  A new form of government
getting a trial is almost as rare as one vote determining an election.  ;-)

 > So you can go on saying my vote doesn't count, and I'll
> go right on voting, and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I didn't say your vote does count; surely it does.  I just don't think it
will determine the election.

> All that said, I'd be curious to "hear" your disquisition on minmax regret
> decision-making, just as a matter of academic interest.

Minmax regret says to take the action that leads to the least regret -
rather than, say, the action with the greatest expected value or the largest
minimum (maxmin).  To use minmax regret you have to calculate the "regret"
for taking each possible action.  I'll go into that if you like.  But the
intuitive idea is that the regret you would experience /if/ your vote would
have tipped the election leads you to vote (or vote for the second "best"
candidate rather than voting your "concience").  The outcome isn't at all
probable, but the large hypothetical regret motivates you to vote.

Minmax  regret has a lot going for it, but... it has a strange feature.
Suppose you rank action A ahead of B using minmax regret.  I point out to
you that there is another action C available to you.  You say, but I like
both A and B more than C, so C doesn't make any difference.  However, the
presence of C can change the regret calculation so that you now prefer B to
A!!  It seems rather strange that an alternaive that you are not going to
take can change the ranking of others that you might.

So, to make a long story short (as if it weren't already too late for
that!), most decision theorists view using minmax regret as being
irrational, but it /could/ explain why some people vote.

--
Gordon G. Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17633
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:35:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:11:20 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>So, to make a long story short (as if it weren't already too late for
>that!), most decision theorists view using minmax regret as being
>irrational, but it /could/ explain why some people vote.
>
I've found the discussion quite interesting.  I voted for Bush in '88,
for MadgEdith in '92, and Browne in '96.  I intend on voting for
Browne again. 

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate".
<G>
Anyway, got the message below in my email inbox & thought it timely,
and possibly relevant to the discussion, if only how a third-party is
going about trying to answer the very discussion we're having here.  I
like primary sources whenever possible. <G>

Those of you who get LP stuff, I apologise for you having to to see it
twice. ;)

--JT


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Friends,

Here is an article by Harry Browne to forward to 
friends and family members who are concerned about
"wasting their vote" by voting Libertarian. Enjoy.

Steve Dasbach
National Director
Libertarian Party

===================================================
Do You Want Smaller Government?

    by Harry Browne
    Libertarian Candidate for President

The most important political question you can ask
yourself is simply this:

    Do you want smaller government?

Do you want an end to the welfare state, to
government destroying our health-care system, to
government at all levels taking 47% of the
national income in taxes, to government intrusions
into your life and your business?

Do you want smaller government?

      Stop Supporting Big Government

If you do, the first step toward getting it is
obvious:

    You must stop supporting those who are making
government bigger.

You can't go east by moving west. It's a physical
impossibility.

You can't make government smaller by rewarding
those who make government bigger. It's a political
impossibility.

Only when you begin asking for what you really
want do you have any chance of getting it.

Al Gore wants to make government bigger. He's
proposed a long list of new government programs.

George W. Bush wants to make government bigger.
He's proposed an equally long list of new
government programs to show that he's as
compassionate as Mr. Gore -- as though having
government spend your money somehow demonstrates
compassion.

Pat Buchanan says he wants a return to
constitutional government. But he's made no
specific proposals to reduce government, while
proposing to have government fix what he thinks is
wrong with America. For one thing, he wants to
tell you what kind of car you can drive.

And Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can
drive a car at all. But that's the least of his
many plans to make government much bigger.

      What Smaller Government Means

I am the only presidential candidate offering
specific proposals to make government smaller --
much smaller:

* I want to get the federal government
_completely_ out of every area where it's made
such a mess -- health care, education, law
enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate
welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not
only are these programs unconstitutional, they do
tremendous damage to our lives.

* I want to make the federal government so small
you won't pay _any_ income tax. (The tariffs and
excise taxes already being collected are enough to
finance the constitutional functions of
government.)

* I want to free you immediately and completely
from the Social Security system. I want to sell
off government assets to finance private
retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on
Social Security -- so you and I and every other
American can immediately stop paying the 15%
Social Security tax.

* I want to end the nightmare of Prohibition by
stopping the insane War on Drugs. At least 90% of
the invasions of your civil liberties over the
last 30 years have been justified by the Drug War.
You may have no interest in drugs, but the
government still snoops in your bank account,
monitors your email, and claims the power to
search and seize your property without due
process.

* I want to restore completely your unconditional
right to keep and bear any weapon necessary to
defend yourself and your family. We can't end gun
violence with new laws or by enforcing the laws on
the books now. The gun laws are the principal
_cause_ of gun violence, so we must repeal those
laws.

* I _don't_ want to appoint Supreme Court judges
who are "strict constructionists" or who divine
"original intent." I want to appoint judges who
can read the plain language of the Constitution --
who understand that when the Constitution says
"Congress shall make no law," it means _Congress
shall make no law_. I want judges who will strike
down government programs that are not authorized
by the Constitution.

In short, I don't want to slow the growth of
government. I don't even want to stop the growth
of government. I want to _reduce_ government
dramatically -- to the limits imposed by the
Constitution.

      What Freedom Means

I want you to be free to live your life as _you_
want to live it -- not as Al Gore or George Bush
thinks you should.

You're the one who gets up every morning and goes
to work for 8, 10, or 12 hours a day. How dare
politicians like George Bush or Al Gore presume to
decide how much of what you earn you should be
allowed to keep?

I want you to be able to keep _every_ dollar you
earn -- to spend it, save it, give it away as
_you_ think best -- not just the crumbs the
politicians leave for you.

I want you to be able to use your own money to put
your children in a school of your choice --
private, religious, or home school -- without
having to beg the state for a voucher or plead
with the Board of Education for improvement.

I want you to be able to use your own money to
start your own business. Or to support your church
or favorite charity in a way you've never been
able to do before.

I want you to be free. I want to get government
out of your life.

Isn't that what _you_ want?

      How to Get to Smaller Government

If so, why would you vote for someone who's moving
in the opposite direction -- someone who's made it
clear he intends to make government bigger, not
smaller?

I'm the only candidate who's running solely for
the purpose of making government smaller. I'm the
only candidate who doesn't presume to know what
charities your money should go to, or how much of
your income belongs to the politicians.

      How You Can Win

Can I win?

Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you
won't win either. Your candidate might win, but
_you_ won't get what you want. Government will
continue to get bigger, more expensive, more
intrusive, and more oppressive -- and you will
have given your approval to this.

No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush
or Mr. Gore -- to keep Al Gore out of the White
House or to ward off the Religious Right -- your
vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of
every big-government proposal your candidate has
made.

Even though we Libertarians may not win this year,
every vote I get will be an endorsement, a
statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller
government. No one can misinterpret a vote for me
as a vote for more government.

And if I get even one million votes, it could
change politics in America forever. It could cause
the press to pay more attention to
smaller-government proposals, it could encourage
other voters to abandon the big-government
parties, and it could attract millions of
non-voters who have given up on any hope of
getting smaller government.

Please don't let the old parties destroy your
future by scaring you into voting _against_
someone this year.

Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead
to a free America with a constitutional government
before the end of this decade.

For once, vote for yourself instead of a
politician. Vote for freedom.

Vote Libertarian.

======

Harry Browne is the Libertarian candidate for
President, and the author of The Great Libertarian
Offer. More of his articles are available at
HarryBrowne.org.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBOe5ZfdCSe1KnQG7RAQHuaQQAmPC7pORg+IR88zglXA9Y5tyJD+eI/fgt
ARs0PWse+yYOp5bJOHqdNqVucPor4A3a2/w6hU8EBgqXHCNRc+JvZijxcpF4oRZx
cjDcMAf89ufs8Z0ht1LKw6OtULgPyLJfmPBQjQA0gGLFAcVestubd/l0U+rcQoTg
QAp9hBwk6lU=
=e5l4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
Alternatively, you may also send a message to
<announce-request@lp.org> 
with just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17634
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:12:17 -0400
Subject: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Well, the Internet being what it is, I'm sure most of you have already 
seen this, but it just about sums it up for me.  ;-)


>  Jim Lehrer: Welcome to the second presidential
> debate between Vice
> President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. The
> candidates have agreed on
> these rules: I will ask a question.  The candidate
> will ignore the question
> and deliver rehearsed remarks designed to appeal to
> undecided women voters.
> The opponent will then have one minute to respond by
> trying  to frighten
> senior citizens into voting for him. When a
> speaker's time has  expired, I
> will whimper softly while he continues to spew
> incomprehensible  statistics
> for three more minutes.
>
> Let's start with the vice president.  Mr.  Gore, can
> you give us the name of
> a downtrodden citizen and then tell us his or her
> story in a way that
> strains the bounds of common sense?
>
> Gore: As I was saying to Tipper last night after we
> tenderly made love the
> way we have so often during the 30 years of our
> rock-solid marriage, the
> downtrodden have a clear choice in this election. My
> opponent wants to cut
> taxes for the richest 1 percent of Americans.  I, on
> the other hand, want to
> put the richest 1 percent in an ironclad lockbox so
> they can't hurt old
> people like Roberta Frampinhamper, who is here
> tonight. Mrs. Frampinhamper
> has been selling her internal organs, one by one, to
> pay for  gas so that
> she can travel to these debates and personify
> problems for me.   Also, her
> poodle has arthritis.
>
> > > Lehrer: Gov.  Bush, your rebuttal.
>
> Bush: Governors are on the front lines every day,
> hugging people, crying
> with them, relieving suffering anywhere a photo
> opportunity exists. I want
> to empower those crying people to make their own
> decisions, unlike my
> opponent, whose mother is not Barbara Bush.
>
> > > Lehrer: Let's turn to foreign affairs.  Gov.
> Bush, if Slobodan
> Milosevic were to launch a bid to return to power in
> Yugoslavia, would you
> be able to pronounce his name?
>
> Bush:  The current administration had eight years to
> deal with that guy and
> didn't get it done. If I'm elected, the first thing
> I would do about that
> guy is have Dick Cheney confer with our allies.  And
> then Dick would present
> me several options for dealing with that guy.  And
> then Dick would tell me
> which one to choose. You know, as governor of Texas,
> I have to make tough
> foreign policy decisions every day about how we're
> going to deal with New
> Mexico.
>
> > > Lehrer:  Mr.  Gore, your rebuttal.
>
> Gore: Foreign policy is something I've always been
> keenly interested in. I
> served my country in Vietnam.  I had an uncle who
> was a victim of poison gas
> in World War I.  I myself lost a leg in the
> Franco-Prussian War. And when
> that war was over, I came home and tenderly made
> love to Tipper in
>
> a way that any undecided woman voter would find
> romantic. If I'm entrusted
>
> with the office of president, I pledge to deal
> knowledgeably with any
> threat, foreign or domestic, by putting it in an
> ironclad lockbox.  Because
> the American people deserve a president who can
> comfort them with simple
> metaphors.
>
> Lehrer: Vice President Gore, how would you reform
> the Social Security
> system?
>
> Gore: It's a vital issue, Jim.  That's why Joe
> Lieberman and I have proposed
> changing the laws of mathematics to allow us to give
> $50,000 to every senior
> citizen without having it cost the federal treasury
> a single penny until the
> year 2250. In addition, my budget commits $60
> trillion over the next 10
> years to guarantee that all senior citizens can have
> drugs delivered free to
> their homes every Monday by a federal employee who
> will also help them with
> the child-proof cap.
>
> > > Lehrer: Gov.  Bush?
>
> Bush: That's fuzzy math.  I know, because as
> governor of Texas, I have to do
> math every day.  I have to add up the numbers and
> decide whether I'm going
> to fill potholes out on Rt.  36 east of Abilene or
> commit funds to reroof
> the sheep barn at the Texas state fairgrounds.
>
>  > > Lehrer: It's time for closing statements.
>
> Gore: I'm my own man.  I may not be the most
> exciting politician, but I will
> fight for the working families of America, in
> addition to turning the White
> House into a lusty pit of marital love for Tipper
> and me. > >
>
> Bush: It's time to put aside the partisanship of the
> past by electing no one
> but Republicans.
>
> > > Lehrer: Good night.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17635
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:45:03 -0500
Subject: Re: More good news!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org> wrote in message
news:39EAFF80.BD74CFDE@vrolyk.org...
> Les & I are pregnant.  Baby's due late next April.

Congratulations.  That's wonderful news.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17636
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:54:41 +0900
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> Well, the Internet being what it is, I'm sure most of you have already
> seen this, but it just about sums it up for me.  ;-)

As it turns out, I did just receive this by email this morning. <g>

I saw Jim Lehrer on Larry King Live yesterday, and it was interesting to
hear him talk about the challenge of moderating these debates.  He was
very up-front about not feeling like he had the authority to step in and
keep the candidates on topic.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17637
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:30:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hi.

Haven't been on the list in a few days.  I notice my comment started a
lively discussion.  It's late, and I don't have much time.  Did think I
needed to say one thing.  I'm going out of town, so I'll be curious to see
if there's any discussion about this one when I get back.

There are two issues.  One's been thoroughly discussed about why to vote and
for whom to vote and what impact votes have.  May I say I found it to be a
fascinating discussion.

Here's the other issue.  (I can say that because I know what was in my mind
when I wrote that post.)

When I was talking about "throwing away my vote" I was referring to
something I specifically feel.  It's a feeling of being disenfranchised from
the government.  Sometimes the people I vote for are elected.  More often
they are not.  Sometimes I look around at our government and the actions it
takes and say to myself, "Well, this government may be representing someone,
but it's sure not me."  When I vote for a candidate who wins, I feel a
partial responsibility for his actions and policies.  I did vote for him.
The person is representing me to a certain degree.  On the other hand, when
it's someone I didn't vote for, I don't feel that same sense of
responsibility.  I can, in essence, wash my hands or at least my conscience
of his actions.  So in voting for someone I know doesn't have a possibility
of winning am I abrogating my sense of responsibility to myself for the
course this country is going to take over the next four years?

I'll admit it's not a practical argument.  It *is* an argument important to
me for living with myself.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17638
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:51:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:30:55 -0500, "Margaret Albrecht"
<mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>.  So in voting for someone I know doesn't have a possibility
>of winning am I abrogating my sense of responsibility to myself for the
>course this country is going to take over the next four years?
>
>I'll admit it's not a practical argument.  It *is* an argument important to
>me for living with myself.
>
Well, if you voted for the best course possible according to your
beliefs at the time, I think you fulfilled your duty to yourself.  In
the time between elections your duty is to see that you influence your
elected representatives to carry out your wishes...mail, phone calls,
etc.  If they don't do it, well, at least they know what YOU want. ;)

But I'm a pie-in-the-sky idealist.  I work for the federal government
& I still think about serving the American Public's needs. <G>

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17639
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:24:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:
> I have voted in the past, when I was actively involved campaigning for the
> Libertarian Party.  In that circumstance it semed the rational thing to do.
> Now that I am not active, I see little reason to bother, except to add a
> very small percent to Brown's total, and that is probably not enough to get
> me to the polls.

Me, I like voting.  It gives me a false sense of making a difference.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17640
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:05:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39F0F042.FF227ABC@vrolyk.org>, John Paul Vrolyk writes...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> > I have voted in the past, when I was actively involved campaigning for the
> > Libertarian Party.  In that circumstance it semed the rational thing to do.
> > Now that I am not active, I see little reason to bother, except to add a
> > very small percent to Brown's total, and that is probably not enough to get
> > me to the polls.
> 
> Me, I like voting.  It gives me a false sense of making a difference.

I suspect that that reason is acted on by far more people than realize 
it.  We are generally wired to enjoy controlling or effecting things, and 
nihilism can quickly seem the only alternative when we can not exercise 
an influence. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17641
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 07:49:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>I saw Jim Lehrer on Larry King Live yesterday, and it was interesting to
>hear him talk about the challenge of moderating these debates.  He was
>very up-front about not feeling like he had the authority to step in and
>keep the candidates on topic.

  I thought it was very interesting that he said he doesn't vote
because he feels it would taint his objectivity in dealing with the
candidates. Pretty darned rare in the media.

Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17642
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 07:51:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> >I saw Jim Lehrer on Larry King Live yesterday, and it was interesting to
> >hear him talk about the challenge of moderating these debates.  He was
> >very up-front about not feeling like he had the authority to step in and
> >keep the candidates on topic.
>
>   I thought it was very interesting that he said he doesn't vote
> because he feels it would taint his objectivity in dealing with the
> candidates. Pretty darned rare in the media.
>
>

I know next to nothing about your election ( I just have a rooted objection
to Tipper because she made record companies stick labels on albums) but isn't
this a little disingenuous? Whether you vote or not has never stopped people
having opinions and surely they would taint objectivity just as much as a
vote. Which is secret anyway. OTOH maybe I'm missing something...I'm hesitant
to join in when I'm a furriner with ways not your own :-)

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17643
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------

Article 17644
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------

Article 17645
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:17:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39F1833A.C88339D2@netcom.ca>, ddavitt writes...
....
> I know next to nothing about your election ( I just have a rooted objection
> to Tipper because she made record companies stick labels on albums) but isn't
> this a little disingenuous? Whether you vote or not has never stopped people
> having opinions and surely they would taint objectivity just as much as a
> vote. Which is secret anyway. OTOH maybe I'm missing something...I'm hesitant
> to join in when I'm a furriner with ways not your own :-)

I don't think that this issue depends on the political division in which 
an election is held.  Lehrer no doubt has opinions, but there is a sense 
of "making up your mind" to vote that could be said to transcend simply 
having an opinion.  You make a decision, and that involves cutting off 
other options you could have taken.  By not going through this 
deliberative process, Lehrer would indeed be less partisan, which is a 
sort of proxy for objectivity in this context.
    
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17646
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:16:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT:      Of all the mailing lists I am on, I now regret not being on
one that would have put this speech in my In Box.
Thank you for posting this.  I has restored my faith in "Doing the
Right Thing" this election day.

Ed J


On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:35:00 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
            <snip: excellent speach by Harry Browne>
>
>Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead
>to a free America with a constitutional government
>before the end of this decade.
>
>For once, vote for yourself instead of a
>politician. Vote for freedom.
>
>Vote Libertarian.
>
>======
>
>Harry Browne is the Libertarian candidate for
>President, and the author of The Great Libertarian
>Offer. More of his articles are available at
>HarryBrowne.org.
>
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: 2.6.2
>
>iQCVAwUBOe5ZfdCSe1KnQG7RAQHuaQQAmPC7pORg+IR88zglXA9Y5tyJD+eI/fgt
>ARs0PWse+yYOp5bJOHqdNqVucPor4A3a2/w6hU8EBgqXHCNRc+JvZijxcpF4oRZx
>cjDcMAf89ufs8Z0ht1LKw6OtULgPyLJfmPBQjQA0gGLFAcVestubd/l0U+rcQoTg
>QAp9hBwk6lU=
>=e5l4
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>The Libertarian Party
>http://www.lp.org/
>2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice:
>202-333-0008
>Washington DC 20037                                   fax:
>202-333-0072
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at: 
>http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
>Alternatively, you may also send a message to
><announce-request@lp.org> 
>with just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17647
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 14:21:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 09:17:34 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

                 <snip>
>I don't think that this issue depends on the political division in which 
>an election is held.  Lehrer no doubt has opinions, but there is a sense 
>of "making up your mind" to vote that could be said to transcend simply 
>having an opinion.  You make a decision, and that involves cutting off 
>other options you could have taken.  By not going through this 
>deliberative process, Lehrer would indeed be less partisan, which is a 
>sort of proxy for objectivity in this context.

This was my take on it also.  (You've just expressed it more
eloquently than I would have <g>)


Ed J

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17648
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 11:45:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

ddavitt wrote:
> ( I just have a rooted objection
> to Tipper because she made record companies stick labels on albums)

She also wrote a book in which she branded one of my hobbies
(Dungeons & Dragons) as Satanic.

> OTOH maybe I'm missing something...I'm hesitant
> to join in when I'm a furriner with ways not your own :-)

Don't worry about that.  I'm a ferner, too, eh!  Doesn't
stop me.  Give me another decade or two, though and
(INS willing) I may be running for Congress myself!

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17649
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 21 Oct 2000 15:59:04 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.

To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17650
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 13:14:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39F1BA0E.A9E5876@vrolyk.org>, John Paul Vrolyk writes...
> ddavitt wrote:
> > ( I just have a rooted objection
> > to Tipper because she made record companies stick labels on albums)
> 
> She also wrote a book in which she branded one of my hobbies
> (Dungeons & Dragons) as Satanic.

Well, that only makes good sense.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17651
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:48:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>By not going through this 
>deliberative process, Lehrer would indeed be less partisan, which is a 
>sort of proxy for objectivity in this context.

  Right. Certainly he has opinions, but I respect that he's trying for
objectivity in his job--TV news--which is vanishingly rare. Most don't
make the vaguest attempt at objectivity (an opinion I formed from
working in TV news for about 15 years). 

  For those of you who don't watch PBS, it's not the liberal bastion
it was once considered to be. The political and news shows, in
particular, are IMO quite conservative-leaning. The liberal bias shows
mostly in, again IMO, in the kids' shows which are frequently Canadian
or British-made. The Canadian shows often have a strong Socialist
message threaded throughout. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17652
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:15:47 +0900
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <39F1BA0E.A9E5876@vrolyk.org>, John Paul Vrolyk writes...
> > ddavitt wrote:
> > > ( I just have a rooted objection
> > > to Tipper because she made record companies stick labels on albums)
> >
> > She also wrote a book in which she branded one of my hobbies
> > (Dungeons & Dragons) as Satanic.
>
> Well, that only makes good sense.

Gordon, I'm assuming we should read an emoticon here?

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17653
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:32:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Second Debate Transcript
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39F20783.515DFEA5@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> 
> > In article <39F1BA0E.A9E5876@vrolyk.org>, John Paul Vrolyk writes...
> > > ddavitt wrote:
> > > > ( I just have a rooted objection
> > > > to Tipper because she made record companies stick labels on albums)
> > >
> > > She also wrote a book in which she branded one of my hobbies
> > > (Dungeons & Dragons) as Satanic.
> >
> > Well, that only makes good sense.
> 
> Gordon, I'm assuming we should read an emoticon here?

What?   ;-) 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17654
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:50:14 -0500
Subject: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I don't claim to have verified any of this information (except for the one
on Andrew Johnson -- that I remember from the history books).  A friend sent
it to me, and I thought it was particularly appropriate to forward to this
group.

The Year is:

1800  1 vote gives Thomas Jefferson the presidency over Aaron Burr
1839  1 vote wins the Massachusetts governorship for Marcus Morton
1868  1 vote saves Andrew Johnson's presidency
1941  1 vote strengthens selective service before World War II
1960  1 vote per precinct gives JFK the presidency
1993  1 vote by Al Gore approves the largest tax increase in history
2000  1 vote, your vote, can make the difference November 7th

In America, 1 VOTE DOES MATTER.  Be the ONE.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17655
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:09:22 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39f4a320.0@news.sff.net...
> I don't claim to have verified any of this information (except for the one
> on Andrew Johnson -- that I remember from the history books).  A friend
sent
> it to me, and I thought it was particularly appropriate to forward to this
> group.

On Andrew Johnson, If you're one of 46 Senators, one vote will be much more
important than if you're one of 250 million US Citizens (some of whom can't
vote so call it 175 million).  And IIRC, a group of 10 senators were agreed
that Andrew Johnson should come within one vote of losing his presidency,
but not actually lose it, so while the counted vote was missed by one, there
were many other voters who would have adjusted their votes to achieve the
same outcome.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17656
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 07:38:25 +0900
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I see frank has taken on the Johnson example.  I'll tackle a couple others:

Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> I don't claim to have verified any of this information (except for the one
> on Andrew Johnson -- that I remember from the history books).  A friend sent
> it to me, and I thought it was particularly appropriate to forward to this
> group.
>
> The Year is:
> 1800  1 vote gives Thomas Jefferson the presidency over Aaron Burr

That single vote belonged to the Speaker of the House after the Electoral
College tied.  Jefferson and Burr ran as a ticket, but when the EC tied Burr
decided to try for the top job.  It's why the Electoral College now votes for
Pres. and VP separately.

> 1993  1 vote by Al Gore approves the largest tax increase in history

And this one was by the President of the Senate (i.e. the VP) after a tie vote
in that body.

I'm not saying people shouldn't vote, just that the examples given aren't
anywhere near parallel situations.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17657
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:18:14 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>In America, 1 VOTE DOES MATTER.  Be the ONE.
Much as I'd love to, I am a teenage male who has not yet reached
majority. I also like video games. and rock music. Logically, people
should fear the day that I am able to vote, for I lack intelligence,
compassion, and am at heart a cold-blooded killer. We (teenage males)
all are, you know!  I know this beause the grown-ups told me so!

Bob
bobl@deletethis.blupoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17658
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:23:20 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Oh dear. That message was not at all thought out or even worthwhile.
It contributed nothing to the discussion. Please, accept my apologies.
Bob
Bob
bobl@deletethis.blupoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17659
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:40:33 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bob:   Who said:  'To err is human, to forgive, Divine'  ?
Even a comment that the sender considers inane, can be a
contribution.
Stereotypes (e.g. of teens) should be exposed anywhere you find
them.  Thanks for reminding us of that one.

Ed J

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:23:20 GMT, bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob
Lawson) wrote:

>Oh dear. That message was not at all thought out or even worthwhile.
>It contributed nothing to the discussion. Please, accept my apologies.
>Bob
>Bob
>bobl@deletethis.blupoet.com
>www.bluepoet.com


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17660
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:59:15 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:39F4BDE1.84B3FA5F@whoi.edu...
> I see frank has taken on the Johnson example.  I'll tackle a couple
others:
I did know this one was in the Senate.  I didn't know it was planned to be
within one vote.  That was interesting to learn.  To take this off on a
diversion, I was fascinated to see the process of Clinton's impeachment.
Even knowing what was going to happen you couldn't have pried me away from
the tv with a crowbar.  Seeing the President of the US get impeached --
that's a once in a lifetime event.  At least I hope it will be.  What I also
found interesting was the insight Jimmy Carter had into the political
process.  He predicted Clinton would be impeached by the House and not
convicted by the Senate when the scandal broke and people began talking
about the possibility.

> > 1800  1 vote gives Thomas Jefferson the presidency over Aaron Burr
>
> That single vote belonged to the Speaker of the House after the Electoral
> College tied.  Jefferson and Burr ran as a ticket, but when the EC tied
Burr
> decided to try for the top job.  It's why the Electoral College now votes
for
> Pres. and VP separately.
Now that you mention it, I remember this as well.  American History is not
my specialty.  Aside from what I learned in school, the only time period
I've made a point in studying is the Old West.  I'm hoping someone will
remember the specifics on this...  I recall one presidential election where
the person who one the popular vote, lost the electoral college vote.  Am I
remembering right?

> > 1993  1 vote by Al Gore approves the largest tax increase in history
> And this one was by the President of the Senate (i.e. the VP) after a tie
vote
> in that body.
And he's still trying to live it down.

Does anyone have any information on these?
1960  1 vote per precinct gives JFK the presidency
1839  1 vote wins the Massachusetts governorship for Marcus Morton

I'm particularly curious about the 1 vote per precinct.  Keep wondering how
the figure was derived.  I suppose I should look it up, but I'm hoping
someone here will save me the effort.  Right now I'm busy researching locks.
I bought this fascinating combination lock demo.  It's frustrating because
though I can understand what I can see, I can't understand what I don't see
happening because I lack the knowledge.  So I'm working on remedying the
situation.

Margaret





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17661
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:05:55 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bob Lawson <bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com> wrote in message
news:39f62651.1986791@news.sff.net...
>
> >In America, 1 VOTE DOES MATTER.  Be the ONE.
> Much as I'd love to, I am a teenage male who has not yet reached
> majority. I also like video games. and rock music. Logically, people
> should fear the day that I am able to vote, for I lack intelligence,
> compassion, and am at heart a cold-blooded killer. We (teenage males)
> all are, you know!  I know this beause the grown-ups told me so!

Does it make you feel any better to know people were saying that 20 years
ago about my generation when I was a teenager?

Though I'll admit I've just gone into a state of shock at realizing it was
21 years ago I became a teenager.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17662
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:10:11 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39f658e5.0@news.sff.net...
>I recall one presidential election where
> the person who one the popular vote, lost the electoral college vote.  Am
I
> remembering right?
Oops, that should have been "won" not "one".
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17663
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:38:52 -0600
Subject: Re: My Internet Weirdness Story
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hi, Margaret:

By way of introduction, I'm a semi-old-cobber here in the HF (found
them 2/95). Every time I wander away from here, I'm always welcomed
back warmly; it happens with periodical regularity. One absence lasted
18 months, but that was due to my old computer's blowing its
motherboard.

The first time I strayed from this group, on the "old" Prodigy, I met
my wife -- that particular wandering I consider to be well spent. <G>

Having said all that, I should also point out that I'm usually not one
to come back and read threads that are weeks old, only to dredge them
up again...

But to your thread, holy cats -- I _have_ to say three things:

1) _DAMN!_ That's more screwed-up than Bill Clinton's marriage.

2) Welcome home. (When this was said to me here after that first
wander... well, it did my heart a helluva lot of good.)

3) If ANYONE comes up to me wanting to discuss "Alias Smith & Jones",
I will -- as a result of your post -- almost certainly have to grab my
family and leave Denver, literally running for the hills.

;-)

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17664
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:43:56 -0600
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:

<snip>
 
> Now Name your favorite current non-SF  TV show that Qualifies IN YOUR ns
> HUMBLE Opinion for the Best thing on television.

I'm torn between "ER" (still), and Drew Carey's (somewhat) new
American incarnation of "Who's Line Is It, Anyway?" My jury is still
out on "The Practice" and "Judging Amy". Ask again next sweeps. <gd&r>

For my nod at the nostalgic turn this thread took with "MASH", well
sure -- me too.

But I also have to give similarly-but-not-quite-as respectful nods to
"Soap", "Benson", "All in the Family", "St. Elsewhere", "L.A. Law" and
"WKRP in Cincinnati" (ever the radio geek, that's me). "Lou Grant" was
pretty good, as I recall -- but that was back when I thought I was a
liberal and that I was gonna be a journalist. I was in eighth grade at
the time; YMMV. Funny that none of us brought up "The Mary Tyler Moore
Show", though.

Dare I bring up "Fawlty Towers"?

Tonight's season premier of "Frasier" left me stone cold, and that's a
sitcom I have downright /loved/. It was Miles' "overacting" at his
"reception" that had me squirming and thinking, hell, I've got
campaign e-mail to answer. :-/

After I finished that, I found overdue time to come here.

Hey, I'm waving! <g>

Clay/Cpl Ted
^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Is this a piece of your brain?" -- Basil Fawlty



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17665
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:39:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT, Thank you for posting Harry Browne's enewsletter.  I saw him on "Meet
the Press" Sunday as I clicked through during yet another Seahawk disaster.

I got my absentee ballot last week and plan on voting almost straight
Libertarian (my State legislatative district,
county, and other local partisan postitions don't have Libertarian
candidates.)  I would have voted already but I'm still reading the text of
the Ballot Measures (Washington has some doozies this year.)


A lovely lady from the Republican Party called today to remind me to return
my ballot.  She also asked me to remember the Republican candidates.  I
thanked her for calling and told her, "I vote Libertarian."   Dead silence.
--
`rita
Live from Finley, Washington
(I get busy with "real" life for a week and you all post 71 times!)
pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
JT wrote in message <39ef5943.70150631@news.sff.net>...
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:11:20 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>So, to make a long story short (as if it weren't already too late for
>that!), most decision theorists view using minmax regret as being
>irrational, but it /could/ explain why some people vote.
>
I've found the discussion quite interesting.  I voted for Bush in '88,
for MadgEdith in '92, and Browne in '96.  I intend on voting for
Browne again.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate".
<G>
Anyway, got the message below in my email inbox & thought it timely,
and possibly relevant to the discussion, if only how a third-party is
going about trying to answer the very discussion we're having here.  I
like primary sources whenever possible. <G>

Those of you who get LP stuff, I apologise for you having to to see it
twice. ;)

--JT


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Friends,

Here is an article by Harry Browne to forward to
friends and family members who are concerned about
"wasting their vote" by voting Libertarian. Enjoy.

Steve Dasbach
National Director
Libertarian Party

===================================================
Do You Want Smaller Government?

    by Harry Browne
    Libertarian Candidate for President

The most important political question you can ask
yourself is simply this:

    Do you want smaller government?

Do you want an end to the welfare state, to
government destroying our health-care system, to
government at all levels taking 47% of the
national income in taxes, to government intrusions
into your life and your business?

Do you want smaller government?

      Stop Supporting Big Government

If you do, the first step toward getting it is
obvious:

    You must stop supporting those who are making
government bigger.

You can't go east by moving west. It's a physical
impossibility.

You can't make government smaller by rewarding
those who make government bigger. It's a political
impossibility.

Only when you begin asking for what you really
want do you have any chance of getting it.

Al Gore wants to make government bigger. He's
proposed a long list of new government programs.

George W. Bush wants to make government bigger.
He's proposed an equally long list of new
government programs to show that he's as
compassionate as Mr. Gore -- as though having
government spend your money somehow demonstrates
compassion.

Pat Buchanan says he wants a return to
constitutional government. But he's made no
specific proposals to reduce government, while
proposing to have government fix what he thinks is
wrong with America. For one thing, he wants to
tell you what kind of car you can drive.

And Ralph Nader wants to tell you whether you can
drive a car at all. But that's the least of his
many plans to make government much bigger.

      What Smaller Government Means

I am the only presidential candidate offering
specific proposals to make government smaller --
much smaller:

* I want to get the federal government
_completely_ out of every area where it's made
such a mess -- health care, education, law
enforcement, welfare, foreign aid, corporate
welfare, highway boondoggles, farm subsidies. Not
only are these programs unconstitutional, they do
tremendous damage to our lives.

* I want to make the federal government so small
you won't pay _any_ income tax. (The tariffs and
excise taxes already being collected are enough to
finance the constitutional functions of
government.)

* I want to free you immediately and completely
from the Social Security system. I want to sell
off government assets to finance private
retirement accounts for anyone now dependent on
Social Security -- so you and I and every other
American can immediately stop paying the 15%
Social Security tax.

* I want to end the nightmare of Prohibition by
stopping the insane War on Drugs. At least 90% of
the invasions of your civil liberties over the
last 30 years have been justified by the Drug War.
You may have no interest in drugs, but the
government still snoops in your bank account,
monitors your email, and claims the power to
search and seize your property without due
process.

* I want to restore completely your unconditional
right to keep and bear any weapon necessary to
defend yourself and your family. We can't end gun
violence with new laws or by enforcing the laws on
the books now. The gun laws are the principal
_cause_ of gun violence, so we must repeal those
laws.

* I _don't_ want to appoint Supreme Court judges
who are "strict constructionists" or who divine
"original intent." I want to appoint judges who
can read the plain language of the Constitution --
who understand that when the Constitution says
"Congress shall make no law," it means _Congress
shall make no law_. I want judges who will strike
down government programs that are not authorized
by the Constitution.

In short, I don't want to slow the growth of
government. I don't even want to stop the growth
of government. I want to _reduce_ government
dramatically -- to the limits imposed by the
Constitution.

      What Freedom Means

I want you to be free to live your life as _you_
want to live it -- not as Al Gore or George Bush
thinks you should.

You're the one who gets up every morning and goes
to work for 8, 10, or 12 hours a day. How dare
politicians like George Bush or Al Gore presume to
decide how much of what you earn you should be
allowed to keep?

I want you to be able to keep _every_ dollar you
earn -- to spend it, save it, give it away as
_you_ think best -- not just the crumbs the
politicians leave for you.

I want you to be able to use your own money to put
your children in a school of your choice --
private, religious, or home school -- without
having to beg the state for a voucher or plead
with the Board of Education for improvement.

I want you to be able to use your own money to
start your own business. Or to support your church
or favorite charity in a way you've never been
able to do before.

I want you to be free. I want to get government
out of your life.

Isn't that what _you_ want?

      How to Get to Smaller Government

If so, why would you vote for someone who's moving
in the opposite direction -- someone who's made it
clear he intends to make government bigger, not
smaller?

I'm the only candidate who's running solely for
the purpose of making government smaller. I'm the
only candidate who doesn't presume to know what
charities your money should go to, or how much of
your income belongs to the politicians.

      How You Can Win

Can I win?

Probably not. But if you vote for anyone else, you
won't win either. Your candidate might win, but
_you_ won't get what you want. Government will
continue to get bigger, more expensive, more
intrusive, and more oppressive -- and you will
have given your approval to this.

No matter what your reason for voting for Mr. Bush
or Mr. Gore -- to keep Al Gore out of the White
House or to ward off the Religious Right -- your
vote will be interpreted as an endorsement of
every big-government proposal your candidate has
made.

Even though we Libertarians may not win this year,
every vote I get will be an endorsement, a
statement, a declaration on behalf of smaller
government. No one can misinterpret a vote for me
as a vote for more government.

And if I get even one million votes, it could
change politics in America forever. It could cause
the press to pay more attention to
smaller-government proposals, it could encourage
other voters to abandon the big-government
parties, and it could attract millions of
non-voters who have given up on any hope of
getting smaller government.

Please don't let the old parties destroy your
future by scaring you into voting _against_
someone this year.

Raise your sights. Vote in a way that could lead
to a free America with a constitutional government
before the end of this decade.

For once, vote for yourself instead of a
politician. Vote for freedom.

Vote Libertarian.

======

Harry Browne is the Libertarian candidate for
President, and the author of The Great Libertarian
Offer. More of his articles are available at
HarryBrowne.org.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBOe5ZfdCSe1KnQG7RAQHuaQQAmPC7pORg+IR88zglXA9Y5tyJD+eI/fgt
ARs0PWse+yYOp5bJOHqdNqVucPor4A3a2/w6hU8EBgqXHCNRc+JvZijxcpF4oRZx
cjDcMAf89ufs8Z0ht1LKw6OtULgPyLJfmPBQjQA0gGLFAcVestubd/l0U+rcQoTg
QAp9hBwk6lU=
=e5l4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100                    voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037                                   fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
Alternatively, you may also send a message to
<announce-request@lp.org>
with just the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" in the subject line.






------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17666
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:40:44 -0700
Subject: Death Penalty (was  Al Gore and The Hanford Reach)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Here, in the ~real~ Washington, we have caught yet another serial killer
after 25 years of homocides.
He's pleading guilty to most of the murders.  (The first two they can
connect him to were in my home town, about the time I left for the Army.)

The local news reported the cost of imprisoning him to age 80 as just under
$800,000 vs. the cost of excuting him as well over $1 million plus appeals.
This man may deserve to die, but do I have to pay for it with money that
could educate my children?
--
`rita
Live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
John Paul Vrolyk wrote in message <39EBB27A.EF6D3383@vrolyk.org>...
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <395337e3.1767486@news.sff.net>, Cecil Rose writes...
> >       The recidivism rate among executed murderers is very low.  Thus we
> > know that at least some crime is deterred.
>
> I don't think so.  The idea of deterrence is to give someone a motivation
> not to commit a crime.  A dead person does not have a motivation for or
> against anything.

He doesn't?  How do you know that?

I find other's motivations to be, in general a very hard
problem.  Better than trying to guess their movtivations,
just look at the results.  You may prefer the word "prevention"
to "deterrence", but, except in cheesy horror films, a dead
murderer does not murder anyone else.

> you have to be
> concerned about a process that kills people who do not deserve to die.

Oh, certainly.  In practice, the death penalty is often
handled very poorly.  I don't want a single innocent
person killed.  But I have no moral objection to executing
murderers.  The trick is telling the difference.

--
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17667
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:34:30 GMT
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Tonight's season premier of "Frasier" left me stone cold, and that's a
>sitcom I have downright /loved/. 

  Yeah. About five minutes in I commented that I think it's probably
the last season for the show. Very flat. 

  OTOH, I love the way they dealt with the sudden appearance of the
sister on Buffy. They let us have a few weeks thinking it was a
typical add-in of a previously unseen sibling, then now they come up
with a nice in-context explanation for it. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17668
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:34:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Anyway, got the message below in my email inbox & thought it timely,
>and possibly relevant to the discussion,

  Dang it, JT. I had just about talked myself into voting for one of
the two major party candidates (more specifically, voting _against_
the more loathesome of the two by voting for the other) and you had to
go throw this out. Now I'm back in the undecided pile. <g> 

  I saw a three-way debate between Harry Browne and two other 3rd
party candidates (neither Nader or Buchannan was there). It was fun.
Fun to hear politicians actually saying what they really think,
whether I agreed with them or not, rather than doing that semantically
null dance of words the two main guys do to avoid saying anything that
might upset anyone. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17669
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:51:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was  Al Gore and The Hanford Reach)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>The local news reported the cost of imprisoning him to age 80 as just under
>$800,000 vs. the cost of excuting him as well over $1 million plus appeals.
>This man may deserve to die, but do I have to pay for it with money that
>could educate my children?

  There's another value consideration--$200,000 worth of safety,
perhaps saving another life or two. Life without possibility of
release with no chance of a death sentence is a permit to kill
again--kill other prisoners, guards, other prison workers. There's
only one sure way to remove the ability for someone so inclined to do
more damage to others. Keeping someone permanently confined in such a
way as to prevent all contact with other humans is probably more cruel
than killing them. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17670
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:11:08 -0400
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bob Lawson wrote:
> I lack intelligence,
> compassion, and am at heart a cold-blooded killer. We (teenage males)
> all are, you know!  I know this beause the grown-ups told me so!

No, no, you obviously weren't paying full attention.

You're not a cold-blooded killer!  You're just misunderstood,
because of your deprived childhood.  You won't become a
killer unless you're exposed to the EVIL of GUNS.  Normally
you'll be a responisible, upstanding young man, but if
you're near any GUNS, including SO-CALLED "TOY" GUNS,
cap GUNS, air GUNS, etc., *THEN* their EVIL INFLUENCE will
turn you into a murdering rampager.

We must get rid of ALL the GUNS!  It's for the children,
you know.

Yeah, just think of all the 17-year-old inner-city
gang-members getting shot over drug-trade turf wars
we could have saved.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17671
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:57:38 -0400
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

>
>     OTOH, I love the way they dealt with the sudden appearance of the
> sister on Buffy. They let us have a few weeks thinking it was a
> typical add-in of a previously unseen sibling, then now they come up
> with a nice in-context explanation for it.
>
>
>

Yes, but you didn't really think she was Buffy's sister did you?  Even if
you missed all the discussion on the new character on the Buffy groups and
in TV Guide over the summer it was obvious that there was Something Wrong
from the first time we saw her. The only problem was trying to figure out
if she was good, evil or neutral and just how she got there in the first
place. That it was a soap style plot twist just wasn't on the cards IMO.

I'm really annoyed she's turned out the way she has though; she is so
irritating that I wanted to see her get squished <g>

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17672
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:01:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:39f78ac7.584317@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >Anyway, got the message below in my email inbox & thought it timely,
> >and possibly relevant to the discussion,
>
>   Dang it, JT. I had just about talked myself into voting for one of
> the two major party candidates (more specifically, voting _against_
> the more loathesome of the two by voting for the other) and you had to
> go throw this out. Now I'm back in the undecided pile. <g>
>
>   I saw a three-way debate between Harry Browne and two other 3rd
> party candidates (neither Nader or Buchannan was there). It was fun.
> Fun to hear politicians actually saying what they really think,
> whether I agreed with them or not, rather than doing that semantically
> null dance of words the two main guys do to avoid saying anything that
> might upset anyone.
>
>
> Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
>
>

You are lucky, here in Oklahoma the election commission would not allow
Nader on the ballot.  And the reform party candidate is Buchannan :(   And
nobody is coming to give speeches, it's like we don't exist to the
national party or media.   I have voted in every election since I turned
18 in 72 and will again but this election leaves me cold.

Dean
--
http://www.DeanWhite.net




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17673
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:56:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I have been reading this thread with great interest and little comment. I
think I am going to comment now. All the "1 Vote" comments aside, I believe
that I will "waste" my vote as a show of support for Harry Browne and the
Libertarian Party.

Here's why:

Of Bush and Gore, I would prefer another President Bush.

Virginia is expected to go solidly to Bush, so ("1 voters" notwithstanding)
my vote should not make a difference. I also do not believe there are enough
voters like me to affect the outcome in Virginia.

I believe in many of the principles of the Libertarian Party. I believe it
is a direction we should be moving, politically and governmentally. I may
have trouble with some implementations, but as I don't believe the
Libertarians will ever have the opportunity to fully implement their ideas,
I'm not worried.

I believe that a strong showing among the third, fourth and fifth parties
will send a message to the Demicans and Republocrats that they are not
effectively representing the people.

So why do I call it "wasting" my vote? I won't elect anyone. I won't help a
struggling third party secure crucial matching federal funds. (Which is a
crock anyone...but don't get me started.) I probably won't even help get the
Libertarians invited to the next debate table. So in many ways, you could
say it's a wasted vote.

I won't feel that way. For the first time in many years I'll be making a
vote that is not the lesser of the two evils, that is not voting for someone
because he's not the other guy. I'll be voting for something I believe in,
for a change.

This applies only to the Presidential race. On my Senate race I have only
two choices, so I will have to pick one of the two major party candidates.
And in my local House race, well Northern Virginia is one of the few areas
of the state that tends to go Democratic. I think I'll have to resort to
picking a candidate who has a chance to win, and throwing my vote behind
them. There is a Libertarian candidate in my district, I'll have to think
about it.

I don't speak out on politics much, I usually get in trouble when I do. Feel
free to comment.


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17674
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:07:37 GMT
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Yes, but you didn't really think she was Buffy's sister did you?  Even if
>you missed all the discussion on the new character on the Buffy groups and
>in TV Guide over the summer it was obvious that there was Something Wrong
>from the first time we saw her.

  <blush> Yes, I did. I haven't been watching the show that long--just
started this last year. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17675
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:57:15 -0400
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> >Yes, but you didn't really think she was Buffy's sister did you?  Even if
> >you missed all the discussion on the new character on the Buffy groups and
> >in TV Guide over the summer it was obvious that there was Something Wrong
> >from the first time we saw her.
>
>   <blush> Yes, I did. I haven't been watching the show that long--just
> started this last year.
>
>
>

OK, I'll let you off then :-) That makes a difference I guess....I've watched
it from the start and this is the fifth season so it was inconceivable to me
that she was real. Good twist but I suppose it means we're stuck with her for a
while longer now and she's so awful; tactless, hurtful, nosy...poor Buffy.

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17676
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:36:36 -0700
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The discussion seems to focus on National elections, but in the last 18
years several local elections in Eastern Washington came down to less than
10 votes.

I would have to search the Yakima Herald-Republic's back issues for the
state lesgislative race that was recounted three or five or more times.  I
think the final margin was 3, repeat 3!, votes.  They finally certified the
election sometime around Christmas.  (that would have been 1984 or 1986
15th<?> district)

Schools in Washington are supported by property tax levies.  In order for a
levy election to be valid 40% of the number of voters in the last General
election must vote in a levy election.  For a levy to pass, a super majority
of 60% yes votes must be cast.  The same rules apply school construction
bond issue elections.  School levy and bond elections, especially those held
after Presidential elections, often fail to validate by less than 20 votes.

I'm not totally sure of the mechanisms, but I know that invalidated levies
are often reworked and represented to the voters.  I do know of 2 valid
levies that failed by 1 vote.

Maybe your one vote doesn't count when comes to who sits in the Oval Office
or on Capitol Hill.  Maybe it doesn't help determine who moves into your
state's Governor's Mansion.  Maybe it doesn't even send "your ~guy~" to the
state Senate.    Maybe your one vote does mean that kids get new textbooks,
or a corrupt local official goes home, or a good person serves on the school
board, or a badly written ballot measure doesn't become law.  Maybe your one
vote "cancels" my one vote.  You voted.

--
`rita
Live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
Margaret Albrecht wrote in message <39f4a320.0@news.sff.net>...
I don't claim to have verified any of this information (except for the one
on Andrew Johnson -- that I remember from the history books).  A friend sent
it to me, and I thought it was particularly appropriate to forward to this
group.

The Year is:

1800  1 vote gives Thomas Jefferson the presidency over Aaron Burr
1839  1 vote wins the Massachusetts governorship for Marcus Morton
1868  1 vote saves Andrew Johnson's presidency
1941  1 vote strengthens selective service before World War II
1960  1 vote per precinct gives JFK the presidency
1993  1 vote by Al Gore approves the largest tax increase in history
2000  1 vote, your vote, can make the difference November 7th

In America, 1 VOTE DOES MATTER.  Be the ONE.





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17677
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:52:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:34:30 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:
>  Dang it, JT. I had just about talked myself into voting for one of
>the two major party candidates (more specifically, voting _against_
>the more loathesome of the two by voting for the other) and you had to
>go throw this out. Now I'm back in the undecided pile. <g> 
>
;)  Glad to be of service.  Actually, it _is_ nice to know that I'm
"making a difference" somewhere.  The people I discuss politics with
in the "here & now" are not really 'outside of the box' thinkers and
won't even _consider_ voting for the LP candidate, although one did
read _The Great Libertarian Offer_.

Apparently, George W. Gore are worried enough about vote totals that
they are reminding everyone of the necessity of going to the polls on
Election Day.  And the "Kennedy by 1 vote in every precinct" example
is being used.

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17678
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:09:01 -0500
Subject: Re: My Internet Weirdness Story
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Clay Steiner <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:39f662b8.0@news.sff.net...
> By way of introduction, I'm a semi-old-cobber here in the HF (found
> them 2/95).
Hi, Clay.

> The first time I strayed from this group, on the "old" Prodigy, I met
> my wife -- that particular wandering I consider to be well spent. <G>
Sounds like it.

> But to your thread, holy cats -- I _have_ to say three things:
>
> 1) _DAMN!_ That's more screwed-up than Bill Clinton's marriage.
LOL

> 2) Welcome home. (When this was said to me here after that first
> wander... well, it did my heart a helluva lot of good.)
Thank you.  It is nice to be here.

> 3) If ANYONE comes up to me wanting to discuss "Alias Smith & Jones",
> I will -- as a result of your post -- almost certainly have to grab my
> family and leave Denver, literally running for the hills.
I was wondering when I'd "meet" someone who was in Denver.  The one thing I
am very, very glad about are the Fruit Loops are a thousand miles away from
me.

Most of the nutcases work for Metropolitan State College.  There's one who
works for Community College Computer Services.  So you don't necessarily
have to run for the hills until after you ascertain where they work. :^)

Seriously, though, the funny is this.  PY, the woman who thinks she is the
fictional character Hannibal Heyes and the dead actor Pete Duel, works at
Metropolitan State College in the Department of Human Services.  This is a
department devoted to "helping people meet the challenges of living.''
Their course curriculum is founded on "knowledge from the social and
behavioral sciences with the art of compassion and understanding to assist
people in their lives....provides coursework in assessment, diagnosis,
prevention, and intervention of psychological and emotional difficulties."
Perhaps they should offer some of this assistance to their staff.  It's
ironic that this woman works daily with mental health professionals, none of
whom seem to have noticed she's crazy.

Here's an update on my internet weirdness story.  DH, the Sunday school
teacher from California, who flew out to Denver to have a sexual affair with
PY thinking PY was Hannibal Heyes / Pete Duel, after Heyes / Pete dumped DH,
began stalking the other actor in the show, Ben Murphy.  I wrote Ben Murphy
and warned him about DH.  He filed a complaint with the police about DH.
The police were at his house taking details of the complaint.  When they
walked out of his door, DH was right there.  Talk about timing!  The police
took DH in.  I gather the impression DH had been showing up at Ben Murphy's
house on a regular basis.

The story of what happened is so wild and amazing, I have to do something
with it.  Someone suggested I contact People magazine with it.  Somehow I
don't think People would take the story.  It does sound like something right
up the National Enquirer's alley.  The story's certainly bizarre enough.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17679
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:10:52 -0500
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Clay Steiner <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:39f67220.0@news.sff.net...
> Tonight's season premier of "Frasier" left me stone cold, and that's a
> sitcom I have downright /loved/. It was Miles' "overacting" at his
> "reception" that had me squirming

I missed it.  Reception?  Did Miles and Daphne get married?  Could someone
who watched it please fill me in on the high points?
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17680
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:14:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (was  Al Gore and The Hanford Reach)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:39f88d91.1298342@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>Keeping someone permanently confined in such a
> way as to prevent all contact with other humans is probably more cruel
> than killing them.
I never said I was a kind hearted soul.  This is what I prefer.  The subject
came up on another list Deb and I have in common.  I said on that list
besides the many issues I have with the way the death penalty is currently
administered, I have a fundamental problem with giving the government the
power to kill its own citizens.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17681
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:23:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dean White <WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:39f6d9a3.0@news.sff.net...
>I have voted in every election since I turned
> 18 in 72 and will again but this election leaves me cold.

I was watching a Northern Exposure about the election of mayor.  In it they
pointed out most of the people in the world still live under some form of
totalitarian regime.  I'm certainly glad I live in a democracy.  However, I
always look at the candidates and wonder... "Is *this* who it comes down to?
In this country of 250 million people, I can't believe *these* are our best
choices."  That's what leaves me cold.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17682
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:03:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

WJaKe--

     Congratulations on your note.  This is just about where I was a few
years ago.  If Indiana goes Democratic (rare) the vote in the electoral
college is not even close.

     It's too late to sway my vote in any case.  I expect to be
unavailable this election and have already voted absentee.  I did vote
against a congresscritter I particularly loathe and for a Republican I
admire greatly.

     I've never missed a national election since voting for Barry
Goldwater in 1964.  (Voting age was 21 then.)

     Bob-- there was a lot of controversy about lowering the voting age
to 18.  I honestly can't say as I have seen any difference.

    I personally feel the electoral college should be abolished, but
that is another discussion.
--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17683
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:17:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dean White wrote:
> You are lucky, here in Oklahoma the election commission would not allow
> Nader on the ballot.  And the reform party candidate is Buchannan :(   And
> nobody is coming to give speeches, it's like we don't exist to the
> national party or media.

Taken from the Oklahoma State Board of elections web site:
(http://www.oklaosf.state.ok.us/~elections/cfgen00.html)
There's also a complete list of Congressional candidates,
etc., there, too.

PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
   Democrat:  Al Gore and Joe Lieberman
 Republican:  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
Libertarian:  Harry Browne and Art Olivier
     Reform:  Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster

So, if you don't like Gore, Bush, or Buchanan, well,
Browne will be on the ballot in Oklahoma.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17684
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:34:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

With all this talk of elections, soon I'll get to
vote, too!  There's been an election called in Canada
for November 27th.  Any comments on that race?
Bets on any of the 5 major parties?  For those
not familiar with Canadian politics, those are:
	Progressive Conservative
	Liberal (current gov't)
	New Democratic
	Bloc Quebecois
	Canadian Alliance (formerly Reform)

The Canadian Libertarian Party, which is much smaller
than it's U.S. counterpart, didn't even run in the
last federal election.  If I don't have a minor party
candidate to my liking available, I'll probably settle
for either PC or Alliance.  (There's not much to choose
between the two, but either is slightly less bad,
IMNSHO, than the Liberals.)

I don't think anyone but the Liberals could actually
pull off a majority, but having nobody get a majority
would be okay by me.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17685
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:39:15 +0900
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charles Graft wrote:

>     I personally feel the electoral college should be abolished, but
> that is another discussion.

But now you've kicked it off!

Last night Dani and I were filling out our absentee ballots, and I gave her
my modest proposal for reforming the way electoral votes are done.  It may
not be original, but I came up with it on my own.  Basically, I would get
rid of the winner-take-all approach to each state.  Only the electoral votes
corresponding to the two Senators from each state would be determined by
voting in the whole state, while all those corresponding to the number of
Representatives would be determined on a district by district basis.

Upstate New Yorkers wouldn't feel like they were being swamped by their
fellow citizens from the big city, Indianapolis could send a democrat to the
Electoral College even while the rest of the state was sending Republicans,
etc.  I think it would also encourage candidates to spend more time
campaigning in small states, since those states actually have *more* EC
votes per capita than populous states.

I think this is a compromise that would satisfy those who want to keep the
EC, while still making its vote more closely mirror the popular outcome.

I've been reading talk about how Gore could realistically lose the popular
vote yet win the election, and if this happens, I'm pretty sure something
will change.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17686
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:40:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann wrote:
> Basically, I would get
> rid of the winner-take-all approach to each state.  Only the electoral votes
> corresponding to the two Senators from each state would be determined by
> voting in the whole state, while all those corresponding to the number of
> Representatives would be determined on a district by district basis.

Some states already do it that way.  As I understand it, how each
state decides to pick it's electors is up to it.  You'd need a
constitutional amendment to force every state give up that power
(and the states have to approve amendments, too).

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17687
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:58:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:39F79953.1810772E@whoi.edu...
> Charles Graft wrote:
>
> >     I personally feel the electoral college should be abolished, but
> > that is another discussion.
>
> But now you've kicked it off!
>
> Last night Dani and I were filling out our absentee ballots, and I gave
her
> my modest proposal for reforming the way electoral votes are done.  It may
> not be original, but I came up with it on my own.

This is a pet peeve of mine.  Why, in this day and age, do we have an
electoral college system?  Way back when when I was in school the teachers
explained the reason we had one when the country was founded was because of
transportation and communication difficulties.  That reason definitely
doesn't apply.  Why can't we go with a straight popular vote?  You know, I
almost hope someone who wins the popular election loses the electoral
college vote.  I think that's what it's going to take to abolish the system.

I am not familiar with other countries' election processes.  In other
countries where the President is elected by the people rather than a system
where the majority party chooses the head of the country, do they have
something like the electoral college system or is it a straight popular
vote?

If there's anyone out there in favor of retaining the electoral college
system in any form rather than a direct popular vote, I'd be very curious to
hear your reasons why.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17688
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:11:50 +0900
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

John Paul Vrolyk wrote:

> Eli Hestermann wrote:
> > Basically, I would get
> > rid of the winner-take-all approach to each state.  Only the electoral votes
> > corresponding to the two Senators from each state would be determined by
> > voting in the whole state, while all those corresponding to the number of
> > Representatives would be determined on a district by district basis.
>
> Some states already do it that way.  As I understand it, how each
> state decides to pick it's electors is up to it.  You'd need a
> constitutional amendment to force every state give up that power
> (and the states have to approve amendments, too).

I think some states do it that way for delegates from primaries, but I'm pretty
sure the Electoral College is a constitutionally mandated winner-take-all
situation in every case.

Here's a balanced and relevant web site:
http://www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc770.asp

It does present a reform idea substantially identical to mine upthread, as well as
several opinions for and against the EC (those are linked at the bottom).

One note from that article:

"In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by several
percentage points but still won the Electoral College vote over Samuel Tilden of
New York."

Based on this, I would expect JT to be one of the biggest proponents of reform.
<G>

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17689
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:16:52 +0900
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> This is a pet peeve of mine.  Why, in this day and age, do we have an
> electoral college system?  Way back when when I was in school the teachers
> explained the reason we had one when the country was founded was because of
> transportation and communication difficulties.  That reason definitely
> doesn't apply.  Why can't we go with a straight popular vote?  You know, I
> almost hope someone who wins the popular election loses the electoral
> college vote.  I think that's what it's going to take to abolish the system.

The best argument I saw in favor of retaining the EC is that it forces the
candidates to address issues of regional interest, and state how their policies
would affect people in those regions, rather than just broadcasting them to the
nation as a whole.

It also helps perpetuate the idea of Federalism (i.e. several states united,
rather than a single United States).  That may or may not be a benefit, based on
your thoughts.  It does, however somewhat address your next question, by
pointing out the historical basis in the US for voting state by state rather
than as a whole.

> I am not familiar with other countries' election processes.  In other
> countries where the President is elected by the people rather than a system
> where the majority party chooses the head of the country, do they have
> something like the electoral college system or is it a straight popular
> vote?

>
> If there's anyone out there in favor of retaining the electoral college
> system in any form rather than a direct popular vote, I'd be very curious to
> hear your reasons why.
>
> Margaret

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17690
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 03:36:20 -0700
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39f4a320.0@news.sff.net...
> I don't claim to have verified any of this information (except for
the one
> on Andrew Johnson -- that I remember from the history books).  A
friend sent
> it to me, and I thought it was particularly appropriate to forward
to this
> group.

This list is about 5 times as accurate as most such I have seen. A few
comments below.

> The Year is:
>
> 1800  1 vote gives Thomas Jefferson the presidency over Aaron Burr

Partly true. This was one vote in the Electoral College, rather than
the general vote. Of course, there are few people who would argue that
every vote in the Electoral College does not count.

> 1839  1 vote wins the Massachusetts governorship for Marcus Morton
> 1868  1 vote saves Andrew Johnson's presidency
> 1941  1 vote strengthens selective service before World War II
> 1960  1 vote per precinct gives JFK the presidency

This one is both unclear and unprovable. First of all, it isn't one
vote per precint throughout the US. It is one vote per precinct in
Illinois. Secondly, it is widely agreed that both sides in Illinois
cheated outrageously.

> 1993  1 vote by Al Gore approves the largest tax increase in history
> 2000  1 vote, your vote, can make the difference November 7th
>
> In America, 1 VOTE DOES MATTER.  Be the ONE.

All in all, a pretty good list, as such things go.

Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17691
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 03:59:54 -0700
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:39f689d9.346143@NEWS.SFF.NET...
<snip>
>
>   OTOH, I love the way they dealt with the sudden appearance of the
> sister on Buffy. They let us have a few weeks thinking it was a
> typical add-in of a previously unseen sibling, then now they come up
> with a nice in-context explanation for it.

Well, I missed roughly half of all Buffy shows to date, due to
scheduling conflicts. This doesn't imply lack of interest, BTW. This
is actually a high compliment from me, that I actually saw as many as
I did.

My view of the add-on was distorted by my children's insistence that
they had seen her before. I doubted it, but I wasn't certain, so I
couldn't be sure the character was completely unexpected.

Regardless, I did pretty much expect that she was either a fraud or
that Buffy would come to believe she was a fraud. When the commercials
started saying that Buffy was beginning to doubt that her sister was
really her sister, my first theory was, "Nah, its too early in the
season. She must really be her sister, or they would have given us
more time to get used to her and be lulled into a sense of
complacency." However, the first five minutes of the show pretty much
gave it away for me.

However, it did give me an interesting idea. You show a character a
few times early in a series; some relative, like a sister. Then, the
character vanishes for a while. Then they come back, with a reasonable
explanation.

Then, you reveal they never really existed, and the character's entire
past was faked by magic. And why do you remember seeing the character
before? Because you've been caught in the spell, too.

I'll bet _everyone_ would fall for _that_.:)

Filksinger





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17692
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 04:51:36 -0700
Subject: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I have finally found, after having lost it about 2 years ago, a link
to a very unusual and often disturbing psychological test. Here's how
it works.

Basically, the researchers discovered that, if you had two things, one
you liked and one you didn't, that you could mix up these things with
words that were positive or negative, and use this as a test to
determine which things people liked more. For instance, they would
take a person who hated pollution but liked mountains. They would
first have the subject sort through pictures, deciding if they went
under the category pollution or the category mountain. Then, they
would give words like agony, torture, war, joy, love, and happy, and
have you sort them according to good/bad.

Next, they would mix and match. They would create categories like
Good/Pollution vs. Bad/Mountain, and Bad/Pollution vs. Good/Mountain.
People would be given the word "Happy", for example, and try to decide
if it went in the column Good/Pollution or Bad/Mountain.

What they discovered was that, if the categories matched, then you
were faster at making decisions. For example, assuming you like
Mountains and hate Pollution, then you could choose what words went in
the columns Good/Mountains vs. Bad/Pollution faster than what words
went in the columns Bad/Mountains vs. Good/Pollution. If you chose
quickly, you would take a fraction of a second longer to correctly
sort words and pictures if the "good" words and "bad" pictures went
together than if the "good" words and the "good" pictures went
together.

This was demonstrated as being consistent, no matter what the liked or
disliked things were, and remained consistent with multiple passes at
the same test. It was possible for you to take something you like and
something you don't like, put them into the test labeled as "type a"
and "type b", and someone looking at the results could tell whether
you liked type a or type b better, reliably. If you repeated the test
several times, your results tended to continue to be very similar.

Then comes the disturbing part. They applied it to race, age, and
gender. They would then, for example, show you pictures of people and
ask if they were African/American or European/American. Then they
would ask you to choose whether or not words were good or bad. Then,
they start to mix and match, and you have to decide if what you see on
the screen is European-American/Good or African-American/Bad. After
mixing and matching, they would then tell you if you had an automatic
bias for African-Americans or European-Americans. Alternately, they
would give you words related to liberal arts and sciences, and
determine if you thought men and science went together better than
women and science.

The reason this is disturbing is that it very often gives you results
you would not have expected, sometimes results that seriously
contradict what you believed about yourself.

If anyone is interested, the URL is
http://buster.cs.yale.edu/implicit/.

Filksinger

"Every man has reminiscences which he would not tell to everyone but
only his friends. He has other matters in his mind which he would not
reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret.
But there are other things which a man is afraid to tell even to
himself, and every decent man has a number of such things stored away
in his mind."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17693
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:34:31 -0400
Subject: TV talk was Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht wrote:

>
>
> I missed it.  Reception?  Did Miles and Daphne get married?  Could someone
> who watched it please fill me in on the high points?
> Margaret

Niles and Daphne drive off, realize they can't just do that and go back to the
wedding to break the news to their former partners.
Next day or two we discover that Donny is suing both Daphne and, after he
confesses his part in the debacle, Frasier. Niles's wife of a day.....forget
her name, takes it calmly ( sort of) but says Niles has to stick by her for a
few weeks to save her face. She will then give him a quick divorce. I can't
see why a few weeks is better than 3 days but there you go. One of her
conditions is that he shows up at a reception her friends are holding for the
new couple.

Daphne gets very worked up because Niles has promised to take her out on their
first date and she learns that he is forbidden to be seen with her in public
until it's all sorted out. Much slamming around, tears, etc but all is
resolved when Frasier creates a romantic bower on the top of the building
where N and D can dine and dance in private.

I think I heard D was pregnant in rl....seemed to be a lot of tummy
camouflaging going on......

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17694
From: John Paul Vrolyk <jp@vrolyk.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:17:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann wrote:
>  I'm pretty
> sure the Electoral College is a constitutionally mandated winner-take-all
> situation in every case.

Sorry Eli, but you're mistaken.  It's decided by each state.

From the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature 
thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of 
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the 
Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office 
of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an 
Elector."

I can't track down my source for there being a state or two
that currently uses the district system, though.  Certainly
it's not in widespread use, though it was at one time.

I've heard it explained that the general-ticket ("winner-take-all")
method was adopted as a means to discourage third parties.

-- 
John Paul Vrolyk
jp@vrolyk.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17695
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:42:02 -0400
Subject: Re: My Internet Weirdness Story
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39f78288.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
> Perhaps they should offer some of this assistance to their staff.  It's
> ironic that this woman works daily with mental health professionals, none of
> whom seem to have noticed she's crazy.

Well, perhaps they have noticed, although crazy is just a state of mind, 
after all.  ;-)

If you tie your shoes, present a relatively clean appearance, and don't 
have any relatives who want you committed, you can pretty much avoid 
professional contact with mental health workers.
 
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17696
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:42:03 +0900
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

John Paul Vrolyk wrote:

> Sorry Eli, but you're mistaken.  It's decided by each state.

My apologies for arguing from a lack of knowledge.  You are correct.

> From the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:
>
> "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature
> thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
> Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
> Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office
> of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an
> Elector."

This was apparently inserted as a compromise as to whether the Electors were
selected by direct vote or by the State legislature.  IIRC, the same compromise
exists for the election of Senators (i.e. several states used to select them by
a vote of the state legislature, rather than by direct election).

> I can't track down my source for there being a state or two
> that currently uses the district system, though.  Certainly
> it's not in widespread use, though it was at one time.
>

Here's a quote from the National Archives:
"There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral
College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote,
or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any
other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.

"Only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule.
In those States, there could be a split of electoral votes among candidates
through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. For example,
Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one
electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large"
vote."

> I've heard it explained that the general-ticket ("winner-take-all")
> method was adopted as a means to discourage third parties.

Another interesting case this search turned up was John Quincy Adams vs. Andrew
Jackson in 1824.  Jackson won more popular and Electoral votes than Adams, but
failed to acheive a majority in the EC (two other candidates also received EC
votes).  The House of Representatives decided in favor of Adams.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17697
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:00:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:11:50 +0900, Eli Hestermann
<ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:

>One note from that article:
>
>"In 1876, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by several
>percentage points but still won the Electoral College vote over Samuel Tilden of
>New York."
>
>Based on this, I would expect JT to be one of the biggest proponents of reform.
><G>
>
Yeah, but he was a Democrat. ;)  Of course, Democrats were a different
breed then.

I don't see any reason why we just shouldn't abolish the d@mn EC.
It'd make me feel a lot better about the "every vote counts" hoohah.  

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17698
From: D.S.Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:36:34 -0500
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Filksinger:

    I went to the site and tried the science/gender and race preference
versions.  The results leave me highly doubtful about the validity.

    First I tried the science/gender version.  I considered myself
moderately biased along traditional lines  (male/science, female/liberal
arts.)   When I took the test, it came out a strong bias.  As a female in am
"non-traditional" profession, I was a little surprised, but okay.  Then I
took it again in "inverse order."  Although the test is supposed to be
consistent, and is supposed to be adjusted for the order in which  it is
presented, the second go-round matched my self-description of moderately
biased along traditional lines.  Okay, again.  Maybe the difference between
"moderate" an d "strong" is not statistically significant.

    Now here's the real kicker:  I took the race bias version.  I am a 46
year old white female who has spent my entire life in the deep South.
Intellectually, I don't give a damn whether you are black, white, pink, or
purple (to use my mother's expression.)  People is people.  However, I
figure that on a deeper level, it is hard to shake the last vestiges of
one's upbringing, and that I am also likely to have an emotional bias for
people I identify with, including people who look like me.  So I
self-described as moderately biased pro-white.  The test came back
moderately biased pro-black, and that does not appear to make any sense at
all.

    We all have biases, and places where our emotional reactions come in
conflict with our intellectual ones.  When I am striking a jury, I like  to
find people who can recognize that dichotomy--I believe that if people who
will take their prejudices out and look at them are better at setting those
same prejudices aside to look at the evidence.  I  agree that it is hard to
recognize our own biases.  But I have my doubts about the reliability of
these tests, and I would like to find out more about the basis for the
claims.  If they are not matching self-description, then what?  What is the
"real" attitude that they cross-check against.?

    Thanks for the reference.  It was very interesting, and I will probably
check it out further.

--Dee2



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17699
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 04:46:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

:
>"There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral
>College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the vote,
>or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any
>other candidate) takes all of the State's electoral votes.

  I thought that the electorates (if that's what the guys are called
who actually cast the electoral votes for the given state) were not
actually obliged to cast their votes for the winner of the state's
popular vote. Each electorate can cast  his vote for whoever he
pleases. Is this not right?


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17700
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 15:46:59 +0900
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

>   I thought that the electorates (if that's what the guys are called
> who actually cast the electoral votes for the given state) were not
> actually obliged to cast their votes for the winner of the state's
> popular vote. Each electorate can cast  his vote for whoever he
> pleases. Is this not right?

It's sort of right.  The electors can vote for whomever they choose, and (IIRC from
that same source) the Supreme Court has ruled that those votes cannot be changed.
However the SC has also ruled that Electors can be forced to sign a document
swearing to vote for whomever they're told to, and several states have such systems
in place, with fines and/or imprisonment stipulated for those who break the
agreement.  No one has ever been tried under those laws, so their consitutionality
has not been upheld or refuted by a court.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17701
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:06:02 -0400
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

....
> However, I
> figure that on a deeper level, it is hard to shake the last vestiges of
> one's upbringing, and that I am also likely to have an emotional bias for
> people I identify with, including people who look like me.  So I
> self-described as moderately biased pro-white.  The test came back
> moderately biased pro-black, and that does not appear to make any sense at
> all.

Maybe the test detected your liberal guilt bias.  ;-)

Me, I'm afraid to take the damn thing!

--
Gordon G. Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17702
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:12:03 GMT
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Maybe the test detected your liberal guilt bias.  ;-)
>
>Me, I'm afraid to take the damn thing!

  I tried it. I don't think it's really judging internal opinions or
bias, but how good one is at test-taking and quickly thinking to
readjust test parameters. In the first two I did one came out as I
might have expected, the next not at all close to my real opinions but
I knew I was hitting the test answers perfectly--was in sync with the
game, but the next two I flubbed up entirely, a tv show came on that I
was trying to watch, and got wildly absurd results (politically
neutral between Gore and Cheney? Ha!). It reminded me of the
description of some of the testing in "Space Cadet"--if the left gate
is open and the green light is on... etc. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17703
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:15:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:39F924E3.CA08BE03@whoi.edu...
> Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
>
> >   I thought that the electorates (if that's what the guys are called
> > who actually cast the electoral votes for the given state) were not
> > actually obliged to cast their votes for the winner of the state's
> > popular vote. Each electorate can cast  his vote for whoever he
> > pleases. Is this not right?
>
> It's sort of right.  The electors can vote for whomever they choose, and
(IIRC from
> that same source) the Supreme Court has ruled that those votes cannot be
changed.

A "famous" case was Roger McBride, an Electoral College delegate from
Virginia, who voted for the Libertarian Party candidates John Hospers and
Toni Nathan, rather than Nixon/Agnew, as Virginia delegates were "committed"
to vote by the outcome of the general election in Virginia.  This made Toni
Nathan the first woman to get an electoral vote, and, after Geraldine
Ferarro's well-know VP bid, made it possible to win lots of beer bets.  ;-)

However, I thought that many states (and perhaps even Virginia following
their "embarrassment") have rules that bind the delegates to vote as they
"should".  This is not much of a problem, however, as you usually only get
to be a delegate by being a committed member of one of the two major
parties.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17704
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:40:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

All--
    Since I started it----

     Using any system other than a direct popular vote, you will
eventually have a candidate who wins the electoral college without
winning the popular vote.  Our situation being what it is today, I don't
think that will sit well with the public.  I don't think that is what
they want.

     Many countries use a "runoff" system in which if a candidate fails
to get a majority of the votes cast, an additional election is run
between the two top vote getters.  This would have made this last couple
of elections much more interesting.

     On the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon election -- the joke at the time was that
Joe Kennedy called John after the vote was in and said "I said I'd buy
you an election, not a landslide".  After the preliminary count showed
Nixon winning Illinois (and therefore the election) enough "last minute"
votes came from Chicago to tip the election the other way.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17705
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:19:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39FA3C8A.F6CFB6F7@aol.com>, Charles Graft writes...
....
>      On the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon election -- the joke at the time was that
> Joe Kennedy called John after the vote was in and said "I said I'd buy
> you an election, not a landslide".  After the preliminary count showed
> Nixon winning Illinois (and therefore the election) enough "last minute"
> votes came from Chicago to tip the election the other way.

I have heard it claimed that Nixon refused to demand a serious 
investigation and recount, out of concern for the disruption and damage 
this would cause to the country.  Considering what we were later to learn 
about Nixon, I conjecture that he became very bitter during the '60s that 
he had not contested it.  If Nixon was going to be elected President 
anyway, it would have been /much/ better for all of us for it to have 
been in '60 rather than in '68.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17706
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:23:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39f8c3e7.259662665@news.sff.net>, JT writes...
....
> I don't see any reason why we just shouldn't abolish the d@mn EC.
> It'd make me feel a lot better about the "every vote counts" hoohah.  

What?!?  Do you hold the view that every Good Thing is logically 
defensible? 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17707
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:34:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39f7aa2f.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
> This is a pet peeve of mine.  Why, in this day and age, do we have an
> electoral college system?  Way back when when I was in school the teachers
> explained the reason we had one when the country was founded was because of
> transportation and communication difficulties.  That reason definitely
> doesn't apply.  Why can't we go with a straight popular vote?

Because it would be far too wrenching to try to change it.  Save your 
powder for the big stuff.  Further, doing away with the EC would only 
strengthen the argument that no one's vote "counts".  With the EC, it is 
at least possible that a small state's electoral votes could make the 
difference, and the odds of a very close outcome are greater in a smaller 
state.

Most importantly, the EC helps preserve some power to the Several States.  
The only thing worse than 50 democracies that add up to 270M people is 
one democracy that does so.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17708
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:40:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39F79953.1810772E@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
....
> I've been reading talk about how Gore could realistically lose the popular
> vote yet win the election, and if this happens, I'm pretty sure something
> will change.

Winners rarely change what put them in office.  Or are you assuming a 
veto-proof Republican majority in Congress?

My biggest fear is that Gore will win /and/ Congress go Democratic.  Bush 
with a Republican Congress is my second biggest fear, but I don't think 
it very likely.   

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17709
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:49:19 -0500
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:39f9c236.238780@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>   I tried it. I don't think it's really judging internal opinions or
> bias, but how good one is at test-taking and quickly thinking to
> readjust test parameters.

I agree.  I've taken one so far.  No discernable preference between Gore and
Bush?  Not *this* woman.  After I snipe an auction, I'll take the others.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17710
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:07:46 +0900
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <39F79953.1810772E@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> ...
> > I've been reading talk about how Gore could realistically lose the popular
> > vote yet win the election, and if this happens, I'm pretty sure something
> > will change.
>
> Winners rarely change what put them in office.  Or are you assuming a
> veto-proof Republican majority in Congress?

The change would require a Constitutional Amendment, so 2/3 majorities would
already be necessary.

> My biggest fear is that Gore will win /and/ Congress go Democratic.  Bush
> with a Republican Congress is my second biggest fear, but I don't think
> it very likely.

I agree.  My hope is for gridlock allowing the debt to paid down instead of new
spending or tax cuts.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17711
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:18:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:39f9c6cd.0@news.sff.net...
>>> Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
>>>Each electorate can cast  his vote for whoever he pleases. Is this not
right?

> > It's sort of right.  The electors can vote for whomever they choose, and
> (IIRC from
> > that same source) the Supreme Court has ruled that those votes cannot be
> changed.
> However, I thought that many states (and perhaps even Virginia following
> their "embarrassment") have rules that bind the delegates to vote as they
> "should".
I was watching the election coverage the other night, don't hold me to the
exact number, but the news was saying a certain percentage of the states (I
think 50%) have laws requiring the electoral college members to vote for
whomever was chosen by the voters.

>This is not much of a problem, however, as you usually only get
> to be a delegate by being a committed member of one of the two major
> parties.
This also irritates the dickens out of me.  Talk about wasting tax dollars!
If we have to have the *^$&# electoral college system, we certainly ought to
go eliminate the useless rigmarole of actually sending people to vote in it.
We know come election night who took the electoral college.  I know it's not
that much money, but since I can't abide the system anyway it's like rubbing
salt in a wound that money actually goes to send people to do the voting.
What?  If we have to have them vote, they can't mail in their ballots?

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17712
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 02:53:03 -0600
Subject: Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote:


> Clay Steiner <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:39f67220.0@news.sff.net...
>> Tonight's season premier of "Frasier" left me stone cold, and that's a
>> sitcom I have downright /loved/. It was Miles' "overacting" at his
>> "reception" that had me squirming
>
> I missed it.  Reception?  Did Miles and Daphne get married?  Could someone
> who watched it please fill me in on the high points?
> Margaret

Uh, what Jane says, down in her new thread on this entitled "TV talk".
She said it better than I did in the reply I wrote to you and just now
trashed. <G>

Clay

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17713
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 06:51:03 -0500
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon--

    That's me alright.  Ms. Liberal.  ;-)

--Dee2

> Maybe the test detected your liberal guilt bias.  ;-)






------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17714
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 06:53:44 -0500
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Deb--

    That is what I thought, too.  I wonder whether people who played a lot
of the old, keyboard based computer games are better at getting absolutely
neutral results?
    I am still wondering, what is the basis for their claim of accuracy?

--Dee2

>I don't think it's really judging internal opinions or
> bias, but how good one is at test-taking and quickly thinking to
> readjust test parameters.
> Deb  (D.A. Houdek)




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17715
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 08:45:51 -0400
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Deanna S. Higginbotham" wrote:

> Deb--
>
>     That is what I thought, too.  I wonder whether people who played a lot
> of the old, keyboard based computer games are better at getting absolutely
> neutral results?
>     I am still wondering, what is the basis for their claim of accuracy?
>
> --Dee2
>
> >I don't think it's really judging internal opinions or
> > bias, but how good one is at test-taking and quickly thinking to
> > readjust test parameters.
> > Deb  (D.A. Houdek)

Me too....I jumped right in and took the race test. I flubbed a few the first
time round ( I find my reaction speed is way down at the moment with the
pregnancy) and was told that I had a strong pro white tendency which rocked me
a bit. I took the test in reverse and had a mild pro white tendency.....

Now, reversing the test as a check is all well and good but when you do it the
second time you know what to expect. I think this made a big difference. The
order in which the first test was done lulled my fingers into a rhythm that I
found hard to dismiss, leading to that first rather surprising result..

 I could just be fooling myself but I've never considered myself to be
racially biased; probably because it's not such an issue in the UK (not where
I lived anyway) and I just wasn't brought up that way. I would have said I was
neutral if anything. I could try one of the other tests but some of them, like
the Presidential one would be meaningless. I'm not too impressed by it; I
think it's based on a trick rather than a valid testing method.

I also wonder just how slow you can go and still provide meaningful data. I
made an honest attempt to go as fast as possible and as I'm not that good at
video games and such I think this translated into a lot of my errors and
hesitations.

It _is_ quite a disturbing test...but I think  that's not because of what it
reveals about you but because someone up the line might use the results to
prove something or other.

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17716
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:05:17 -0400
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39F6BFCC.2E15EC81@vrolyk.org>, John Paul Vrolyk writes...
....
> We must get rid of ALL the GUNS!  It's for the children,
> you know.

Not hardly enough, John.  How can you leave untouched all the evil 
websites?  Why, there are even websites with pictures of GUNS on them!!

This unprecedented capability to communicate is a power so great that it 
can only be used for good or evil.  And you know that that means.
  
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17717
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 13:54:51 -0500
Subject: Re: TV talk was Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:39F824D6.7B0E25F3@netcom.ca...
> Niles and Daphne drive off, realize they can't just do that and go back to
the
> wedding to break the news to their former partners.

Jane,
Thanks for the update.  You know, I get the feeling Frasier has jumped the
shark.  Miles' marriage and now all of this is so contrived as to be
ridiculous.  I'd say Frasier's had its run.  Maybe it's time it bowed out
gracefully.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17718
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:33:06 GMT
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>    That is what I thought, too.  I wonder whether people who played a lot
>of the old, keyboard based computer games are better at getting absolutely
>neutral results?
>    I am still wondering, what is the basis for their claim of accuracy?

  I found the ones that were a combination of pictures and words
easier to get "right" too. The pictures were pure symbols that I could
smack to one side or the other without verbalizing, where the words
took some interpretative thought. It also made two distinctively
separate catagories to sort rather than all the items being words. 

  On the 'maybe they do have a point' side of the argument, I kept
stumbling over "war/evil". War may be evil in the present tense but as
one doing historical research, war in the distant past tense is
wonderful thing <g>

   Because I type in Dvorak, the i and e on my keyboard are close
together on the left side of the keyboard. I wonder if more separation
of the keys would have mattered? Having the keys more definitely lined
up with the positions of the catagories on the screen?


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17719
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:33:06 GMT
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>It _is_ quite a disturbing test...but I think  that's not because of what it
>reveals about you but because someone up the line might use the results to
>prove something or other.

  A definite point. They are gathering demographic info as they go. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17720
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 16:14:36 -0400
Subject: Re: TV talk was Re: "Hey, We're Walkin'!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht wrote:

>
> Jane,
> Thanks for the update.  You know, I get the feeling Frasier has jumped the
> shark.  Miles' marriage and now all of this is so contrived as to be
> ridiculous.  I'd say Frasier's had its run.  Maybe it's time it bowed out
> gracefully.
> Margaret

It's Niles btw not Miles :-) Not a nitpick; Niles seems so much more of a
suitable name for him somehow....no offence to people called Niles either!
I agree that it's gone silly; at the end of the last series when, after 6 years
of missed opportunities Niles gets married JUST as Daphne realizes she loves
him, I was howling in outrage and hurling cushions around the room <g>

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17721
From: D.S.Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:16:34 -0500
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb--

    That reminds me a little bit of what Richard Feynman wrote* about
counting secondsin his head while he did other things.  He found that he
could keep counting accurately while he did almost anything _except_ talk.
Told a colleague about his conclusion that it was impossible to do both at
the same time.  The colleague had no problem at all talking and keeping up
the count.  After further experimentation, the colleague found that he could
not read and count at the same time.  Anyway, they finally decided that
Feynman "heard" the words in his head, and the other scientist "saw" them.
Only a similar activity interfered.

    So apparently you can process picture/word better than word/word.  Do
you "hear" the words or "see" them?
>
>  I found the ones that were a combination of pictures and words
>easier to get "right" too. The pictures were pure symbols that I could
>smack to one side or the other without verbalizing, where the words
>took some interpretative thought. It also made two distinctively
>separate catagories to sort rather than all the items being words.
>   Because I type in Dvorak, the i and e on my keyboard are close
>together on the left side of the keyboard. I wonder if more separation
>of the keys would have mattered? Having the keys more definitely lined
>up with the positions of the catagories on the screen?


*  I don't remember whether the story is in _Surely You're Joking, Mr.
Feynman_ or in _What Do You Care What Other People Think?_



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17722
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 22:54:11 -0400
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39fb7ae3.0@news.sff.net>, D.S.Higginbotham writes...
....
> *  I don't remember whether the story is in _Surely You're Joking, Mr.
> Feynman_ or in _What Do You Care What Other People Think?_

/Surely You're Joking.../, and the other person was the mathematician and 
statistician John Tukey.

The story is told that many years ago before computers, Princeton had the 
following system for determining course schedules.  Tukey would lay down 
on a couch while others read to him the requirements students with 
different majors had for various courses.  After while, Tukey would 
dictate a schedule with the least number of schedule conflicts.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17723
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 01:19:59 -0600
Subject: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I was checking the news, when I came across a site about vote swapping.
This is a new concept to me.  It's where someone in a swing state agrees to
trade votes with someone who lives in a "locked up" state where their vote
would be in the minority.  The idea behind it is to get a third party
candidate enough votes to hit the 5% number while ensuring that votes in a
swing state don't end up having an unintended consequence on the outcome of
the election.  The site matches up people willing to trade votes.  Of
course, being the internet there's nothing enforceable.  It's strictly the
honor system.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17724
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:26:09 GMT
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>    So apparently you can process picture/word better than word/word.  Do
>you "hear" the words or "see" them?

  Yes. I 'see' words. Rarely add a sound to them when I read. If fact
if a character has an odd name (as science fiction characters often
do) I don't pronounce it at all--just read it as a symbol/glyph with
no sound attached. Later, if I try to discuss the story, though, I
stumble over not being able to say the character's name. 

  I do the time-count thing without thinking about it. It's not a
natural skill--came from years of doing television master control,
which is extremely time-obsessive. I can set the microwave oven for
any duration, walk away from it, not think about it (talk, watch tv,
whatever) and will walk back to the microwave as it's counting 10 to
zero. I'm more than 90% accurate. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17725
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:31:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:23:43 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>In article <39f8c3e7.259662665@news.sff.net>, JT writes...
>...
>> I don't see any reason why we just shouldn't abolish the d@mn EC.
>> It'd make me feel a lot better about the "every vote counts" hoohah.  
>
>What?!?  Do you hold the view that every Good Thing is logically 
>defensible? 
>
No, but this way my vote really *doesn't* count.  Since my candidate
will not get a single electoral vote or fraction thereof  even though
he will be voted for, the system doesn't really represent *me* now,
does it?  

JT



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17726
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:31:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:40:10 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:


>     Using any system other than a direct popular vote, you will
>eventually have a candidate who wins the electoral college without
>winning the popular vote.  Our situation being what it is today, I don't
>think that will sit well with the public.  I don't think that is what
>they want.
>
It happened in 1876.  Tilden won the popular vote but lost in the EC
to Hayes.  There was back-room dealmaking that took months to resolve,
as the EC voting was called into question.

There's actually a play someone wrote about the whole incident
floating about on the Internet; I. of course, have lost the URL.

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17727
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:51:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39fbcdf4.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
> I was checking the news, when I came across a site about vote swapping.
> This is a new concept to me.  It's where someone in a swing state agrees to
> trade votes with someone who lives in a "locked up" state where their vote
> would be in the minority.  The idea behind it is to get a third party
> candidate enough votes to hit the 5% number while ensuring that votes in a
> swing state don't end up having an unintended consequence on the outcome of
> the election.  The site matches up people willing to trade votes.  Of
> course, being the internet there's nothing enforceable.  It's strictly the
> honor system.

Classic Prisoner's Dilemma!  Of course I /say/ I'll swap my vote with 
you, but then I defect in the privacy of the voting booth!  Ha! Ha!

I was about to add that, since voting is largely symbolic behavior 
anyway, people would be less likely to treat the situation as a PD.  But 
perhaps it makes it even more likely!   

-- 
Gordon "What, me cynical?" Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17728
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:01:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39fbcdf4.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
> I was checking the news, when I came across a site about vote swapping.
> This is a new concept to me.  It's where someone in a swing state agrees to
> trade votes with someone who lives in a "locked up" state where their vote
> would be in the minority.  The idea behind it is to get a third party
> candidate enough votes to hit the 5% number while ensuring that votes in a
> swing state don't end up having an unintended consequence on the outcome of
> the election.  The site matches up people willing to trade votes.  Of
> course, being the internet there's nothing enforceable.  It's strictly the
> honor system.

Now there's an amendment worth fighting for!  Wire up voting booths (are 
you listening Big Charlie?) so that a voting "transaction" can be the 
swapped votes of two voters.  This could be done by requiring the two 
swappers to authenticate themselves to each other, but that would be 
awkward in real time.  So we could have a trusted server that would hold 
the vote of the first swapper to vote, and compare it with the vote of 
the second.  If both voted as promised, their votes would be released for 
counting.

Better would be a swapper's pool, and at the close of balloting the 
trusted server would just go through and pair off as many "requests to 
swap" as it could find.  Then one voter doesn't actually have to find 
another.

Gosh, get enough technology involved and I could get excited about 
voting!!   

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17729
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 19:31:52 -0600
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1466900184ff48dc9896f4@news.sff.net...
> Classic Prisoner's Dilemma!  Of course I /say/ I'll swap my vote with
> you, but then I defect in the privacy of the voting booth!  Ha! Ha!

I know.  Talk about the Honor System.  However, I just received an e-mail
from my "trading partner."  He's decided not to participate.  He didn't have
to let me know.  He did.

This goes back to a fundamental question.  How honest are most people?  How
far can most people be trusted?  Call me an optimist, but I think most
people can be trusted.  Of course, it's that kind of thinking which led to
"My Internet Weirdness Experience."

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17730
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:08:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:39fccde5.0@news.sff.net...
> I know.  Talk about the Honor System.  However, I just received an e-mail
> from my "trading partner."  He's decided not to participate.  He didn't
have
> to let me know.  He did.

So far I'm impressed with the system I found.  I wrote and received a web
address to make a change.  Clicked on it and got a new "trading partner."

The address is:
http://www.voteswap2000.com/default.asp

You can trade with a Republican, a Democrat or a Green party.  Nothing there
for the Libertarians.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17731
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:13:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Thinking out loud -- feel free to attack
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:39fcba59.124265394@news.sff.net...
> No, but this way my vote really *doesn't* count.  Since my candidate
> will not get a single electoral vote or fraction thereof  even though
> he will be voted for, the system doesn't really represent *me* now,
> does it?

My sympathies.  Been there.  Done that.

If the winner of the popular vote doesn't win the electoral college system
there will be some changes this time around unlike 100 years ago.  Even if
the electoral college is retained I'd expect it will go away from the
"winner take all" and to a proportional based system.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17732
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:39:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39fcd68a.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
> So far I'm impressed with the system I found.  I wrote and received a web
> address to make a change.  Clicked on it and got a new "trading partner."
> 
> The address is:
> http://www.voteswap2000.com/default.asp
> 
> You can trade with a Republican, a Democrat or a Green party.  Nothing there
> for the Libertarians.

We're just too principled to join hands with statists!!

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17733
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:55:43 -0600
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1466a961c98d26fd9896f6@news.sff.net...
> In article <39fcd68a.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
> > You can trade with a Republican, a Democrat or a Green party.  Nothing
there
> > for the Libertarians.

> We're just too principled to join hands with statists!!

Hmm.  Doesn't have anything to do with the fact your candidate isn't likely
to have a significant impact?  :^)

Guess I'm more of a pragmatist than principled.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17734
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 03:07:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Now there's an amendment worth fighting for!  Wire up voting booths (are 
>you listening Big Charlie?) so that a voting "transaction" can be the 
>swapped votes of two voters. 

  Uh...but wouldn't arranged 'swapping votes' be as illegal as
selling/buying votes? 

  There was a web site offering to buy votes. About 1800 Californians
signed up. They're going to be prosecuted by the Attorney General of
CA.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17735
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:18:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39fce18b.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
> Hmm.  Doesn't have anything to do with the fact your candidate isn't likely
> to have a significant impact?  :^)

Well, if all the "progressives" behind this vote swap idea really 
believed in fairness, they would have added Libertarians to the list 
regardless.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17736
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 21:34:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:39fce597.1612415@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>   Uh...but wouldn't arranged 'swapping votes' be as illegal as
> selling/buying votes?

No.  It's not illegal at all.  That issue's already been raised.  Here's the
answer.

            Is it legal?

            A spokesperson at the U.S. Justice Department, which
investigates potential instances of voter fraud, said
            it is, since the sites "serve as a clearing house. There is no
pecuniary exchange, and it is an agreement
            amongst private parties, no legal violation there in terms of
violation fraud. It definitely is an innovative
            campaign technique, to say the least." (excerpted from the MSNBC
article reachable through our media page.)

 >   There was a web site offering to buy votes. About 1800 Californians
> signed up. They're going to be prosecuted by the Attorney General of
> CA.

I tried to get into a site offering to buy votes.  Apparently the site had
been closed down.  Too bad.  I'd be curious to see how many people signed up
for it.  So far 3500 votes have been swapped on the site I signed up on.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17737
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 22:29:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <39fce597.1612415@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
> 
> >Now there's an amendment worth fighting for!  Wire up voting booths (are 
> >you listening Big Charlie?) so that a voting "transaction" can be the 
> >swapped votes of two voters. 
> 
>   Uh...but wouldn't arranged 'swapping votes' be as illegal as
> selling/buying votes?

I don't see why.  No money is changing hands.  Besides, if arranging to 
trade or swap votes was illegal, Congress would be full of crooks.

Oh, wait a minute...

Congress /is/ full of crooks! 
 
>   There was a web site offering to buy votes. About 1800 Californians
> signed up. They're going to be prosecuted by the Attorney General of
> CA.

Wonderful!  Can't imagine a better use of law enforcement dollars.

Making it legal to buy votes would be another great amendment, although 
making it legal to sell your citizenship might be even better.  It's time 
to put proven financial techniques to work in politics.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17738
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:21:05 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

3 instances, in fact.
1824: Andrew Jackson wins popular vote (closely, not not a majority).
He got 40.3 percent of the vote and John Q Adams got 30.9 percent. 99
Electors voted for Jackson, more than for any other candidate, but not
a majority. When there is not a majority in the College the election
goes to the House. In this case, the House picked Adams, early in
1825.

In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes received 4,034,311 popular votes and
Samuel J. TIlden received 4,288,548. However, Tilden got received 184
electoral votes while Hayes received 185, winning the election.

Interesting note; in 1876 Florida, Lousisiana, and South Carolina
submitted conflicting sets of votes, and the validity of a vote from
Oregon was question. 5 senators, representatives, and supreme court
justices were made into a commitee to decide the matter. My government
book isnot clear on this but it appears that the committee voted in
place of the dubious electors and, there being 8 republicans and 7
democrats on the commission, gave the election to the republicans by
one vote.

1888: Grover Cleveland gets 5,543,488 pop. votes, 90,596 more than
Benjamin Harrison. However, the electoral vote goes to Harrison,
233-168.

We happen to have just completed this unit in my gov't class, though I
must admit this was not all from memory. This information comes from
"Magruder's American Government", William A. McClenahan, Prentice Hall
publishing, Needham, MA, 1993. (ach, that cite was bad form but my MLA
book is buried, and besides, it got the point across)


>>I recall one presidential election where
>> the person who one the popular vote, lost the electoral college vote.  Am
>I
>> remembering right?
>Oops, that should have been "won" not "one".
>Margaret


Bob
bobl@deletethis.blupoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17739
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 06:55:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

It should be noted that www.votexchange2000.com (it may be org, I
forget, but I'm sure you (the people of the HF) can find it) does
include the option to support Browne, along with a host of other 3rd
party candidates (and Bush and Gore, of course)
Bob
bobl@deletethis.blupoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17740
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 11:12:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bob Lawson <bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com> wrote in message
news:39fd1b02.9500202@news.sff.net...
> It should be noted that www.votexchange2000.com (it may be org, I
> forget, but I'm sure you (the people of the HF) can find it) does
> include the option to support Browne, along with a host of other 3rd
> party candidates (and Bush and Gore, of course)
> Bob
> bobl@deletethis.blupoet.com
> www.bluepoet.com

Is there an "e" missing from "blu" or is there an unnecessary "e" in "blue"?



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17741
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 05:54:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Vote Swap
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Thanks for bringing that to my intention. It is bluepoet, in all
instances. both e's
>Is there an "e" missing from "blu" or is there an unnecessary "e" in "blue"?

Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17742
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:51:34 -0800
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:39fabf1c.0@news.sff.net...
>
> Deb--
>
>     That is what I thought, too.  I wonder whether people who played
a lot
> of the old, keyboard based computer games are better at getting
absolutely
> neutral results?
>     I am still wondering, what is the basis for their claim of
accuracy?

For the web based version? Very little. It is a generic form that will
_usually_ work, rather roughly. As the website says, if the results
appear inconsistent, throw the results from the web version out the
window. They freely admit the web version is an inaccurate
demonstration that _for most people_ gives relatively accurate
results.

In the laboratory version, there has been quite a bit of research into
the accuracy of the tests. Much of what I know of the test comes from
other research into an older website based at the University of
Washington, I believe, which I subsequently lost the link for.

The most fundamental basis for the claim to accuracy is that the test
is reliable at detecting _conscious_ bias. If you like little fuzzy
mammals and hate icky creepy bugs, and then take the test, you will
almost always show up accurately as hating the bugs but liking the
mammals. Similarly, tests with people who openly admit to racism who
are then tested by scientists who don't know what (if any) bias they
claim show
that the test can accurately determine in what way they are racist.

Further research has been done into a variety of possible test biases.
They tested to see whether it mattered in what order the words and
faces were associated. They have learned a lot about what can bias the
test and how to deal with it _in the laboratory_. In a webpage, you
don't really get very accurate results.

For a simple example of possible bias, on the webpage, it was noticed
that the older version of the test used names associated with blacks
and names associated with whites, rather than pictures. If you know
Black people with "White" names found in the test (or vice versa), or
Blacks with Black names who just happen to be your friends, you may
show a false bias in favor of Blacks over Whites.

For a real life example, I did notice that I showed a _firm_ bias
towards Black in the original on the first test, but then lost that
firm bias on the next. Looking over the tests themselves, however, I
was able to determine why this happened. The words they were using and
the order they had used them in had caused certain words I associated
with _sexual pleasure_ to have been presented with black _women's_
names. Not only do I freely acknowledge a bit of a bias in this regard
(yes, I, a White male, find Black women more attractive than White, to
the degree that I have any real bias, which isn't very much), but I am
and was married to a Black woman. Thus, words that meant to me "great
sex" also happened that time to be paired with Black women (and not
with White women), producing a sharp "pro-Black" bias.

All and all, however, the web version says outright that accuracy
cannot be expected.

Filksinger





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17743
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:46:21 -0800
Subject: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Okay, everyone, sing along...

"Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."

Now tell me: Is "blue" or "yonder" the noun in that phrase?

-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17744
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:39:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford wrote:

> Okay, everyone, sing along...
>
> "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."
>
> Now tell me: Is "blue" or "yonder" the noun in that phrase?
>
>

Off the top of my head...I'd say 'yonder'....because in this case 'wild'
and 'blue' are both adjectives describing the yonder. However, my
dictionary has yonder as an adverb so who knows? And why do you care Jim?
:-)

Jane


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17745
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:16:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"James Gifford" <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:39FF056D.6548DFB8@rcsis.com...
> Okay, everyone, sing along...
>
> "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."
>
> Now tell me: Is "blue" or "yonder" the noun in that phrase?

Blue. As in, blue sky, as in getting airborne.

Off we go, to get airborne in the wild blue sky over there.

How's that?


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17746
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 06:32:50 +0900
Subject: Folding
Newsgroups: sff.people.eli-hestermann
            sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Elsewhere on sff.net, Yog just posted about a cool new project that uses
distributed computing to tackle protein folding in much the same manner
as the SETI@home project.  For those who haven't heard of that, the
basic idea is that you download software and a small chunck of the
problem from their site, and then your computer plugs away at it during
idle times.  When it's done, it sends the results back and gets some
more work.  The goal is to have thousands of computers around the world
working on the problem, rather than just whatever some protein structure
group has in their laboratory.  For those running SET@home, there
doesn't appear to be any conflict in running both, although of course
workunits take longer with both going.

The URL is http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/Cosm/

Theoretically, the way proteins fold and their final three-dimensional
structure are determined solely by the order of the amino acids that
make up the protein.  Since it's relatively easy to sequence DNA that
encodes for those proteins, we have thousands of protein sequences
running around.  Unfortunately there are a huge number of chemical
interactions among the amino acids of even the smallest protein, so
folding can't be predicted from sequence yet.

Structure is important because it determines how the protein then
functions.  Hemoglobin, for example, folds in a certain way so that it
can link up with iron and then changes its structure slightly as oxygen
molecules are caught by that iron.  That slight change in structure is
part of why it can efficiently pick up oxygen in the lungs and then drop
it off elsewhere.

The work has immediate applications in medicine as well as future ones
in nanotech (imagine designing proteins to perform certain reactions).

There's more information in the FAQ at their site.  I strongly encourage
everyone to check it out.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17747
From: Shane Glaseman <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:58:09 -0800
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The word acting as the direct object here is "yonder," standing in for
"sky" or "far off-ness." Both "wild" and "blue" are adjectives modifying
"yonder." 

Strange question -- ya writin' an Air Force essay?

Shane


James Gifford wrote:
> 
> Okay, everyone, sing along...
> 
> "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."
> 
> Now tell me: Is "blue" or "yonder" the noun in that phrase?
> 
> --
> 
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> |   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17748
From: James Hunt" <jhunt@txcyber.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:56:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:39FF056D.6548DFB8@rcsis.com...
> Okay, everyone, sing along...
>
> "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."
>
> Now tell me: Is "blue" or "yonder" the noun in that phrase?
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> |   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |
>
In this case, "blue" is used as a noun.  "wild" modifies it.  "yonder" says
where it is.
GemStone



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17749
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:55:38 -0800
Subject: Re: A Disturbing Psychological Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


<snip>
>
> Me too....I jumped right in and took the race test. I flubbed a few
the first
> time round ( I find my reaction speed is way down at the moment with
the
> pregnancy) and was told that I had a strong pro white tendency which
rocked me
> a bit. I took the test in reverse and had a mild pro white
tendency.....
>
> Now, reversing the test as a check is all well and good but when you
do it the
> second time you know what to expect. I think this made a big
difference.

According to the information I gathered the first time, this was
tested for and found to make a small difference only. In the lab, they
have ways of taking this into account.

> The
> order in which the first test was done lulled my fingers into a
rhythm that I
> found hard to dismiss, leading to that first rather surprising
result..

This was something else that they also tested for. Again, the
laboratory version does take this into account. I believe they found
it to have a mild effect on the results.

>  I could just be fooling myself but I've never considered myself to
be
> racially biased; probably because it's not such an issue in the UK
(not where
> I lived anyway) and I just wasn't brought up that way. I would have
said I was
> neutral if anything. I could try one of the other tests but some of
them, like
> the Presidential one would be meaningless. I'm not too impressed by
it; I
> think it's based on a trick rather than a valid testing method.

There seems to be considerable research that says otherwise. However,
your particular result may not be valid, just as the web page says.

> I also wonder just how slow you can go and still provide meaningful
data. I
> made an honest attempt to go as fast as possible and as I'm not that
good at
> video games and such I think this translated into a lot of my errors
and
> hesitations.

Not certain. I know that they do try to create the test so that too
slow equals invalidated results, but how slow "too slow" is depends
upon a variety of other factors the web page cannot take into account.

> It _is_ quite a disturbing test...but I think  that's not because of
what it
> reveals about you but because someone up the line might use the
results to
> prove something or other.

Actually, the information they have on the website for other
scientists shows that they consider this to be a frightening thing,
too, but not due to accuracy problems.

Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17750
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:04:47 -0700
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I come down on the "yonder = noun, others = adjective(s)" side of this 
fence. Seems to me that the sentence's set-up objectifies "yonder" as
the only possible noun.

Additionally, I can positively state that "we" is the pronoun.

<gd&rlh>

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown





----------
In article <39FF056D.6548DFB8@rcsis.com>, James Gifford
<jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote:


> Okay, everyone, sing along...
>
> "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."
>
> Now tell me: Is "blue" or "yonder" the noun in that phrase?
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> |   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17751
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:22:42 -0700
Subject: Re: USS Cole
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote:
 
<snip>
 
> I used to think that there could be peace in that area but now my opinion
> has shifted to selling all sides all the small arms they want and let them
> burn out their hostilities over each others bodies.
>
> Dean

Reasonable -- until you look forward, and see us (U.S.!) as STILL
being a target, because we sold them the small arms.

Sigh. We're gonna attract this penc until we just get the hell out of
everywhere, and simply "provide for the common defense". As opposed to
the worldwide OFFENSE we currently run.

BTW, Dean, welcome. I'm usually more cheery, FWIW. <G>

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17752
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 02:56:35 -0700
Subject: Vote Swap quashed?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


The story is entitled, on a reprint in the Rocky Mountain News from 
the NY Times, "Vote-swapping Web sites shut down". The byline goes to
Daniel J. Walkin of the NYT. It ran here in Denver today -- your
yesterday (Wednesday, at any rate).

I tried to find a valid link, folks, but it's nearing three AM here.
Please be impressed that I caught the story at all, out of kindness,
okay? I'm stretched to do all I can for the three campaigns I'm
involved in -- one of which is actually my own alleged campaign.

(Yawn) Good night.

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown
 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17753
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:26:08 +0900
Subject: Re: Vote Swap quashed?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

It was reported here in the _Japan Times_ as well, Clay.  I guess
someone decided it was buying votes after all.  FWIW, the owner
apparently shut the site down voluntarily after the state of CA let him
know that ITNSHO it was illegal.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17754
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:19:47 -0800
Subject: Re: Folding
Newsgroups: sff.people.eli-hestermann
            sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I knew there was something I forgot to tell the list! <smack! as flat
of palm hits head>

Filksinger

"Eli Hestermann" <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:39FF3A82.E4817508@whoi.edu...
> Elsewhere on sff.net, Yog just posted about a cool new project that
uses
> distributed computing to tackle protein folding in much the same
manner
> as the SETI@home project.  For those who haven't heard of that, the
> basic idea is that you download software and a small chunck of the
> problem from their site, and then your computer plugs away at it
during
> idle times.  When it's done, it sends the results back and gets some
> more work.  The goal is to have thousands of computers around the
world
> working on the problem, rather than just whatever some protein
structure
> group has in their laboratory.  For those running SET@home, there
> doesn't appear to be any conflict in running both, although of
course
> workunits take longer with both going.
>
> The URL is http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/Cosm/
>
> Theoretically, the way proteins fold and their final
three-dimensional
> structure are determined solely by the order of the amino acids that
> make up the protein.  Since it's relatively easy to sequence DNA
that
> encodes for those proteins, we have thousands of protein sequences
> running around.  Unfortunately there are a huge number of chemical
> interactions among the amino acids of even the smallest protein, so
> folding can't be predicted from sequence yet.
>
> Structure is important because it determines how the protein then
> functions.  Hemoglobin, for example, folds in a certain way so that
it
> can link up with iron and then changes its structure slightly as
oxygen
> molecules are caught by that iron.  That slight change in structure
is
> part of why it can efficiently pick up oxygen in the lungs and then
drop
> it off elsewhere.
>
> The work has immediate applications in medicine as well as future
ones
> in nanotech (imagine designing proteins to perform certain
reactions).
>
> There's more information in the FAQ at their site.  I strongly
encourage
> everyone to check it out.
>
> --
> Eli V. Hestermann
> ehestermann@whoi.edu
> "Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca
>
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17755
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:12:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Great question. I spent much of a semester in college in AI class pondering
just such ambiguities. There's actually a scientific name to describe a
sentence like this and for the life of me I've forgotten it. I might have to
email my old CompSci prof and see if he can tell me.

The wealth of answers here is just great! 40% one way, 60% the other way.
Everyone's right and everyone's wrong. I love it.

My 2 cents on the writers intent here would be that the DO is Blue as in the
Blue Sky (out of the blue). Whereas Yonder is an adjective modifying Blue.
Perhaps it would've been clearer if yonder was set off by a comma. But hey,
it's lyrics.

Another thought, all 3 words could be DO nouns. Off we go into the Wild;
Blue; Yonder.

Then again, maybe Yonder is a complete thought. An aside. Again, it's
lyrics, so punct. is missing: Off we into the Wild Blue. Yonder!

It's stuff like this in English that makes writing NLPs so hard! Try this
one:

"The red eyes water."   A case for Visine? Or a communist near the shore?
You decide.



"James Gifford" <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:39FF056D.6548DFB8@rcsis.com...
> Okay, everyone, sing along...
>
> "Off we go, into the wild blue yonder..."
>
> Now tell me: Is "blue" or "yonder" the noun in that phrase?
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> |   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17756
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:03:50 GMT
Subject: Arab/Israel Conflict Primary Source
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This was something I got in today's email, through a chain of about 7
forwards.  I thought it was interesting for the human side of the
conflict.  Since I didn't get it directly I can't vouch for its truth,
but I wanted to pass it on.

--JT

***********************************************************************************
The following letter came in today's mail from a relative in Israel.
She and her husband live in Israel for six months of the year and six
months in NYC.  He is an Israeli.
Barbara P. Smith


Dear Barbara,

First of all, I want to tell you that this letter is going to be faxed
to my son, Steve, and he'll mail it from NY.  That's why your name and
address are at the top.  i am not sure about the regularity of mail
going abroad from here, right now, and letters could conceivably be
delayed due to the situation here.

I am sure you have been hearing the news from Israel and wondering how
we are doing, so I decided to write and let you know that, so far, we
are OK.  It has been three weeks of stress, tension and worry.  We are
comparatively lucky here in Haifa.  It has always been a city where
Arabs and Jews have gotten along.  There is a modus vivendi that has
been understood and worked out.  We have always patronized Arab
restaurants and other Arab merchants.  But, suddenly, as a result of
the
violence and the call to arms by the Arabs in Gaza and the
Palestiniam-controlled territories, the Israeli Arabs have also been
involved in violent acts, and that is a development that we never
anticipated.  Suddenly we have a fifth column within the country.
Those
areas of Israel whose borders are close to the Palestinian-controlled
territories are most in danger, but there are many Arab cities and
villages inside Israel - whose Arab residents are Israeli citizens -
where Arabs are driving just a few miles to attack civilians and other
targets on our streets. All of a sudden, we are viewing our Israeli
Arabs with suspicion and resentment.  One day last week, there was
incitement to set fires all over Israel, and trees and shrubbery in
nearby neiighborhoods were set afire - by Israeli Arabs. An industrial
park some miles north of here was broken into and destroyed.  Cars not
far from here, on the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway were attacked by
teenagers
of an Arab village that borders the road.  What I am writing about,
you
will not have seen or read in any reports of the violence of the past
two weeks.

We've been asked not to patronize any Arab shopkeepers or
restaurenteurs
here in Haifa.  People here have agreed upon a boycott.  But Mordechai
and I discussed this and agreed that those Israeli Arabs who kept
their
shops open on the "Day of Rage", two Sundays ago, when Israeli Arabs
closed their shops to show support for the Palestinian violence,
should
be supported for their moderation.  We have continued to deal with
those
Arabs that seem to keep themselves out of the struggle.

What distresses me and Mordechai, most of all, is that there is no one
here who presents to the world, the truth of what is going on.  We
don't
have any public relations person who sets straight the Palestinian
propaganda and distortions that go out to the world.  For instance,
did
you hear any outcry from the international community when the Tomb of
Joseph was desecrated, taken apart stone by stone?  Did you know that
several days before Ariel Sharon and a group of Knesset members
visited
the Temple Mount, that a convoy of Israeli military trucks was blown
up
by mines that had been put on the road shortly before they passed
through, killing and injuring many of our soldiers?  Did you know that
the Palestinians have four lines of defense?  In the front line, they
put children, ten, eleven, twelve years old (the first to get shot if
bullets are flying).  In the second line, they have the masked stone
throwers, mostly teen-agers.  In the third line, they have the older
teen-agers and young adults, throwing Molotov Cocktails, explosives,
And in back, they have the adults with guns and live ammunition.  It
is
the rear lines that attack Israeli soldiers with explosives and
bullets,
and when they fire back, the world sees children being killed.  They
have been put there by their own people to mobilize the world's
outrage.
(It reminds us that, during the Gulf war, the Iraquis installed their
Scud millile equipment adjacent to a hospital, and when the Americans
bombed the military installation , the Iraqui outcry was that we were
bombing a hospital.  It is exactly that mentaility that motivates the
Palestinians.  The other day we heard that, despite the fact that the
borders are closed - no traffic can go in or out of Israel into
Palestinian controlled territories - an ambulance was allowed through
from Israel, only for us to discover that when it was unloaded, there
were no injured people.  It was filled with explosives, sent by
Israeli
Arabs!)

A lady minister in the Knesset has just returned from the US and told
of
her dismay in listening to the US media, buying into Arab propaganda,
and coming out against Israel - especially CNN. When she contacted the
Israeli ambassador in Washington, asking how could it be that there
was
no spokesman for the Israeli position, she was told that that was the
function of the Israeli consulate in NY.  When she contacted the
Israeli
consul in NY, she found that he could hardly speak English! 

Had I written this letter the day of the Sharm-el Sheik agreement, I
would have told you that a great weight, which we both were feeling,
was
suddenly lifted from our shoulders, and we could breathe more easily.
But unfortunately, the situation had only barely improved when a group
of Israeli civilians, including women and children were fired on by
Palestinians.  Several were killed, and those wounded could not be
evacuated immediately by out helicopters because the Palestinians were
shooting at the helicopters.  Finally a battle ensued, with soldiers
moving in.  Right now, we do not expect the Sharm-el-Sheik agreement
to
last.  We are preparing for war.  Mordechai has been through all the
wars that Israel has endured, and the first thing we did the other
evening was to stock up on canned foods, sugar, flour and oil - and
Halvah - the best and quickest source of energy!  It is a dreadful
prospect but a reality that we must face.  We had dinner last night at
Mordechai's sister's.  I was astonished when Mordechai's sister said,
"The sooner we have the war, the better it will be.  Rather than to
letthe violence escalate!"  Mordechai and I don't share these
sentiments,but they may represent the overwhelming feelings in the
country right now.  And that leaves us with a heavy heart.

Please distribute this letter to others as we are sure they would like
to know what is going on here.

Say a prayer for us....

Love,
Gloria


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17757
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 02:09:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

but the real question, of course, is where, praytell, is the gerund
in: "Louie louie, oh no,me gottagoo
yayahayyahahahalouylouieyeahaebabyuhhuhohhyeah doodoodedahdedodo..."
just wondering...
Bob
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17758
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:36:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Bob Lawson" <bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com> wrote in message
news:3a036ee5.2578339@news.sff.net...
> but the real question, of course, is where, praytell, is the gerund
> in: "Louie louie, oh no,me gottagoo
> yayahayyahahahalouylouieyeahaebabyuhhuhohhyeah doodoodedahdedodo..."

It's actually later in the lyric:

"Me sail me ship, across the sea, think of gerund, constantly"

Well it COULD be there!


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17759
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 16:35:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:12:54 -0500, "Robert Larson"
<Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com> wrote:
>It's stuff like this in English that makes writing NLPs so hard! Try this
>one:
>
>"The red eyes water."   A case for Visine? Or a communist near the shore?
>You decide.
>
Robert:
    That's great, I love it <g>.   Altho`,  If Gorbachov was staring
at the Caspian,  the "Red" would be viewing water (cap. R ).

Ed J

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17760
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:06:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Off topic:   FYI  the November 21, 2000 issue of PC Magazine
mentioned RAH.  Editor-In-Chief Michael J. Miller ended his column
with: "Grok this!  A buzzword origin" and credited the master.
<del>
  ". . . Grok  first appeared in Robert Heinlein's 1961 science
fiction masterpiece, Stranger in a Strange Land."

Ed J

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17761
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 11:47:31 -0800
Subject: Re: Stupid noun thing
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed Johnson wrote:
> Off topic:   FYI  the November 21, 2000 issue of PC Magazine
> mentioned RAH.  Editor-In-Chief Michael J. Miller ended his column
> with: "Grok this!  A buzzword origin" and credited the master.
> <del>
>   ". . . Grok  first appeared in Robert Heinlein's 1961 science
> fiction masterpiece, Stranger in a Strange Land."

Ah, but he's an ignoramus. He didn't bother to mention that the word is
foreshadowed (in both spelling and meaning) in P. Schuyler Miller's "The
Cave" ca. 1954. Ha! These computer weens need to stay out of the
lit'rary game.

-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17762
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:34:44 -0500
Subject: The Wrong Question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Be sure and vote!  ;-)

James Bovard, "The Wrong Question: No One Deserves
the Power". _American Spectator_.  Oct. 27, 2000.

"Once again, Americans are struggling to decide which candidate
is least unfit to be President. Once again, the choice is between
two major party candidates -- neither of whom scores of millions
of Americans believe is mentally or morally equal to the job.

We are asking the wrong question. The issue is not who should be
trusted with all the power of the Presidency. Instead, we must
ask how much power any candidate can be trusted with.

Would you choose Bush or Gore to have the power to read your
email -- without a court-authorized search warrant -- thanks
to the FBI's Carnivore wiretap software and the National Security
Agency's Echelon system? Since the Federal Communications
Commission has ordered that new cell phones be homing devices
for law enforcement, which candidate would you prefer knowing
your location at all times?

Would you choose either Gore or Bush to dictate the safety
standards that might save your life -- or kill you (such as
federally-mandated airbags that smite children and petite ladies)?

How many new regulations and restrictions should either
candidate be able to impose on you? Since 1993, federal
agencies have issued more than 25,000 new regulations --
criminalizing everything from reliable toilets to snuff
advertisements on race cars. The federal regulatory juggernaut
is practically on automatic pilot, sure to continue advancing
regardless of who wins on November 7.

How many pretexts should the winning candidate receive to
have you thrown you in prison? There are now more than 3,000
federal criminal offenses on the book -- 30 times more
criminal laws than existed in 1900 and a thousand times more
than existed at the birth of the Republic. The proliferation
of vague laws are very convenient for federal agents and
politically minded prosecutors who target certain citizens
for ruin.

Which candidate should have jurisdiction over federal
agents who can seize your property -- without any criminal
charges filed against you -- based on hearsay evidence
that you may have violated one of over 200 federal laws
that authorize asset forfeiture? Which candidate should
have sway over the Justice Department lawyers who fight
tooth-and-nail to deny due process to forfeiture victims?

How much would you voluntarily give either candidate to
spend largely at his discretion? The average two-income
median income household pays $17,762 in federal taxes per
year, according to the Tax Foundation. Would you write
out a check for that amount even though you knew that
Presidents routinely spend tax dollars for their own
political aggrandizement? Would you write out a check
even after realizing that some of your tax dollars will
be spent to deceive and lull you into thinking you have
nothing to fear from your rulers -- and thus no need to
stand up for your rights and liberties?

The federal government mangles the marketplace far more
than most Americans realize. Which candidate should have
the right to continue doubling the price of the sugar
and peanut butter you buy? Which candidate should be
entitled to levy a 25 percent surcharge on Japanese-made
trucks or a 40 percent surcharge on Brazilian orange juice,
as the U.S. tariff code now decrees? Does any President
deserve a license to skewer consumers to reward campaign
donors?

How much power would you vest in either candidate to
forcibly protect you against yourself -- vetoing your
choices of lifestyle, food, and recreation?

Is there any prominent politician from either party who
could run your life better than you yourself? Is there
any politician who is so superior to you in character
and intellect that you should effectively sign your life
over to his hands? Though few people would concede that
any politician is so much their better, the current
regime classifies citizens as, by definition, far inferior
to their rulers.

We have a paternalistic system with pervasive contempt
for the Paternalist-in-Chief. We have created a huge
engine of government -- even though there is no one even
vaguely capable of intelligently driving it.

A certain amount of government power is necessary to
preserve the peace and deter foreign aggression. But
the government passed that point decades ago. Einstein
warned in 1945 that, with the invention of the atomic
bomb, mankind had far more destructive power than people
were capable of responsibly controlling. It is the same
now with political power: government has amassed far
more coercive power than politicians are capable of
intelligently wielding.

Even if the wisest, most virtuous citizen were elected
President, our Leviathan would still be a public nuisance.
There is no magic wand that even the best President could
wave over the entire federal government. The only sure
way to improve government is to radically reduce its size
and power. This is also the best bet to make presidential
elections something more than the triumph of hope over
experience."

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17763
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:58:55 -0600
Subject: Harry Browne
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

    Well, I listened to part of Harry Browne's presentation yesterday on
C-Span.  (It was already well underway when I found it.)  I found Mr. Browne
articulate and personable, but it was unfortunate how much he reminded me of
"Cigarette Smoking Man."  Is it just me. or does anyone else see (and hear)
a resemblance?

--Dee2



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17764
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:05:53 -0500
Subject: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
the novelty doesn't wear off....)

Jane




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17765
From: William Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:50:57 -0600
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


ddavitt wrote in message <3A070111.294471A5@netcom.ca>...
>I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
>are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
>conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
>We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
>the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
>Jane
>
>
>
>

Congratulations and Best Wishes

--Will--



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17766
From: Shane Glaseman <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 13:06:59 -0800
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Huzzah!

Shane

ddavitt wrote:
> 
> I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
> are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
> conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
> We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
> the novelty doesn't wear off....)
> 
> Jane

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17767
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 06:38:06 +0900
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

ddavitt wrote:

> I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
> are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
> conveniently timed!) <snip>

And here I was expecting the follow-up "...after 22 hours of labor".
<vbg>

Congratulations!


--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17768
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:52:30 -0600
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jane,
Congratulations.  Wonderful news.
Margaret

ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:3A070111.294471A5@netcom.ca...
> I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
> are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
> conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
> We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
> the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
> Jane




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17769
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 23:51:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:05:53 -0500, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> wrote:

>I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
>are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
>conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
>We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
>the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
>Jane


Hearty Congratulations!  It sounds like an uncomplicated birth, but I
know now what a trial even that is... 

Daniel is over 14 1/2 lbs already, over double his weight at birth and
he's not yet 11 weeks old!

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17770
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 04:00:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
>the novelty doesn't wear off....)

  Congratulations Jane, and Lauren.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17771
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:28:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Congratulations, Jane and Lauren Alicia!

David Nasset, Sr.

"ddavitt" <ddavitt@netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:3A070111.294471A5@netcom.ca...
> I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
> are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
> conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
> We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
> the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
> Jane
>
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17772
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:00:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A070111.294471A5@netcom.ca>, ddavitt writes...
> I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
> are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
> conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
> We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
> the novelty doesn't wear off....)

Best wishes to you and your family! 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17773
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:25:34 -0800
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Greetings Lauren Alicia, welcome to Earth!

As a big sister for 42+ years, I can say that the novelty does wear thin at
times but never OFF.  But, I have three (not so) little (any more) bothers
<sic> not a beautiful sister.

Get all the sleep you can Jane, congratulations.

--
`rita
Live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (also MSN messenger)
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
ddavitt wrote in message <3A070111.294471A5@netcom.ca>...
I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
the novelty doesn't wear off....)

Jane






------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17774
From: fader555@aol.com
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 03:29:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:05:53 -0500, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> wrote:

>I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
>are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
>conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
>We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
>the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
Good stuff. congratulations
Fader

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17775
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:58:43 -0600
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Congratulations and may Lauren Alicia be a joy to you forever.

Dean



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17776
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 13:27:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Wonderful news. Here's wishing you all the best, and also best wishes 
for sleep!

--
Clay Steiner
Libertarian Candidate for Colorado State House, dist 36
http://www.lp.org        http://www.HarryBrowne2000.org
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Guns cause crime like spoons cause obesity." -- unknown


ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca> wrote:


> I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
> are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
> conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
> We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
> the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
> Jane
>
>
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17777
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:08:38 -0600
Subject: Florida's Ballot
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

It must be pretty easy to get on the ballot here in Florida.  It had Nader,
and Brown, plus people I'd never heard of.  Candidates from the Worker's
Party, the Florida Constitutional Party and others.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17778
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:24:29 -0600
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Add my congratulations.  Glad to hear that both Mother and baby are
doing fine.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17779
From: robertaw@halcyon.com (Robert A. Woodward)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:21:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Florida's Ballot
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a0889d9.0@news.sff.net>, "Margaret Albrecht"
<mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> It must be pretty easy to get on the ballot here in Florida.  It had Nader,
> and Brown, plus people I'd never heard of.  Candidates from the Worker's
> Party, the Florida Constitutional Party and others.

How many?

The ballot in the state of Washington has 10 presidental tickets.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17780
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:07:41 -0600
Subject: Re: Florida's Ballot
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Robert A. Woodward <robertaw@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:robertaw-0711001821410001@blv-tnt0-1-ip197.nwnexus.net...
> In article <3a0889d9.0@news.sff.net>, "Margaret Albrecht"
> <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > It must be pretty easy to get on the ballot here in Florida.  It had
Nader,
> > and Brown, plus people I'd never heard of.  Candidates from the Worker's
> > Party, the Florida Constitutional Party and others.
>
> How many?
>
> The ballot in the state of Washington has 10 presidental tickets.

Reconstructing from memory I come up with maybe 8 tickets.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17781
From: A. Gifford" <agifford@bridgesbls.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:32:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Congratulations!

Audrey and Jim

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17782
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:11:39 -0600
Subject: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The news as of Wednesday afternoon shows that Florida will decide the
election and if Bush wins then it will be a Gore popular win with a Bush
electoral win.  It looks like the low simmer over the electoral collage
system is going to heat way up.  And really, neither side has really won a
victory, this has been the closest I've seen to both the congress and the
presidency coming up a tie.

--
          Dean White
www.DeanWhite.net



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17783
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:12:46 -0600
Subject: Florida's Presidential ticket
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Someone asked how many were on Florida's presidential ticket.  Here's the
list.
Margaret

Party         Candidate
REP        George W. BUSH
DEM       Al GORE
GRN       Ralph NADER
LIB         Harry BROWN
RFM       Pat BUCHANAN
SW         James E. HARRIS
CST        Howard PHILLIPS
NTL        John HAGELIN
WWD     Monica G. MOOREHEAD
SOC       David McREYNOLDS



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17784
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:22:30 -0600
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dean White <WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:3a09b37a.0@news.sff.net...
> The news as of Wednesday afternoon shows that Florida will decide the
> election and if Bush wins then it will be a Gore popular win with a Bush
> electoral win.
If Al Gore ends up taking Florida (depending on the margin) the vote
swapping done for Nader / Gore may actually have swung the election.  The
last numbers I saw showed it coming down to 1700 hundred votes.  Just one
site I saw had 500 votes being swapped from Florida.  Talk about votes
counting here in Florida.

The other interesting thing is what happened in Palm Beach County.  If you
look at the numbers, it's clear at least 2,000 of those votes were intended
for Gore instead of Buchanan.  That alone would be enough to have swung the
election to Gore.  I've seen that ballot.  Whoever designed it wasn't the
brightest person on the block.  The mistake to vote for Buchanan instead of
Gore was easily made.

>It looks like the low simmer over the electoral collage
> system is going to heat way up.  And really, neither side has really won a
> victory, this has been the closest I've seen to both the congress and the
> presidency coming up a tie.
I've already made my feelings clear about the electoral college.  I think if
Bush does win it, the best thing that could happen from this election is the
revamping or elimination of the electoral college.  I don't think the
American people are going to accept that like they did back in 1888 (that's
a guess at the date) when it happened last time.

Margaret




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17785
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 21:55:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> If Al Gore ends up taking Florida (depending on the margin) the vote
> swapping done for Nader / Gore may actually have swung the election.

If Gore loses Florida, the Nader vote will *definitely* have swung the
election: Last I saw, the Nader tally statewide was ~90,000, more than*40
times* the latest Bush-Gore differential. If 2/3 of Nader voters had voted Gore
instead (and that's about the percentage preference the exit polls were
indicating), Gore's net gain would have been >10 times his current deficit.
IOW, if Nader had released his voters, Florida would have been in the Gore
column early on, and we wouldn't be in this silly mess.

Similarly, in New Hampshire Gore lost by <8,000 while Nader pulled ~22,000. In
Oregon, which still hadn't been called last time I checked, the Nader tally is
many times larger than the difference between Bush and Gore. Likewise, in many
states Gore *did* win, but which were very close and were called late in the
evening, the Nader total was significant. Many of those states would've been
called for Gore the moment the polls closed if not for the Nader factor.

All in all, if Nader had withdrawn from the race, or if he'd asked his
supporters to vote or Gore, the election would likely have been called for Gore
before midnight, and we wouldn't now be facing a potential constitutional
crisis. Folks can give me all the abstract mathematical theories they want to
"prove" that one vote doesn't matter, but it's abundantly clear to me that a
*very small* number of voters have swung this election (I say it that way
because I really don't believe the current Florida count will be reversed) to
the candidate who *least* represents their views.

> The other interesting thing is what happened in Palm Beach County.  If you
> look at the numbers, it's clear at least 2,000 of those votes were intended
> for Gore instead of Buchanan.  That alone would be enough to have swung the
> election to Gore.  I've seen that ballot.  Whoever designed it wasn't the
> brightest person on the block.  The mistake to vote for Buchanan instead of
> Gore was easily made.

The original news reports had it that "seniors" had been confused by the
ballot, but now I'm hearing that complaints were widespread, and that they
began long before the polls closed (i.e., long before anyone could have
predicted how critically important those votes would be). I heard an interview
on NPR with a young woman who voted for the first time yesterday. She realized
while still in the voting booth that she'd made the same mistake everybody's
talking about -- inadvertently voting for Buchanan while intending to vote
Gore. She went to the poll worker, explained that she'd made a mistake, and
asked for a new ballot; intead, the poll worker told her that once she'd
punched the ballot she couldn't change her mind, grabbed the ballot from her
hand, and put it in the (locked) ballot box. When this girl got home, she
checked the sample ballot she'd used to prepare, and sure enough, just as she
remembered, it said that if you made a mistake you could request a new ballot.
This girl was victimized by both the confusing ballot *and* the ignorance of
the poll worker (I assume it wasn't deliberate malfeasance). Not surprisingly,
she says if nothing is done to correct this (specifically, she wants a chance
to cast a correct ballot), she will be very reluctant to vote again.

I also heard from a coworker that his mother-in-law (who lives in PBC) also had
commented (again, before the story broke nationally) that she found the ballot
confusing. As a resident of PBC for the last 11 years (up to my recent move), I
must say I find the notion that Buchanan would get 3,400 votes in the county,
or that 20% of his statewide total would come from PBC, totally incredible (in
the literal sense of the word). Clearly, as you say, some large percentage of
those votes were unintended.

> I think if
> Bush does win it, the best thing that could happen from this election is the
> revamping or elimination of the electoral college.

But how could a Republican lead the charge against a states'-rights
institution? And why would the *beneficiary* of the electoral anomaly want to
change it? Bush's legitimacy will be shaky enough as it is; any move on his
part to abolish the electoral college would amount to him publicly declaring
that the way he was elected was unfair. I don't think the boy's too bright, but
even I don't think he's *that* dumb.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17786
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 01:51:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>  I've seen that ballot.  Whoever designed it wasn't the
>brightest person on the block.  The mistake to vote for Buchanan instead of
>Gore was easily made.

  I've seen it too. The person who designed it was a Democrat, BTW.
The arrows pointing to the holes were big and clear. The attempts to
change votes after they've been cast just because they don't like the
end result is shoddy. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17787
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 01:51:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Florida's Presidential ticket
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Someone asked how many were on Florida's presidential ticket.  Here's the
>list.

  Most states listed 7 major (using 'major' loosely) party candidates
with quite a few states listing 6. Various local candidates were
possible added on to these (this is from CNN's site and they didn't
list the locals). On the CA ballot I used Bush and Gore were listed in
3rd and 6th position. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17788
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 01:58:09 GMT
Subject: Lie to political polling organizations
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

  Well, Frank, it looked like your plan to confuse the polling
organizations worked. Never have so many been soooooo wrong every step
of the way. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17789
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 02:20:19 GMT
Subject: Vote Breakdown
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


  I took a look at how the vote broke down by county for
Minnesota--because I'm familiar with the nature of the counties and
because the state disappointed me once again with the electoral vote
outcome. 

  Virtually every county in the state went for Bush, except for urban
Minneapolis, urban St. Paul, and Duluth which swung it to Gore. The
suburbs of Minneapolis and St. Paul also went for Bush. 

  The same applied to California. The vast majority of areas in
California went to Bush with the places going for Gore being only Los
Angeles County (on the map a tiny yet densely populated area) and the
San Francisco bay area and the nearby strip of the coast. 

  The national overview maps support the urban/non urban split in the
country--the extremely urban northeast going to Gore along with the
big industrial Great Lakes cities pulling Illinois and Michigan to
Gore. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17790
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 19:58:36 -0800
Subject: Re: Vote Breakdown
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> The same applied to California. The vast majority of areas in
> California went to Bush with the places going for Gore being only Los
> Angeles County (on the map a tiny yet densely populated area) and the
> San Francisco bay area and the nearby strip of the coast.

Are you taking into account population density? If San Berdoo County
went for Bush, a tenth of California would go red on the map. Most
California counties have very low populations. So coloring in a counties
map and going, "Sheesh, the whole thing is red! How'd Gore get the
state!" is a bit misleading.

But then, that doesn't stop the network pundits from saying/doing
essentially the same thing. Gore took a definite majority in the raw
vote. Geddovahit.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17791
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 20:48:19 -0800
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
>>  I've seen that ballot.  Whoever designed it wasn't the
>> brightest person on the block.  The mistake to vote for Buchanan instead of
>> Gore was easily made.

> I've seen it too. The person who designed it was a Democrat, BTW.
> The arrows pointing to the holes were big and clear. The attempts to
> change votes after they've been cast just because they don't like the
> end result is shoddy.

As I understand it, there is also evidence that the poll station staff
gave incorrect instructions to voters who were having trouble. There is
also a strong Buchanan spike in that precinct. It all adds up to a
mistake that would need addressing or correction. It would be of no
consequence except that the overall Florida race is being decided by a
thousand votes, and there is evidence that as many as 2500 votes may be
at issue in the Palm Beach fiasco.

If the votes were the other way around, would you be so blithe to ignore
these several compounded serious problems?

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17792
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 02:57:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> The person who designed [the Palm Beach County ballot] was a Democrat, BTW.

Sure. So far, I haven't heard anyone suggest any deliberate skulduggery in this
matter; it's just a screw-up.

> The arrows pointing to the holes were big and clear.

Mebbe so, but as an 11-year PBC voter (I moved to CT just in time to get
registered here for this election), I can tell you I never saw a two-column
ballot page. It may look perfectly obvious to you, but it really is *different*
from what those folks are used to. Besides, using brightness as a criterion for
the right to vote went out with Jim Crow... to be equitable, a ballot has to be
clear even to voters who are a couple of steers short of a full herd.

> The attempts to
> change votes after they've been cast just because they don't like the
> end result is shoddy.

I know it seems that way from a distance, and after the fact. But my
information (from both the media *and* from personal contacts through coworkers
who still have family back there) is that numbers of voters complained about
the ballot *immediately* after voting... before the polls closed and certainly
before anyone knew what a big deal it would turn out to be. I think there's
some pretty good evidence that this is more than just a spin-move from the Gore
campaign.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17793
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:21:56 -0600
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A0A040F.7E9B7B40@ix.netcom.com...
 > Margaret Albrecht wrote:
> > I think if
> > Bush does win it, the best thing that could happen from this election is
the
> > revamping or elimination of the electoral college.
>
> But how could a Republican lead the charge against a states'-rights
> institution? And why would the *beneficiary* of the electoral anomaly want
to
> change it? Bush's legitimacy will be shaky enough as it is; any move on
his
> part to abolish the electoral college would amount to him publicly
declaring
> that the way he was elected was unfair. I don't think the boy's too
bright, but
> even I don't think he's *that* dumb.
>
> -JovBill

No, I don't expect the move to originate with Bush.  I expect a grass roots
movement.  I'm hoping it become a cause celeb -- so popular the state
legislatures don't dare not pass it.  I don't really expect the elimination
of the electoral college though I still prefer a direct election.  More than
likely it would be changed from a winner takes all system to what Maine and
Nebraska (I think that's the other state) have.  If we're going to have an
electoral college rather than direct popular election I think the best of
both worlds is a system where each congressional district decides which
candidate will get their vote with the overall state winner also getting the
two "Senator" votes.  This is actually a system which would effectively
eliminate my vote having an impact (except for things like overall
percentage for matching funds like Nader was going for) because the politics
of the district I live in tend to be opposite of my own personal politics in
most cases.  Still, overall, I think it would be an improvement over the
current system in better representing the actual votes of the American
people.  I'd be curious to see if that system were in place today, what
would the electoral college votes look like for this election.

By the way, I had the funniest argument with a guy at work today.  He was
upset because he said the way the mayor of Pensacola was chosen was
unconstitutional.  The city commissioners are elected, and they choose the
mayor.  I tried to point out to him this was similar to the electoral
college system or the way Senators were originally chosen so it was
perfectly Constitutional.  Turns out he didn't believe there were actually
electors in the electoral college.  He didn't believe someone actually cast
those votes.  He insisted he read the Constitution and there was *absolutely
nothing* in there saying that.  He also didn't believe the state
legislatures used to choose the Senators.  He was adamant in his beliefs.  I
didn't know what I was talking about.  He told me to prove it.  I ended up
printing out the Constitution, highlighting the relevant portions and giving
it to him.  He apologized to me.  He and I arguing didn't bother me.  It was
the way someone who was completely ignorant of the real facts of the
situation could be so sure of himself and so set in his beliefs that
disturbed me.  My god, how many people out there argue from ignorance?  If I
don't know enough to make an informed statement, I either stay out of the
argument or learn enough about it to form an opinion.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17794
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:14:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0A4AB4.2FE31703@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> Mebbe so, but as an 11-year PBC voter (I moved to CT just in time to get
> registered here for this election), I can tell you I never saw a two-column
> ballot page. It may look perfectly obvious to you, but it really is *different*
> from what those folks are used to. Besides, using brightness as a criterion for
> the right to vote went out with Jim Crow... to be equitable, a ballot has to be
> clear even to voters who are a couple of steers short of a full herd.

I take it you reject Mr. Heinlein's suggestion about generating a random 
quadratic equation for each voter to solve?
.... 
> I know it seems that way from a distance, and after the fact. But my
> information (from both the media *and* from personal contacts through coworkers
> who still have family back there) is that numbers of voters complained about
> the ballot *immediately* after voting...

This part is strange.  One explanation would be that the officials at the 
polls were Republicans; another would be that they were not very well 
trained or experienced.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17795
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:19:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0A040F.7E9B7B40@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> If 2/3 of Nader voters had voted Gore
> instead (and that's about the percentage preference the exit polls were
> indicating), Gore's net gain would have been >10 times his current deficit.
> IOW, if Nader had released his voters, Florida would have been in the Gore
> column early on, and we wouldn't be in this silly mess.

Mess?!?  This is what makes life exciting.  We are living through 
history!
 
> Folks can give me all the abstract mathematical theories they want to
> "prove" that one vote doesn't matter, but it's abundantly clear to me that a
> *very small* number of voters have swung this election (I say it that way
> because I really don't believe the current Florida count will be reversed) to
> the candidate who *least* represents their views.

Well, I, for one, never said that a /very small/ number wouldn't swing it 
- only that one vote would not.  ;-)
 
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17796
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:22:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a0a4f05.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
>  He and I arguing didn't bother me.  It was
> the way someone who was completely ignorant of the real facts of the
> situation could be so sure of himself and so set in his beliefs that
> disturbed me.  My god, how many people out there argue from ignorance?

Well, I'd say every one who argues - at least until they find out that 
they are wrong.  It's the ones who /keep/ arguing after that, that you 
need to watch. ;-)


-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17797
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:31:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0A2C93.27E7AA22@rcsis.com>, James Gifford writes...
....
> As I understand it, there is also evidence that the poll station staff
> gave incorrect instructions to voters who were having trouble. There is
> also a strong Buchanan spike in that precinct. It all adds up to a
> mistake that would need addressing or correction. It would be of no
> consequence except that the overall Florida race is being decided by a
> thousand votes, and there is evidence that as many as 2500 votes may be
> at issue in the Palm Beach fiasco.
> 
> If the votes were the other way around, would you be so blithe to ignore
> these several compounded serious problems?

The interesting question is, what is the equitable remedy?  If the House 
throws out the vote and settles the issue itself, the election will go to 
Bush.  If it is left to court actions that ultimately proscribe new 
elections in those districts, we could easily be past the last day of 
Clinton's term of office without a President.

Back in 1960, even /Nixon/ had the statesman-like quality needed to 
settle the issue without provoking a crisis, and he had very good reason 
to think that he had been robbed.  We will see if Gore can manage to take 
after Nixon or Clinton in this matter.  Some choice, eh? 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17798
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:58:57 -0500
Subject: Re: "Lie to political polling organizations
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

As much as I'd like to take credit, the did it to themselves.  If we're
going to have ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, AP, UP, etc all calling the election,
we should at least have them doing independent research -- that way when one
of the networks screws up, the others won't.  (un)Fortunately, they all get
their data from a monopoly service, VNS, and when VNS gets it wrong
everybody gets it wrong.  No fail-safe system.

Having said that, I don't see how this mistake will help third parties rise
to power.  We need systemic errors instead of random errors.

Frank Fujita

"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c042b.2593081@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>   Well, Frank, it looked like your plan to confuse the polling
> organizations worked. Never have so many been soooooo wrong every step
> of the way.
>
>
> Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17799
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:05:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article=featbestman.html

Is an article about two alternative voting systems.

I'm not endorsing either of them, but thought it would be of interest to
sff.d.h-f readers.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17800
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 09:32:05 -0800
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> Back in 1960, even /Nixon/ had the statesman-like quality needed to
> settle the issue without provoking a crisis, and he had very good reason
> to think that he had been robbed.  We will see if Gore can manage to take
> after Nixon or Clinton in this matter.  Some choice, eh?

But Nixon still lost the popular vote, no?

So what's equitable and statesmanlike in this case? Gore took a clear
majority in the popular vote, which IMO gives him a mandate from the
populace no matter what the electoral vote situation is. Even WRT
electoral votes, Gore has a substantial margin over Bush (18, not
counting Oregon and Florida). If Gore takes Florida, he will have taken
a commanding 285 electoral votes, or a 15-vote margin (not counting
Oregon). If Bush gets the Sunshine State, he will have a bare margin of
1 electoral vote.

So...

Is Gore more "unstatesmanlike" by pushing the Florida mess to the limit
to get what he has otherwise won, and has been deprived of by a stupid
cock-up in PBC?

Or is Bush more "unstatesmanlike" by not conceding, when he lost the
popular vote and will take the Oval Office seat only by the barest of
margins, based in part on a flawed precinct that almost certainly would
have put Gore over the top?

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17801
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:04:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:14:29 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>I take it you reject Mr. Heinlein's suggestion about generating a random 
>quadratic equation for each voter to solve?

Not necessarily.  But I submit that all voters would have to pass that
test, not just those in Palm Beach.  And if the candidates had to
pass... 

>This part is strange.  One explanation would be that the officials at the 
>polls were Republicans; another would be that they were not very well 
>trained or experienced.

And/or not very bright themselves.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17802
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:11:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Vote Breakdown
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

But unlike the national system, each state's electoral votes are
based, in one way or another, on total vote count, not by county or
precinct.

Why should a rural citizen's vote count more than an urban citizen's?

For that matter, why should a Floridan's vote count more than a
Kansan's?

If the electoral college sticks around, and I suspect it will, I
predict vote swapping will be an important alternative in future
presidential elections.

"Nader-traders" started it, but it could have worked for Brown or
Buchanan just as well.


On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 02:20:19 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>
>  I took a look at how the vote broke down by county for
>Minnesota--because I'm familiar with the nature of the counties and
>because the state disappointed me once again with the electoral vote
>outcome. 
>
>  Virtually every county in the state went for Bush, except for urban
>Minneapolis, urban St. Paul, and Duluth which swung it to Gore. The
>suburbs of Minneapolis and St. Paul also went for Bush. 
>
>  The same applied to California. The vast majority of areas in
>California went to Bush with the places going for Gore being only Los
>Angeles County (on the map a tiny yet densely populated area) and the
>San Francisco bay area and the nearby strip of the coast. 
>
>  The national overview maps support the urban/non urban split in the
>country--the extremely urban northeast going to Gore along with the
>big industrial Great Lakes cities pulling Illinois and Michigan to
>Gore. 
>
>
>Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
>http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17803
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:43:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0ADF95.F4BEEAA4@rcsis.com>, James Gifford writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> > Back in 1960, even /Nixon/ had the statesman-like quality needed to
> > settle the issue without provoking a crisis, and he had very good reason
> > to think that he had been robbed.  We will see if Gore can manage to take
> > after Nixon or Clinton in this matter.  Some choice, eh?
> 
> But Nixon still lost the popular vote, no?

Yes, but that was because a lot of dead people managed to make it to the 
polls, especially in Chicago.  This is a voting irregularity as least as 
serious as what happened in Florida.

To be fair, I have heard it said that had Nixon challenged Illinois, the 
Dems would have challenged some states that went Republican.  But I 
suspect proving corruption in Chicago would have been relatively easy 
relative to elsewhere.  In any event, Nixon chose not to go done that 
path when he could have.

And, btw, I think we can be sure that both Gore and Bush benefited from 
some degree of vote fraud.  (It /can/ happen here.)  I have heard 
estimates that the Dems out did the Reps 2-to-1 on this, amounting to a 
million votes for Gore, but that comes from a "conservative" friend of 
mine, and I haven't had a chance to check on his sources.  
 
> So what's equitable and statesmanlike in this case? Gore took a clear
> majority in the popular vote, which IMO gives him a mandate from the
> populace no matter what the electoral vote situation is.

Yes, but the Constitution doesn't give the nod to popular mandate.  And 
if we are going to throw out what the Constitution says on this on 
grounds of equity, then I have a list here of a few other changes I would 
like to see made.  Where do I get in line?

> Even WRT
> electoral votes, Gore has a substantial margin over Bush (18, not
> counting Oregon and Florida). If Gore takes Florida, he will have taken
> a commanding 285 electoral votes, or a 15-vote margin (not counting
> Oregon). If Bush gets the Sunshine State, he will have a bare margin of
> 1 electoral vote.

Which is all it takes to win under the rules.  Even I, a guy harping on 
the lack of value of one vote, can see that.  ;-)
 
> So...
> 
> Is Gore more "unstatesmanlike" by pushing the Florida mess to the limit
> to get what he has otherwise won, and has been deprived of by a stupid
> cock-up in PBC?

Of course he should consider what alternatives are reasonably available 
to him.  My claim is that "pushing the mess to the /limit/" is, given the 
consequences, unstatesmanlike.  This is not an issue that a statesman 
pushes to the limit.  Much as I dislike Gore /and/ Bush, I am confident 
that the Republic will survive the tenure of either with most of our 
rights - such as they are - intact.  But pushing this issue /to the 
limit/ could provoke a serious crisis with many unknown consequences. 
 
> Or is Bush more "unstatesmanlike" by not conceding, when he lost the
> popular vote and will take the Oval Office seat only by the barest of
> margins, based in part on a flawed precinct that almost certainly would
> have put Gore over the top?

A win by the rules is a win.  So far, in his public statements at least, 
Gore has indicated his allegiance to the rules. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17804
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:53:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>The interesting question is, what is the equitable remedy?  If the House 
>throws out the vote and settles the issue itself, the election will go to 
>Bush. 

  Will it? Has anyone calculated out the probable result? As I
understand it it's quite a complicated scenario.

  Having just Florida revote doesn't seem quite proper. A whole new
national election would be my preference. There'd certainly be a huge
voter turnout. Any result possible. How long it would take to arrange
and make new ballots could be a problem. That and it's probably not
allowed for Constitutionally.

Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17805
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:53:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>So what's equitable and statesmanlike in this case? Gore took a clear
>majority in the popular vote, which IMO gives him a mandate from the
>populace no matter what the electoral vote situation is.

  Maybe. The news last night suggested that after the rest of the
absentee ballots (about a million) are counted Bush may have a lead in
the popular vote again. In either case the popular vote is extremely
close and neither guy ought to be too brazen about claiming any
mandates. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17806
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:53:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>IOW, if Nader had released his voters, Florida would have been in the Gore
>column early on, and we wouldn't be in this silly mess.

  But that wasn't Nader's choice. It was his voters'. I'd like to
think they would vote as they wanted to, not as they were told to. And
it does seem that at least half, maybe more, did in fact switch to
Gore at the last minute. He'd been expected to get 10% and got closer
to 2 or 3%. 

  Unlike the debate of Perot's effect in the Bush-the-1st election, at
least it does seem clear in this one that Nader did have a serious
impact on results. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17807
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:53:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Mess?!?  This is what makes life exciting.  We are living through 
>history!

  No kidding. This is terrific. I'm a firm believer that if we have to
endure politics it should be entertaining. 

  And now maybe sufficient attention drawn to its flaws to get rid of
the Electoral College. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17808
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:26:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a0ffee5.3232463@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...

>   No kidding. This is terrific. I'm a firm believer that if we have to
> endure politics it should be entertaining. 
> 
>   And now maybe sufficient attention drawn to its flaws to get rid of
> the Electoral College. 

What?!?  This venerable institution is one of the reasons that the 
process can /be/ exciting.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17809
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:23:26 +0900
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

>   And now maybe sufficient attention drawn to its flaws to get rid of
> the Electoral College.

As you yourself pointed out upstream, the popular vote is still close
enough that I doubt we'd have a clear winner at this point without the
EC.  I don't think any of the "reform" proposals being bandied about would
create a situation that easily settles this, either.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17810
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:23:32 +0900
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford wrote:

> So what's equitable and statesmanlike in this case? Gore took a clear
> majority in the popular vote, which IMO gives him a mandate from the
> populace no matter what the electoral vote situation is.

Gore did not take a clear majority in the popular vote.  It appears no one took
>50%.  Furthermore, I don't think that a margin on the order of 0.1%
constitutes any sort of mandate.

Equitable and statesmanlike would be for both sides to let the Florida recount
procede without comment, and then abide by the outcome according to the
Constitution.

Solomon might say we should give them each half the country to govern for four
years.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17811
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 21:40:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:19:00 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>Mess?!?  This is what makes life exciting.  We are living through 
>history!
> 
Indeed.  And I think I shall retract my call for the rescinding of the
Electoral College.  Instead I think it should be reformed, exactly how
I'm not yet sure.

I'd never thought about the city vs. rural (call it agricultural)
vote, but that is one disservice that a simple popular election would
bring about.

And it is nice to see "Tilden" in the paper so much these past few
days, even if it has nothing to do with me.  ;)

What irks me is that I had to go to websites to find out how my
candidate did.  Anyone that has a mathematical chance of being elected
should be reported on, at least in the vote tallies.  Sheesh.

Interestingly, most of Nader's votes for my state came from my county,
which also hosts the state capital.

JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17812
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:12:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>I'd never thought about the city vs. rural (call it agricultural)
>vote, but that is one disservice that a simple popular election would
>bring about.

  No, no. It's not city vs _rural_ that I'm trying to point out
downstream. It's urban vs non-urban. Pick a state you're familiar with
see how it breaks down; if it holds true. In California, Orange county
is just south of Los Angeles and is city from horizon to horizon. It
is _not_ rural, but it also not urban. It is suburbs. And it went
strongly for Bush. OTOH, the City of Los Angeles went 3 to 1 for Gore.
In Minnesota, Anoka Co., Scott Co., and Dakota Co, are all suburbs of
The Cities and all went Bush. 

  On the flip side Lac Qui Parle which is in the dead center of
nowhere went strongly for Gore so these are patterns and trends, not
absolutes.

  The urban pattern I'm seeing seems to be primarily in the core of
the most compact cities--the heart of yuppie-dom. Where people live
even a tiny bit spread out (though still city people) rather than
stacked vertically, the liberal/conservative pattern reverses. 

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17813
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:02:14 -0600
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a0ae6b6.17693746@news.sff.net...
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:14:29 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >I take it you reject Mr. Heinlein's suggestion about generating a random
> >quadratic equation for each voter to solve?
>
> Not necessarily.  But I submit that all voters would have to pass that
> test, not just those in Palm Beach.  And if the candidates had to
> pass...

This just made me think of something.  (I've been having serious political
discussions all day.  Time for something light.)  Does anyone remember that
old SNL skit with Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin.  Jane Curtin plays the
questioner, Chevy Chase the candidate.  She comes up with this wonderfully
logical discussion based on numbers.  After looking totally blank and
completely stumped for a moment, Chevy Chase said, "I understood there was
supposed to be no math involved in this."
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17814
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:22:37 -0600
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3a0bf630.1003203@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>   Having just Florida revote doesn't seem quite proper.

Deb,

I haven't heard anyone suggest that Florida revotes.  The most I've heard
suggested is a revote only in Palm Beach County and only those people who
voted on Tuesday could vote again.  I hope this is what will be done.  I'd
say that if impacted either Gore or Bush.  That the election of our next
President is hanging on a poorly designed ballot (because from looking at
the number I'm confident Gore would have taken Florida if the mistakes on
the ballot had not happened) not only bothers me, it bothers me to the
extent of delegitimizing the election.

Excuse me while I step up on a soap box.  I happen to think when it comes to
sliminess and what they will do there is not much difference between Gore
and Bush.  If Bush truly were the man of principle he portrays himself as
being he would be as concerned about what occurred in Palm Beach county as
Al Gore or as any of us.  He would put moral principles about a segment of
the population whose votes are not counted as they intended to vote above
whether or not he won this election.  His only concern is about winning.  It
doesn't matter if he gets it questionably, what matters to him is he gets
it.  I'm not saying I'm expecting him to act any different.  I don't.  I
just don't like the taste of hypocrisy.  You know, when the whole drunk
driving arrest came out, the fact he was arrested didn't bother me.  The
fact he covered it up and lied about (specifically Bush stated he had never
been arrested since 1968) didn't surprise me.  What gets to me is him
covering himself with the cloak of a moral man.  IMO, he's not.

Today on the tv there was a Republican who said everyone of those votes cast
for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach county were the deliberate choice and intent
of those voters.  What a load of cr*p!  This guy reminds me of my corporate
execs.  How this guy could go on national tv and say that with a straight
face is beyond me.  I had sudden flashbacks to those tobacco executives
testifying before Congress.  When they lie to us, do they think we're so
stupid we don't realize they're lying?  Or do they think if they say
outlandish stuff like that wearing a good enough suit and a proper
expression that we're suddenly going to overlook the evidence and believe
them.  With this one Republican, well, there's playing party politics and
then there's playing the game until you make yourself look like an idiot.
That's what he did.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17815
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:56:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0B15CE.A068223C@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
....
> the popular vote is still close
> enough that I doubt we'd have a clear winner at this point without the
> EC.  I don't think any of the "reform" proposals being bandied about would
> create a situation that easily settles this, either.

Precisely.  Based on the election map, the reform we need is to partition 
the states into two separate nations - or three, if the physical 
discontinuity of the two coasts is a problem.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17816
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:57:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0B15D4.6783E7@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
....
> Solomon might say we should give them each half the country to govern for four
> years.

Hey, I just suggested that in another post!!

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17817
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:01:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a0b18a6.70748681@news.sff.net>, JT writes...
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:19:00 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> >Mess?!?  This is what makes life exciting.  We are living through 
> >history!
> > 
> Indeed.  And I think I shall retract my call for the rescinding of the
> Electoral College.  Instead I think it should be reformed, exactly how
> I'm not yet sure.

Yes.  Without the Electoral College, travel during presidential campaigns 
would be limited to NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia.  The rest 
would be TV media blitz only.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17818
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:03:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a121bae.10602601@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
....
>   The urban pattern I'm seeing seems to be primarily in the core of
> the most compact cities--the heart of yuppie-dom. Where people live
> even a tiny bit spread out (though still city people) rather than
> stacked vertically, the liberal/conservative pattern reverses. 

As well it should.  People take on strange views when they're packed 
together like rats!  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17819
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:09:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:12:42 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>  No, no. It's not city vs _rural_ that I'm trying to point out
>downstream. It's urban vs non-urban. Pick a state you're familiar with
>see how it breaks down; if it holds true. In California, Orange county
>is just south of Los Angeles and is city from horizon to horizon. It
>is _not_ rural, but it also not urban. It is suburbs. And it went
>strongly for Bush. OTOH, the City of Los Angeles went 3 to 1 for Gore.
>In Minnesota, Anoka Co., Scott Co., and Dakota Co, are all suburbs of
>The Cities and all went Bush. 

But I still don't see what difference it makes, Deb.  If you look at
black vs. white, it splits. Or any minority for that matter, altho not
as sharply.  Same for female vs. male.  And protestant vs. almost any
other religion.  And of course, wealthy vs. poor, union vs. non-union,
etc, etc.

If you're just making an observation, it's an interesting one.  And
I'm sure there are some important implications for national politics.
But if you are suggesting the electoral college be realigned to
protect the interests of one group over the other, then why not any of
the other catagories?


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17820
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:28:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a0b3e45.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
> I haven't heard anyone suggest that Florida revotes.  The most I've heard
> suggested is a revote only in Palm Beach County and only those people who
> voted on Tuesday could vote again.  I hope this is what will be done.

Unfortunately, Humpty-Dumpty can't be put back together again.  In a 
second election, those voters would know that they were determining the 
outcome (assuming the other close states are not reversed, of course.)

> That the election of our next
> President is hanging on a poorly designed ballot (because from looking at

Apparently much the same style ballot used in the Illinois precinct that 
Daly votes in.

....
> Excuse me while I step up on a soap box.

Fine.  My turn next.

>  I happen to think when it comes to
> sliminess and what they will do there is not much difference between Gore
> and Bush.  If Bush truly were the man of principle he portrays himself as
> being he would be as concerned about what occurred in Palm Beach county as
> Al Gore or as any of us.  He would put moral principles about a segment of
> the population whose votes are not counted as they intended to vote above
> whether or not he won this election.

NPR reported that in 1996 (with lower turnout) almost as many ballots 
were invalidated.  I didn't a peep over those people being 
"disenfranchised".  If it is a matter of principle, then it ought to be 
just as serious when the election isn't close.  That is, if, as I have 
heard repeatedly for 48 hours, it is /so/ important that everyone votes.

Let's face it.  Any time millions of people vote, there will be mistakes, 
irregularities, and fraud.  When you have 90 million people vote and the 
margin of victory is less than one million, I suspect that you could 
always find some reason to overturn the outcome. 

>  His only concern is about winning.

That is /any/ politician's concern.  So what we have are a set of rules 
that specify how it can be done.  So far, barring action by courts or 
Congress, Bush has followed those rules. 

....
> Today on the tv there was a Republican who said everyone of those votes cast
> for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach county were the deliberate choice and intent
> of those voters.  What a load of cr*p!

I don't have the matching quote from Jesse Jackson, but I'll find it 
anyone insists.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17821
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:38:33 +0900
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <3A0B15D4.6783E7@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> ...
> > Solomon might say we should give them each half the country to govern for four
> > years.
>
> Hey, I just suggested that in another post!!

And you didn't provide a reference to my earlier work.  What kind of academic are
you, anyway? <G>


--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17822
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:46:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> Unfortunately, Humpty-Dumpty can't be put back together again.  In a
> second election, those voters would know that they were determining the
> outcome

I had this same conversation with a coworker today, and I fail to see how the
voters having *more information* could possibly harm the integrity of electoral
process. All they know now that they didn't know Tuesday is how important each
vote is... and IMHO, they should have been behaving according to that belief to
begin with. The knowledge is not likely to change anybody's vote (maybe Nader
voters, but I'll get to that in a minute); the only likely behavior change would
be increased turnout, and since when is *that* considered a defect in an
election? *Both* sides would be equally incentivized to get out their vote, so
there's no real competitive disadvantage to either. Besides, if the revote were
limited to those who had actually cast ballots on Tuesday (I *think* that would
be feasible, since the presumably still have the check-in lists from those
precincts), even the turnout issue becomes moot. This is not like a football
game, where one team might claim a do-over is unfair because "now you've already
seen all my trick plays"; I can't see how the extra information causes any
inequity.

As for Nader voters (~90,000 statewide, but I have no idea how many in PBC), it's
possible that some of them, knowing how close the election is, *might* change
their votes to Gore... but then again, some of them might actually change their
votes to Bush: I heard some quotes from Greens during the election coverage
suggesting that they would consider a Bush win a victory for the party, since the
(in their view) environmental disaster a Bush administration would surely bring
would tend to drive folks into the Green ranks. I've heard Green critics accuse
them of having a "destroy the village to save the village" mentality about this
election. In any case, though, Nader voters in a PBC revote would have no more
"unfair" insight than their fellows on the West Coast had Tuesday night... again,
where's the harm?

Finally, if a significant fraction of both the 3,400 Buchanan votes and the
19,000 invalid ballots were recast for Gore, it wouldn't much matter *what* the
Nader voters decided to do. In any plausible scenario, Nader vote changes
wouldn't affect the outcome in the face of a net positive shift of 10,000 or more
votes to Gore. (OTOH, of course, if Nader voters statewide had voted for Gore to
begin with, we wouldn't even be having this exchange.)

> > That the election of our next
> > President is hanging on a poorly designed ballot (because from looking at
>
> Apparently much the same style ballot used in the Illinois precinct that
> Daly votes in.

Mebbe so, but NOT the sort of ballot PBC voters are used to (and I say that
having voted in that county in every election for the last 11 years up 'til this
one).

> NPR reported that in 1996 (with lower turnout) almost as many ballots
> were invalidated.  I didn't a peep over those people being
> "disenfranchised".

I can't speak to what the numbers were in 1996, but I can tell you that there was
no two-column ballot there/then. I won't attempt to explain the fact (if it is a
fact) that the number of invalidated ballots was similar in 1996 to this year --
that was then and this is now, and I have no way of knowing what other factors
may have been different. Instead I'll note that this time no other Florida county
had a similar rate of invalid double-punched ballots (that I've heard of,
anyway); the rate of errors made by those *same* PBC voters on other pages of the
ballot was many times lower; and complaints about the layout of the ballot began
immediately, before the results or the criticality of the votes in question could
have been known (remember that Florida was in one of the earliest waves of poll
closings, and while everyone was predicting a close election, nobody imagined it
would be *this* close), meaning that folks were saying they were confused
*before* they had any reason to make it up. All of this stands, IMHO, as
objective evidence that there really was a specific defect in the usability of
that specific page of the PBC ballot.

As to why you didn't hear "a peep" over last time's invalid ballots, I suspect
it's because the election wasn't close (at least, not compared to this one), and
therefore there was no incentive for 100 zillion news organizations to ferret out
and publish the minutiae of the process (as an aside, if anything good comes out
of this debacle, it'll be that we're all learning a good deal about the mechanics
of elections). I'm sure those voters whose ballots were thrown out in 1996 would
have been just as outraged as today's if they'd known about the situation... but
they probably didn't.

> Let's face it.  Any time millions of people vote, there will be mistakes,
> irregularities, and fraud.

More of the first two than the last, I think. Even in the current mess, I have
heard very few accusations of deliberate fraud (although some have erroneously
used that word WRT the defective PBC ballot). This is, as Margaret described it,
a "cock-up" rather than an attempt by anyone to steal the election. But even
innocent mistakes should be fixed, if we can figure out a reasonable way to do
so. Frankly, gaining the White House through a process widely perceived as
defective (even unintentionally so) won't do Bush much more good than losing.

The truth is, whichever of these guys gets in will be seriously damaged by this
ugliness, and will (IMHO) be easy picking for the other party in 2004, barring
some *spectacular* successes (unlikely with such a closely divided Congress) in
the meantime. It might be that the "loser" over the next couple of weeks will end
up the winner in the long term (i.e., by serving two terms from 2004 though 2012
instead of one lackluster term from 2000 through 2004)... as long as said loser
can avoid looking too much like a *sore* loser.

> So far, barring action by courts or
> Congress, Bush has followed those rules.

So has Gore. Even the election officials in Florida appear to have "followed the
rules." But following the rules is no guarantee against errors or breakdowns in
the system.

> > Today on the tv there was a Republican who said everyone of those votes cast
> > for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach county were the deliberate choice and intent
> > of those voters.  What a load of cr*p!
>
> I don't have the matching quote from Jesse Jackson, but I'll find it
> anyone insists.

Well, of course, any assertion that *all* the Buchanan votes should have been
Gore's is just as extreme as its opposite. But it's clear that there *were* at
least some unintentional votes: Not only do we have the testimony of voters
themselves on the point, but even Buchanan admits that some of the votes he
received must have been meant for others. CNN had a graph of the Buchanan vote
across Florida by county on its web site, and the PBC bar was *huge* by
comparison to any other county (including the other 4 similarly populous
counties). To believe this represents a true, intentional vote, you have to
conclude that PBC is one of the (if not the) most far-right-wing counties in the
state... and such a conclusion would be at odds with all analysis (not to mention
my personal experience as a long-time resident there). I would never assert that
*all* of those votes were intended for Gore, but it's very reasonable to believe
that a large number of them were. A revote -- on a single-column ballot -- would
be an easy way to find out for sure.

All that said, what I think will really happen is that at the end of the recount
and when all the absentee ballots are in, Bush will be ahead by a small margin --
almost certainly smaller than the number of disputed votes and maybe as small as
500 or less; that Gore's campaign will either choose not to make any legal
challenges (though they may have no way of preventing individual voters from
going ahead with *their* challenges) or will fail to win any relief if they do
challenge; and that we're in for 4 years of crippled government. To those of us
who disagree with Bush's policies, and to those of you who disagree with pretty
much everything government does, that prospect might *seem* like good news... but
I never root for crippled government, even when I disagree with the party in
power. I tend to think that this election and the administration that will follow
it  (either way) represent a disaster for a country that aspires to be a beacon
to the world for democratic institutions... a wound that will take many election
cycles to heal.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17823
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:51:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> > ...my
> > information (from both the media *and* from personal contacts through coworkers
> > who still have family back there) is that numbers of voters complained about
> > the ballot *immediately* after voting...
>
> This part is strange.  One explanation would be that the officials at the
> polls were Republicans; another would be that they were not very well
> trained or experienced.

I gather the latter is the case. The person who designed the (IMHO) defective ballot
is actually a Democrat, and I'm sure there's no overwhelming political majority
among pollworkers one way or the other. I am NOT saying this was Republican
malfeasance; it was just a screw-up. I'm sure there are similar screw-ups in every
election, just as a matter of course... but it's rare that the margin of victory is
so much less than the margin of error, especially in a presidential election.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17824
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:56:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> Mess?!?  This is what makes life exciting.  We are living through
> history!

What makes you think the terms "mess," "exciting," and "history" are in any way
mutually exclusive?

> Well, I, for one, never said that a /very small/ number wouldn't swing it
> - only that one vote would not.  ;-)

Just wait... the recount isn't complete yet! <g>

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17825
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:08:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> But that wasn't Nader's choice. It was his voters'. I'd like to
> think they would vote as they wanted to, not as they were told to.

You'd like to think that, and maybe so would I. But in fact I suspect that,
having committed their support to a candidate, most voters (particularly
minor-party voters, who are usually there in the first place because of a
passionate belief in an ideal) would be reluctant to "turn" unless given
"permission" by the candidate.

> And
> it does seem that at least half, maybe more, did in fact switch to
> Gore at the last minute. He'd been expected to get 10% and got closer
> to 2 or 3%.

The analysis I heard was that there was some "peeling," particularly on the
West Coast, but not nearly that much. I didn't hear any pre-election polls
that predicted much more than 5% nationwide (the big question was whether the
Greens would qualify for matching funds in the next race), and I think he
ended up with ~3%.

> Unlike the debate of Perot's effect in the Bush-the-1st election, at
> least it does seem clear in this one that Nader did have a serious
> impact on results.

True.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17826
From: fader555@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:37:00 -0500
Subject: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I think that I may have a solution or at least the beginnings of one.

Electronic voting might be the answer to the recent election
unpleasantness. This would be possible given the computing &
networking power available to us today, I think.

It could be done over the phone  & online keyed to SS #s, which should
prevent fraud  invalid votes(too young,criminal record,etc.) Toll free
#s could be set up so there shouldn't be complaints about not having
access to a computer. Tallies would be automatic as the votes were
made. Simple menus, & confirmations, each step should make it possible
to use the phone keypad. Any thoughts??

Fader 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17827
From: Madge Van Ness <madgevn@angelfire.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 06:39:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Congratulations!

MadgEdith

ddavitt wrote:

> I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
> are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
> conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
> We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
> the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
> Jane


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17828
From: SynABit@kc.rr.com (Dennis Doms)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:50:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

[Taking a hesitant step into the fray...]

In article <MPG.1475192a13f15266989705@news.sff.net>, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>In article <3a0b3e45.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
>...
>> I haven't heard anyone suggest that Florida revotes.  The most I've heard
>> suggested is a revote only in Palm Beach County and only those people who
>> voted on Tuesday could vote again.  I hope this is what will be done.
>
>Unfortunately, Humpty-Dumpty can't be put back together again.  In a 
>second election, those voters would know that they were determining the 
>outcome (assuming the other close states are not reversed, of course.)

Re-opening the polls or changing results outside of any presently documented
remedies (that is, those in the law) may also open a flood of other lawsuits.
There are also other issues of  "unfairness"; for example, poll times were
extended in some areas with an apparent attempt to favor a candidate. (We're
looking at a possible challenge of that nature in the State of Missouri
regarding modification of some St. Louis poll times.)

This is a question of the law; the rules that were in place _before_ the
process initiated. The politically motivated are (typically) trying to make up
new rules after (well, maybe also during) the fact. Fair contests don't work
that way. (Judges may decide to interpret the law, but suggesting that the
process be changed for _this_ election is inappropriate.)

>> That the election of our next
>> President is hanging on a poorly designed ballot (because from looking at
>
>Apparently much the same style ballot used in the Illinois precinct that 
>Daly votes in.

Similar things have happened in previous elections involving punchcards, at
least locally in the metro Kansas City, Mo., area (and I saw some other
examples on TV last night). From what I saw, unless you're too obtuse to
understand what an arrow means (inexcusable to claim, in my opinion) or
careless enough to not seat the punchcard in the folder (more understandable,
and not unusual, but then _several_ votes should be off by a similar margin,
and that should show up in a statistical analysis of the votes ala the claimed
Buchanan anomoly) there shouldn't have been a problem. Neither of those smacks
of an intent to defraud people of their vote, and it is unfair to modify the
count on that basis unless there is an explicit provision in the law to allow
it.

[There was also a comment repeated on CNN this morning that Buchanan took a
high number of  votes in the same area during a previous election that then
questioned the assumption that this year was anomolous. But, of course, it was
a Republican source, so it should fall on the same bonfire.]

>...
>> Excuse me while I step up on a soap box.
>
>Fine.  My turn next.
>
>>  I happen to think when it comes to
>> sliminess and what they will do there is not much difference between Gore
>> and Bush.  If Bush truly were the man of principle he portrays himself as
>> being he would be as concerned about what occurred in Palm Beach county as
>> Al Gore or as any of us.  He would put moral principles about a segment of
>> the population whose votes are not counted as they intended to vote above
>> whether or not he won this election.

Each side is selectively screaming about the irregularities that (they
apparently believe) affect the results in their disfavor. There is no "high
road" here.

>NPR reported that in 1996 (with lower turnout) almost as many ballots 
>were invalidated.  I didn't a peep over those people being 
>"disenfranchised".  If it is a matter of principle, then it ought to be 
>just as serious when the election isn't close.  That is, if, as I have 
>heard repeatedly for 48 hours, it is /so/ important that everyone votes.
>
>Let's face it.  Any time millions of people vote, there will be mistakes, 
>irregularities, and fraud.  When you have 90 million people vote and the 
>margin of victory is less than one million, I suspect that you could 
>always find some reason to overturn the outcome. 

And I think that will be the issue if there is an actual re-vote. It won't be
perfect, either. Which is why I think it should be avoided unless definitive
fraud is uncovered. (And then you've got to allow re-votes in _every_ area
where there are questions; why restrict it to a county in Florida?)

>>  His only concern is about winning.
>
>That is /any/ politician's concern.  So what we have are a set of rules 
>that specify how it can be done.  So far, barring action by courts or 
>Congress, Bush has followed those rules. 
>
>...
>> Today on the tv there was a Republican who said everyone of those votes cast
>> for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach county were the deliberate choice and intent
>> of those voters.  What a load of cr*p!
>
>I don't have the matching quote from Jesse Jackson, but I'll find it 
>anyone insists.

In my opinion, both sides (all sides?) distort the truth to neet their needs.
Which is precisely why the existing law should be exhausted first.

Buchanan's comments last night (that he accepted voter's claims that they may
have inadvertantly voted for him, but that in itself wasn't a reason for a
re-vote in the absense of proof of an organized attempt to defraud voters)
seemed sage and sane to me, which I find particularly frightening. :)

>-- 
>Gordon Sollars
>gsollars@pobox.com

While I'm being vocal, an aside on the Electoral College: I like the idea of
having the vote "weighted" by the number of states (or other population
segment) won, so that a victory in a specific subset of states does not
automatically guarantee a win. It (hopefully) forces politicians to cater a
wider plate of issues (for example, how well would rural issues fare if
winning the urban vote unconditionally guaranteed victory?). However, I would
prefer to see the mechanism of the EC itself removed and just allocate those
votes based on the popular vote in each region. To my knowledge, the "bodies"
comprising the EC are not universally _required_ to vote reflective of the
popular vote in their area, and I do think that is wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17829
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:10:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0B7BC9.1E11050C@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> 
> > In article <3A0B15D4.6783E7@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> > ...
> > > Solomon might say we should give them each half the country to govern for four
> > > years.
> >
> > Hey, I just suggested that in another post!!
> 
> And you didn't provide a reference to my earlier work.  What kind of academic are
> you, anyway? <G>

A sloppy one.  It wasn't that I knew of your work and failed to cite it; 
rather I didn't do a literature search before I posted! ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17830
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:41:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0BC40A.71901646@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> I fail to see how the
> voters having *more information* could possibly harm the integrity of electoral
> process. All they know now that they didn't know Tuesday is how important each
> vote is... and IMHO, they should have been behaving according to that belief to
> begin with.

But perhaps they did not, and there is no way of knowing.

> The knowledge is not likely to change anybody's vote (maybe Nader
> voters, but I'll get to that in a minute);

Some who just barely voted for Bush might prefer to have voted for a 
"winner"; some who just barely voted for Gore might be disenchanted with 
his "don't get snippy" comment; those who actually did mean to vote for 
Buchanan would have a clear reason to switch; and your own argument is 
that we don't /know/ what effect this will have on the Nader vote, not 
that it will not change.

What is all of this, if not good reason to think that knowledge will 
change votes? 
....
> > Apparently much the same style ballot used in the Illinois precinct that
> > Daly votes in.
> 
> Mebbe so, but NOT the sort of ballot PBC voters are used to (and I say that
> having voted in that county in every election for the last 11 years up 'til this
> one).

It appears that the ballot did not conform to state law, although it was 
approved by all sides.  It would be good to know the legal precedents 
regarding nonconforming ballots.
 
> > NPR reported that in 1996 (with lower turnout) almost as many ballots
> > were invalidated.  I didn't a peep over those people being
> > "disenfranchised".
> 
> I can't speak to what the numbers were in 1996, but I can tell you that there was
> no two-column ballot there/then. I won't attempt to explain the fact (if it is a
> fact) that the number of invalidated ballots was similar in 1996 to this year --

It was reported again this morning by an election official (I think) from 
PBC itself: there were 15,000 invalid ballots cast in PBC in 1996.

> that was then and this is now, and I have no way of knowing what other factors
> may have been different. Instead I'll note that this time no other Florida county
> had a similar rate of invalid double-punched ballots (that I've heard of,

Apparently the folks in PBC are "special".

....
> As to why you didn't hear "a peep" over last time's invalid ballots, I suspect
> it's because the election wasn't close (at least, not compared to this one), and
> therefore there was no incentive for 100 zillion news organizations to ferret out
> and publish the minutiae of the process (as an aside, if anything good comes out
> of this debacle, it'll be that we're all learning a good deal about the mechanics
> of elections). I'm sure those voters whose ballots were thrown out in 1996 would
> have been just as outraged as today's if they'd known about the situation... but
> they probably didn't.

Precisely.  And now here is my point: if we started looking for voting 
irregularities (/and/ fraud, despite your wish to discount this), we 
would find it in hundreds of counties across the nation, in amounts that 
could easily change the outcome of any close election.

Here is the plain truth: people want very much to believe that this sort 
of thing is an error-free process, but it is not and never will be.
 
> This is, as Margaret described it,
> a "cock-up" rather than an attempt by anyone to steal the election. But even
> innocent mistakes should be fixed, if we can figure out a reasonable way to do
> so.

My point is that there is no "reasonable" way.  Open a can of worms in 
PBC, and we will be re-doing elections in counties across the nation.  Or 
should we only recount in Florida?

> Frankly, gaining the White House through a process widely perceived as
> defective (even unintentionally so) won't do Bush much more good than losing.

The republic has survived as much before.
 
....
> So has Gore. Even the election officials in Florida appear to have "followed the
> rules." But following the rules is no guarantee against errors or breakdowns in
> the system.

Right.  But trying to fix the errors and breakdowns on the fly will be a 
recipe for chaos.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17831
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:29:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Baby news
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jane:   Congratulations to mom and baby!
   I think you'll find that Eleanor will enjoy being a big sister
for years to come.  I was big brother for a sister one year younger,
another 8 years younger and another 16 years younger.  The youngest
at age 4 & 5 used to enjoy staying up with big bother while I read
to her from my Science Fiction collection.  (she did seem more
interested in the cover art, IIRC, than the stories. <g>)

Ed J


On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 14:05:53 -0500, ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
wrote:

>I just wanted to let you all know that I had my baby on Saturday. We
>are calling her Lauren Alicia and she arrived at 5.08 pm ( very
>conveniently timed!) and weighed 6 lb 12 oz.
>We're both well and Eleanor is enjoying being a big sister ( I hope
>the novelty doesn't wear off....)
>
>Jane
>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17832
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 12:28:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a0be486.2740562@news.sff.net>, Dennis Doms writes...

[Many sage observations cut.]

> However, I would
> prefer to see the mechanism of the EC itself removed and just allocate those
> votes based on the popular vote in each region. To my knowledge, the "bodies"
> comprising the EC are not universally _required_ to vote reflective of the
> popular vote in their area, and I do think that is wrong.

Apparently about one half of the states do require this.  OTOH, allowing 
the electors to vote their conscience opens the possibility that they 
could decide to elect the winner of the nationwide popular vote, in order 
to "legitimize" the process.

This would be fascinating, since I think most of the die-hard believers 
in the Will of the People hereabouts have expressed reservations about 
the Electoral College.

Of course, with almost a million absentee ballots to count nation wide, 
and a popular vote margin of only 200,000 votes, perhaps we don't know 
the "Will of the People" yet, either.  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17833
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:15:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Of course, with almost a million absentee ballots to count nation wide, 
>and a popular vote margin of only 200,000 votes, perhaps we don't know 
>the "Will of the People" yet, either.  

  CNN.com doesn't seem to be updating the national popular vote total.
I don't know if they're not getting corrected totals are just don't
think it's worth bothering about. Last I heard there were 2.5 million
absentee votes yet to tally. One might surmise that a goodly portion
of these are also military personel overseas. The popular vote could,
indeed, change directions again. Four other states are also recounting
because they came out so close.

  Geo had an interesting solution, but it involves a gentlemen's
agreement that I doubt any of them are gentlemen enough to adhere
to...
  Bush takes the presidency with Cheney as vice president. After two
years Cheney resigns. Bush then selects Gore as vice president and
after he's confirmed, Bush resigns. Then Gore is president for the
remaining two years and can have Lieberman as vice president. 

 
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17834
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:34:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:09:19 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:

>If you're just making an observation, it's an interesting one.  And
>I'm sure there are some important implications for national politics.
>But if you are suggesting the electoral college be realigned to
>protect the interests of one group over the other, then why not any of
>the other catagories?
>
Hmmm...why not? Leave it up to the state to figure out how to assign
their votes, I guess.  Just make sure the ballot is clear. ;)

So if I want to reform the process but want to leave the EC in place,
I should really be looking to pass something at the state level, then.
A point to ponder?

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17835
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:34:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:37:00 -0500, fader555@aol.com wrote:

>It could be done over the phone  & online keyed to SS #s, 

Nope.  There wouldn't be a clear enough record of who it was that
voted (as a receipt, not as a record of the actual tally, of course).
Until you have a digital signature that's universally accepted (at
least in the way that a credit card is able to be read in most places
these days) and has a PIN or biometric component
(retina/fingerprint-type stuff), then you're not going to have
electronic anything with the government.

That's still a few years away.  I do know that things are close to
being piloted with SSA, but nowhere near any sort of real use.

JT



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17836
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:39:04 +0900
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <3a0be486.2740562@news.sff.net>, Dennis Doms writes...
>
> [Many sage observations cut.]
>
> > However, I would
> > prefer to see the mechanism of the EC itself removed and just allocate those
> > votes based on the popular vote in each region. To my knowledge, the "bodies"
> > comprising the EC are not universally _required_ to vote reflective of the
> > popular vote in their area, and I do think that is wrong.
>
> Apparently about one half of the states do require this.  OTOH, allowing
> the electors to vote their conscience opens the possibility that they
> could decide to elect the winner of the nationwide popular vote, in order
> to "legitimize" the process.

Those states have penalties for unfaithful voters, which is not quite the same
thing as a "requirement".  IIRC, the Supreme Court has ruled that an electoral
vote, once cast cannot be changed, even if it was against instructions.  The
consititutionality of the penalties has not been challenged, because no one has
been penalized as yet.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17837
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:14:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Frank:    Thanks for that URL!  A truly fascinating article. 
(where's bytor with a mathematical analysis of the two methods
covered?)

Ed

On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:05:56 -0500, "Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
wrote:

>http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article=featbestman.html
>
>Is an article about two alternative voting systems.
>
>I'm not endorsing either of them, but thought it would be of interest to
>sff.d.h-f readers.
>
>Frank Fujita
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17838
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:57:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Electronic voting might be the answer to the recent election

  BC--how does your voting system fit into this scenario?


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17839
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:15:24 GMT
Subject: L. Sprague de Camp
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


  This is from an SFWA email newsletter:

> > L. Sprague de Camp:  1907-2000
>
> One of the last links to the Golden Age of science fiction, SFWA Grand
> Master L. Sprague de Camp died in his home town of Plano, Texas on
> November 6, less than a month shy of his 93rd birthday.

> His wife, Catherine Crook de Camp, was a frequent co-author of his, as
> far back as _Science Fiction Handbook_.  She died earlier April 9 of
> this year, after 60 years of marriage.  L. Sprague de Camp will be
> cremated and interred beside his wife at Arlington National Cemetery

http://www.lspraguedecamp.com/ 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17840
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:15:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>Today on the tv there was a Republican who said everyone of those votes cast
>for Pat Buchanan in Palm Beach county were the deliberate choice and intent
>of those voters.  What a load of cr*p!  

  OTOH, did you see the Democratic party shill who filed one of the
lawsuits? If that guy was as genuinely stupid as he's claiming to be
he wouldn't be able to figure out how to start his Mercedes, much less
feed and dress himself. He said that the ballot is shown on tv up and
down and he certainly can distinguish which hole is higher, but--oh,
the horror!--he was "confronted" with a ballet laid horizontally and
no one can possibly distinguish which dot is closer or farther away. 

  At a minimum his driver's license should be revoked for, by his own
statement, he has absolutely no depth preception. And, apparently,
when he voted he squatted down so he was on a level with the ballot,
rather than looking down at it. 

  Whatever legitimate case can be made regarding these ballots is
being demolished by the Democratic manipulators with this sort of
moronic claim. The only claims that have any merit are those made
before the polls closed.

  Also, the vote swappers need to be tracked down and have their
ballots disqualified. Selling your vote is illegal, whether you're
selling it for cash or some other valuable commodity.

  
  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17841
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:30:44 GMT
Subject: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


  Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
country look like? 

  In CA, at least near Sacramento, don't know if they're the same
throughout the state but probably are, we vote by numbers on a punch
card. You don't punch a hole near anything at all. You have a numbered
grid and a little stylus and punch out numbers 6, 17, 109, ... etc.
There is nothing at all printed near the actual ballot and no
indication on the ballot card itself what any given hole means or to
which election (pres., senate, initiative) it belongs. You get a
booklet in the mail a month or so earlier that tell you what each
number means. You're supposed to fill it out ahead of time (but they
have spare booklets there) and then you copy over your choices to the
number grid. Geo said he rechecked his hole punches by comparing them
number by number. I checked mine (4 times) by laying it over the paper
grid in which I had previously filled in the numbers with a pen to
make sure all the holes lined up. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17842
From: Madge Van Ness <madgevn@angelfire.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:57:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The other interesting possibility if some of the states change who they went
for in the recount, is that they could end up with a tie, both with 269. Can
the electors revote? Or does it then go to the House/Senate, with the current
Republican majority?

MadgEdith

Dean White wrote:

> The news as of Wednesday afternoon shows that Florida will decide the
> election and if Bush wins then it will be a Gore popular win with a Bush
> electoral win.  It looks like the low simmer over the electoral collage
> system is going to heat way up.  And really, neither side has really won a
> victory, this has been the closest I've seen to both the congress and the
> presidency coming up a tie.
>
> --
>           Dean White
> www.DeanWhite.net


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17843
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 01:25:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:30:44 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:
>
>  Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
>country look like? 

Ours is a "fill in the arrow" system.  Each candidate or ballot
question has an arrow with the middle part blank.  You want the
candidate or "Yes" or "No" on the ballot, you fill in the arrow by
your choice.

The completed ballot is fed into a locked bin, which scans the ballot
to see which choices have been picked.  The ballot also has a serial
number on it, which I *think* ties back into a card that you sign
initially before you get the ballot. 

(Aside:  I've never quite understood how they just couldn't track your
vote that way, but I assume it must be blinded somehow--or the machine
doesn't track the serial number of the ballot when it records it, I
guess.)

I actually prefer the old-style lever machines, but I know that's
gotta be a lot more work, and a lot more cumbersome.

I saw a thing on CNN today about computerized voting systems, and they
mentioned a company from Indianapolis--but I didn't think those were
the folks that bought BC's idea.

It's been, what, six (!!) years since we saw that working model in OR,
BC.  Can you give us any update on what they've done with your
technology?  Not only is it interesting generally, but also
specifically. <G>

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17844
From: robertaw@halcyon.com (Robert A. Woodward)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:29:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a108219.2945522@NEWS.SFF.NET>, debrule@jps.net wrote:

>   Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
> country look like? 
> 

Last two elections, my part of the state of Washington had a ballot with
circles we fill in with an ink pen. The ballot is fed into the machine
(which rejects ones that are invalid - people can get a new one to fill in
correctly - I saw it happen).

Essentially:

Office A

Candidate 1  O
Candidate 2  O

etc.

Before that, we had punch cards much like the ones in Dade County, Florida
(but I don't think we used a butterfly arrangement).

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17845
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:44:03 +0900
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ours (Massachusetts) is fill in the arrow, just like JT described.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17846
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:42:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <MPG.14527d02563515ba9896da@news.sff.net>, Gordon G. Sollars 
writes...
> In article <39e7cc9c.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
> ...
> >   I actually have a dilemma over this election.  Florida and its electoral 
> > votes are *not* sewn up.  It's close here.  My intention was and my preference 
> > is to vote for Nader.  But can I really throw my vote away?
>   
> I predict (and am willing to bet money) that no matter how close you 
> perceive the race in Florida to be, it will /not/ be decided by one vote.  
> Take a look at the binomial distribution sometime if you have any doubts.

I recently /did/ take a look at the binomial distribution, and the 
results surprised me.  Now, I never thought that the binomial 
distribution was anywhere near the best way to model election results, 
but I did suggest it.  So let's have a go.

Let's take the nation as a whole, and ignore the effect of the Electoral 
College (already we know that /this/ can lead to trouble, but we have to 
start somewhere).  Assume that there are exactly 100,000,000 voters 
beside yourself, and that they are choosing between only two candidates 
(again, not completely realistic).  Assume also that the odds of a voter 
voting Democrat or Republican are 50/50 - this is the worst aspect of 
using the binomial theorem, but it turns out that this actually is the 
condition that makes the answer much better for the "my vote counts" 
partisans than I suspected.

On these assumptions, the probability of a 50/50 split in the total, so 
that /your/ vote would decide the election, is given by the binomial 
probability function using the above numbers, which is:

Combinations(100000000,50000000)*(.5**50000000)*(.5**50000000),

where "**" denotes exponentiation and "*" multiplication.

Now Combinations(n,k) = n!/(k!*(n-k)!), so we have

100000000!/(50000000!*50000000!)*(.5**100000000).

Well, those of you with more resources than I are free to calculate 
100000000! and 50000000!, but I will settle for an estimate using 
Stirling's Formula: n! ~= sqrt(2Pi*n)*(n/e)**n, where "Pi" is, well, Pi, 
and "e" is the base of the natural logarithms.  ;-)

Some simplification yields

1/sqrt(2Pi)*sqrt(100000000)/50000000

(now you see why it is handy to assume 100,000,000 voters  ;-) )

or about one chance in 12,500 that your vote will determine the outcome.  
Although a very poor bet, this is actually /much/ better odds than I 
expected, and why, given my "honesty in posting" policy, I have returned 
to this thread.

As for Florida, if we change the number of voters to 6,000,000 and keep 
the other assumptions, we get an estimate of

1/sqrt(2Pi)*sqrt(6000000)/3000000

or about one chance in 3000.  I suspect that for many of you "my vote 
counts" die hards, this would be enough reason to vote right there.  
Although, remember that Loonies need one chance in ten (at least to start 
a revolution).  ;-)

However, even though I was the one who urged looking at the binomial 
distribution, the fact is that the assumption that each voter has an 
equal chance of voting Rep or Dem is clearly not right.  And this makes 
the odds /much/ worse, as calculations using say 48% versus 52% chance of 
voting Rep or Dem will show.  I won't post all the calculations here, but 
you can easily see that the chance of an exact tie (so that your vote 
gets to break it) goes down as the bias towards one party or the other 
increases.
 
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17847
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:18:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> > The knowledge is not likely to change anybody's vote (maybe Nader
> > voters, but I'll get to that in a minute);
>
> Some who just barely voted for Bush might prefer to have voted for a
> "winner"; some who just barely voted for Gore might be disenchanted with
> his "don't get snippy" comment; those who actually did mean to vote for
> Buchanan would have a clear reason to switch

There might be a few who would behave in these ways, but I believe (and admittedly
this is a gut feeling unsupported by evidence) they would be a statistically
insignificant number, in terms of net effect on the outcome.

> and your own argument is
> that we don't /know/ what effect this will have on the Nader vote, not
> that it will not change.

Actually, my argument was that if the Gore/Buchanan/Double-Punch factor is what it's
suggested to be, it wouldn't *matter* what the Nader voters did.

> What is all of this, if not good reason to think that knowledge will
> change votes?

...and my ultimate point was that even if the knowledge *does* change votes, there's no
harm to the process: The knowledge in question -- that the election is critically
close -- doesn't favor either side, and doesn't (in any way that I can see) create an
unfair advantage for either side. Since the ideal is always that we have well-informed
voters, how can the fact that they became uniformly better informed between rounds be
a Bad Thing?

> It was reported again this morning by an election official (I think) from
> PBC itself: there were 15,000 invalid ballots cast in PBC in 1996.

I wonder... is this number invalid ballots *on the presidential line only*, or total
invalid ballots? If the latter, then it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, as the
19,000 invalid ballots being reported in this election were for *president alone*;
there were (much) smaller numbers of similar errors in other parts of the ballot. The
point is not that I expect the process to be error-free -- I'm not as stupid as I
look. Rather, I think the *spike* in error rate in this particular county on this
particular page of the ballot, compared to the "background" error rate, is suggestive
of a problem.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17848
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:23:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> Bush takes the presidency with Cheney as vice president. After two
> years Cheney resigns. Bush then selects Gore as vice president and
> after he's confirmed, Bush resigns. Then Gore is president for the
> remaining two years and can have Lieberman as vice president.

Hey, we're back "on topic": This suggestion is about as close to SF (or
mybe Fantasy) as anything we've discussed on this NG in a long while!
<GD&RLH>

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17849
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:43:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> we vote by numbers on a punch
> card. You don't punch a hole near anything at all. You have a numbered
> grid and a little stylus and punch out numbers 6, 17, 109, ...
> etc.<more details snipped>

Sounds horribly likely to produce unintentional and/or invalid votes.
*You* managed to make it work by dint of intellignece and extreme care...
but *most* of the electorate isn't as smart as your are, and *most* of
the folks who are as smart as you aren't as careful... but all of those
folks have just as much right to vote as you. IMHO, it's *absolutely
vital* that the voting process be as accurate and idiot-proof as humanly
possible. I would favor federal legislation mandating, in all elections
involving federal offices (i.e., Congress and the President), the use of
a machine system that is incapable of accepting an invalid ballot. Punch
cards, bubble forms, and the like are too susceptible to error, and
should be banned. In addition, I favor systems that involve as little
handling of physical ballots, or hand-transcription of tallies, as
possible.

As for your original question, in my precinct here in Connecticut we used
the old-fashioned lever machines. Each race is on a single column of
levers, and I believe (though I didn't risk testing it) that it's
physically impossible to throw two levers in the same race. I think the
touch-screen system I saw featured on CNN (I forget which state it was
in) holds even greater promise. I didn't get a chance to see the software
interface, but I can imagine software that would be very highly
idiot-proofed. Plus, by networking all the machines in a given precinct
together, you could reduce human counting and transcription to almost
nil. Since the system would be a totally isolated LAN for each precinct,
there wouldn't be the same kind of security concerns you'd have with an
internet-based or statewide network system.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17850
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:47:22 +0900
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Doesn't the binomial distibution assume independent observations?  I
would argue that condition is not met here.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17851
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:26:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0CC8A5.9D11DB49@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> ..and my ultimate point was that even if the knowledge *does* change votes, there's no
> harm to the process: The knowledge in question -- that the election is critically
> close -- doesn't favor either side, and doesn't (in any way that I can see) create an
> unfair advantage for either side. Since the ideal is always that we have well-informed
> voters, how can the fact that they became uniformly better informed between rounds be
> a Bad Thing?

Because only PBC voters would be given the opportunity, and so Unfair.  
The wrongness of voting irregularity is not a function of where the media 
decides to devote its attention.  Give me a free hand and $10,000,000 and 
I will find counties all over the country with voting problems.

> > It was reported again this morning by an election official (I think) from
> > PBC itself: there were 15,000 invalid ballots cast in PBC in 1996.
> 
> I wonder... is this number invalid ballots *on the presidential line only*, or total
> invalid ballots?

Good question, and I don't know.

> If the latter, then it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, as the
> 19,000 invalid ballots being reported in this election were for *president alone*;
> there were (much) smaller numbers of similar errors in other parts of the ballot. The
> point is not that I expect the process to be error-free -- I'm not as stupid as I
> look.

Now, Bill, you know that I really don't have any idea what you look like.  
;-)

> Rather, I think the *spike* in error rate in this particular county on this
> particular page of the ballot, compared to the "background" error rate, is suggestive
> of a problem.
 
And I think that the more problems you look for, the more you find.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17852
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:43:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0D3FDA.7FEF2851@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> Doesn't the binomial distibution assume independent observations?  I
> would argue that condition is not met here.

I thought I covered that when I said I assumed that /each/ voter has a 
50/50 chance of voting Dem or Rep.  Of course, this assumption is 
artificial.  Alternatively, since about one half the eligible voters did 
not vote, assume that every possible voter is already labeled Dem or Rep, 
and the 100M who voted are a sample of the whole 200,000,000.  Wouldn't 
the binomial distribution be the right one in this case?

In any event, as I indicated, the binomial distribution is not a /great/ 
way to model the situation, but it has /some/ justification, and it gives 
an easy answer.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17853
From: SynABit@kc.rr.com (Dennis Doms)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:43:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <MPG.1475d5838209bdab989708@news.sff.net>, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>In article <3a0be486.2740562@news.sff.net>, Dennis Doms writes...
>
>[Many sage observations cut.]

Thank you. I'm not trusting of my judgement of when I might have crossed into
"rant" mode. :)

>> However, I would
>> prefer to see the mechanism of the EC itself removed and just allocate those
>> votes based on the popular vote in each region. To my knowledge, the "bodies"
>> comprising the EC are not universally _required_ to vote reflective of the
>> popular vote in their area, and I do think that is wrong.
>
>Apparently about one half of the states do require this.  OTOH, allowing 
>the electors to vote their conscience opens the possibility that they 
>could decide to elect the winner of the nationwide popular vote, in order 
>to "legitimize" the process.
>
>This would be fascinating, since I think most of the die-hard believers 
>in the Will of the People hereabouts have expressed reservations about 
>the Electoral College.
>
>Of course, with almost a million absentee ballots to count nation wide, 
>and a popular vote margin of only 200,000 votes, perhaps we don't know 
>the "Will of the People" yet, either.  
>
>-- 
>Gordon Sollars
>gsollars@pobox.com

Watching CNN Headlines here about 10:30AM, I just heard a bit about the
campaign(s) (one or both, I didn't catch the details) now trying to appeal
directly to the electors. I would call this tactic less than respectful of the
American people. (I would accept a call that the electors vote the actual
apportionment based on popular vote in their regions, but that wasn't the way
it was reported as being phrased.)

"Politics: a two-fisted game where mudball is trump."--Johhny Hart [I hope
that attribution is correct; I believe the quote is from _B.C._, out of the
recesses of my memory.]

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17854
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:08:37 -0600
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Madge Van Ness" <madgevn@angelfire.com> wrote in message
news:3A0C8B5F.80817BAD@angelfire.com...
> The other interesting possibility if some of the states change who they
went
> for in the recount, is that they could end up with a tie, both with 269.
Can
> the electors revote? Or does it then go to the House/Senate, with the
current
> Republican majority?
>
> MadgEdith
>

The electors haven't been voted yet that won't happen for about a month.
Until that point each state will determine how their electors vote
depending on the popular vote, which is still being counted and recounted
and recounted.   So everything waits upon the electoral collage meets and
votes then if there is a tie it goes to the new congress.   This one is so
close that I can see accusations and recounts going on up till the last
minute.  It's supposed to work this way and Bush is being very pushy in
demanding Gore to give up and pushing ahead with a transition team.

--
          Dean White
www.DeanWhite.net




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17855
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:40:20 GMT
Subject: Re: L. Sprague de Camp
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb:   RIP Sprague.     So passes another giant of the Golden Age of
Science Fiction.

Thanks for the post Deb.

Ed J

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:15:24 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>
>  This is from an SFWA email newsletter:
>
>> > L. Sprague de Camp:  1907-2000
>>
>> One of the last links to the Golden Age of science fiction, SFWA Grand
>> Master L. Sprague de Camp died in his home town of Plano, Texas on
>> November 6, less than a month shy of his 93rd birthday.
>
>> His wife, Catherine Crook de Camp, was a frequent co-author of his, as
>> far back as _Science Fiction Handbook_.  She died earlier April 9 of
>> this year, after 60 years of marriage.  L. Sprague de Camp will be
>> cremated and interred beside his wife at Arlington National Cemetery
>
>http://www.lspraguedecamp.com/ 
>
>
>Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
>http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17856
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:55:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb:  From 1968 until last year, I voted in the booth of one of
those lever machines.  (Many small 'flip' levers, one next to the
name of each candidate)   This election I discovered an electronic
voting booth with hidden push buttons under a flexible heavy plastic
membrane.  The area(s) where you would push to vote were printed on
the white membrane ( a translucent,semi-stiff vinyl sheet ) with a
black square indicating the area to be pushed.  When you pushed on
the "Vote" square it would light up and an illuminated green "X"
would change color to indicate that you had voted for that
delineated, printed section.  (this is from memory: sorry if it is
less than chrystal clear).  Basically, you pressed in on the printed
black square next a candidate's name, such as "Harry Browne", and
that area would show a lighted green "X" within the square.

Ed J

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:30:44 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>
>  Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
>country look like? 
>
>  In CA, at least near Sacramento, don't know if they're the same
>throughout the state but probably are, we vote by numbers on a punch
>card. You don't punch a hole near anything at all. You have a numbered
>grid and a little stylus and punch out numbers 6, 17, 109, ... etc.
>There is nothing at all printed near the actual ballot and no
>indication on the ballot card itself what any given hole means or to
>which election (pres., senate, initiative) it belongs. You get a
>booklet in the mail a month or so earlier that tell you what each
>number means. You're supposed to fill it out ahead of time (but they
>have spare booklets there) and then you copy over your choices to the
>number grid. Geo said he rechecked his hole punches by comparing them
>number by number. I checked mine (4 times) by laying it over the paper
>grid in which I had previously filled in the numbers with a pen to
>make sure all the holes lined up. 
>
>
>Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
>http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17857
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:08:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:18:47 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I wonder... is this number invalid ballots *on the presidential line only*, or total
>invalid ballots? If the latter, then it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, as the
>19,000 invalid ballots being reported in this election were for *president alone*;
>there were (much) smaller numbers of similar errors in other parts of the ballot. The
>point is not that I expect the process to be error-free -- I'm not as stupid as I
>look. Rather, I think the *spike* in error rate in this particular county on this
>particular page of the ballot, compared to the "background" error rate, is suggestive
>of a problem.

I heard on MSNBC, I think it was, that there were 30,000 discarded
votes in PBC.  That the 19,000 (I thought it was 17,000 but I may be
misremembering) was only those that had both Buchanan and Gore marked.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17858
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:15:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:15:51 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>  At a minimum his driver's license should be revoked for, by his own
>statement, he has absolutely no depth preception.

Fortunately (for me) depth perception is not a requirement for a valid
driver's license.  I have next to none.

>  Also, the vote swappers need to be tracked down and have their
>ballots disqualified. Selling your vote is illegal, whether you're
>selling it for cash or some other valuable commodity.

And what "valuable commodity" is received for vote swapping?  How much
would YOU pay for a democratic vote in, say, Pennsylvania?

On the other hand, I suspect some folks would pay a great deal indeed
for about 300 votes in Florida right now.  LOL.  But not for just one.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17859
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:19:03 GMT
Subject: Re: L. Sprague de Camp
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Rest in peace, L Sprague de Camp.

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:15:24 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>
>  This is from an SFWA email newsletter:
>
>> > L. Sprague de Camp:  1907-2000
>>
>> One of the last links to the Golden Age of science fiction, SFWA Grand
>> Master L. Sprague de Camp died in his home town of Plano, Texas on
>> November 6, less than a month shy of his 93rd birthday.
>
>> His wife, Catherine Crook de Camp, was a frequent co-author of his, as
>> far back as _Science Fiction Handbook_.  She died earlier April 9 of
>> this year, after 60 years of marriage.  L. Sprague de Camp will be
>> cremated and interred beside his wife at Arlington National Cemetery
>
>http://www.lspraguedecamp.com/ 
>
>
>Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
>http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17860
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:37:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:30:44 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>  Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
>country look like? 

In Johnson County KS we had an electronic machine, altho there was no
"lever."  I pushed a touch-pad type button next to my candidate's name
and a little light came on right next to the name.  There could be no
doubt who I was about to vote for and, while I didn't try it, I'm sure
the machine would have prevented me from marking two. 

Same thing went for the YES/NO areas for any proposals such as tax
issues or govt organization (we had several on both).  There was a
keypad at the bottom if someone wanted to "write-in" a candidate.  I
used it in the primary.  Seemed to work OK.

After I marked all my selections and could easily see they were lit up
the way I wanted, I had to hit a big "enter" button and the entire
"ballot" was finalized somehow.   There was a noise kinda like a hard
drive turning (altho I have no idea if that's what it was) and the
lights on the ballot form went out.  Then, after I left the booth, the
election official gave me my "I voted" sticker and hit some sort of
"reset" button (from outside the booth) to make sure it was ready for
the next voter. 

Pretty efficient, I thought.  Altho the booth canvas fell down on some
poor old guy ahead of me in line.

I never voted in Leavenworth County (since I was still on active duty
and voting absentee in Florida--punch-card but no butterfly <g>), but
Chuck said he filled in circles with a #2 pencil.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17861
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 07:19:09 +0900
Subject: Re: Debates
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In any event, as I indicated, the binomial distribution is not a /great/
> way to model the situation, but it has /some/ justification, and it gives
> an easy answer.  ;-)

Here you were doing legwork and even admitting that the results weren't what
you expected, and some wise-ass has to snipe from the gallery. <G>  In the
absence of any better model, I'll happily accept yours.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17862
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:59:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

>
>And what "valuable commodity" is received for vote swapping?  How much
>would YOU pay for a democratic vote in, say, Pennsylvania?

  The valuable commodity is another vote. In Wisconsin they were
apparently buying votes with cigarettes as payments. One of the web
sites that was paying cash for votes the attorney general of
California stopped down--the vote swapping sites fell in the same
catagory; CA went after them as illegal. Buying votes is buying votes,
where the 'payment' is cash, merchandise, or another vote.

>On the other hand, I suspect some folks would pay a great deal indeed
>for about 300 votes in Florida right now.  LOL.  But not for just one.

  :-)  Yup. On either side.

  Last tally in New Mexico had Bush back on top... by 17 votes.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17863
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 18:26:32 -0500
Subject: Darwin, Dennett, and Democratic Votes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I am curious how many of you have read Daniel Dennett's /Darwin's 
Dangerous Idea/?

My question, for any of you who have, is what section of the book most 
closely deals with the "vote recount" problem, i.e., the problem of 
deciding exactly how many votes a candidate received.

Anyone who matches what I have in mind gets a free dinner - if you come 
to Kinnelon, NJ, that is. ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17864
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:17:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:59:02 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
wrote:

>  The valuable commodity is another vote. In Wisconsin they were
>apparently buying votes with cigarettes as payments. One of the web
>sites that was paying cash for votes the attorney general of
>California stopped down--the vote swapping sites fell in the same
>catagory; CA went after them as illegal. Buying votes is buying votes,
>where the 'payment' is cash, merchandise, or another vote.

Sorry, I just don't agree that vote swapping is illegal.  And living
in KS, I've done not a little research on it and put in a great deal
of thought.

Even if the knowledge that your guy probably got a vote somewhere
where it counted (you can't really know) is a "valuable commodity,"
it is not a tangible one.  It's not like selling your vote on eBay
<g>.  Cigarettes have a value (altho I thought that was just to entice
people to vote, not necessarily to tell them who to vote for--but
that's another issue).

The idea that the vote itself has comparable value to the vote swapped
is circular logic.  It's illegal, outside of Nevada, to sell sex.  But
trading sex to get sex is not considered selling it.
  
Seriously, tho, the most you could get from vote swapping is a feeling
of satisfaction.  I get that from singing in the choir, but no one
would say it was worth anything in the marketplace.  [In fact, some
people might be willing to pay me not to (sing, that is).]

Ultimately, only the marketplace can determine what something is worth
legally, not the value a single individual might assign.  Try
deducting from your taxes the sentimental value of a donated item--the
IRS only allows "fair _market_ value."

I hadn't heard about the vote-selling site on the internet.  I do know
CA shut down one of the vote _swapping_ sites that was based out of
CA.  I think I heard the ACLU is challenging that action, but I don't
know what, if anything, has come of it.  I thought I heard that the CA
attorney general backed off, but again, I don't know the particulars.

In any case, it's likely to happen in the future if the electoral
college stays the way it is.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17865
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:51:27 -0600
Subject: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Let me say first that I am not a statistician, so the analysis I did here
was very basic.  As is normal with any analysis, it is based on underlying
assumptions.  I have tried to state those assumptions when they occur so
that you will be aware of them.

I was shocked when I heard the number of ballots which were disallowed in
Palm Beach county.  I wonder if anyone has ever really considered what that
number could mean.  According to the numbers I got from CNN, in Palm Beach
county 450,956 votes were cast in the Presidential election with 19,120 of
those ballots being disqualified leaving 431,836 voted counted.

Allowing for the fact there was some confusion over this year's ballot, I'm
going to go with the number the news is giving from the last election.
Fourteen thousand ballots were disqualified in the last election.  I'm
talking about ballots which were out-and-out disqualified for some reason:
more than one candidate chosen, ballot could not be read, etc.  Let me
emphasize that is the only thing I'm considering at this point.  Figure that
as percentage of the 450,956 total votes cast.  That's a rate of 3.105%.
Consider what that number would mean if a disqualification rate of 3.105%
was nationwide.  In this election based on a number of 100,683,409 it would
mean 3,126,219 votes are thrown out.

Let me say that again.  3,126,219 votes.  That number is larger than the
entire population of any one of the following states*:

Alaska
Arkansas
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
*1999 estimated population from the US Census Bureau

(Okay, knowing this group someone's going to point out 100,683,409 number
already had a percentage of ballots disqualified.  You're right.  Using a
3.105%, then the number of people voting would have been 103,909,809 with
3,226,340 ballots disqualified.)

I find that to be appalling.  For people who would say, "Well, that's just
business as usual," let me tell you, I've worked in manufacturing for over
ten years.  A 3.105% failure rate would be totally unacceptable for us.  In
our business we aim for a four sigma process.  At the last quality
conference I attended the standard many companies are aiming for is a six
sigma process.  I had the statistics major in the office next door to me
drag out the tables today.  It didn't have four sigma listed; it had a 3.9
one sided for a normal distribution. If a 3.9 standard was applied to this
election (based on the 100,683,409 number) there would only have been 19,585
ballots disqualified - nationwide.  (My assumption for this is a normal
distribution.  By the way, do I think a normal distribution is the best
model for this when we're really dealing with a Pass - Fail case?  Probably
not.  But as I said, I'm not a statistician.  Normal distributions are what
I'm familiar with.  Anyone who is a statistician feel free to chime in with
a better model yielding a more accurate failure rate.)

As I said, I have a manufacturing background.  I had no idea the level of
ballot disqualification was this high.  The saddest part to me is if the
people running the elections applied some basic principles of quality
improvement, I think it would be relatively easy to gain a substantial
reduction in the amount of disqualified ballots.

What I'm about to say next gets a little into the confusion about the Palm
Beach county ballot, and it also is part of the quality improvement process.
The other process I'm trained in as a part of working in manufacturing,
particularly the chemical industry, is incident investigation.  When you are
investigating an incident or doing a safety audit we are trained to look for
the root cause of the incident.  It's not as simple as saying "There's a
procedure in place.  The incident was caused by someone not following the
procedure."  You have to look at the procedure itself.  Sure, there may be a
procedure, but that isn't enough.  Is it understandable for the people who
have to use it?  Have the people been trained on it?  Is the procedure in
place and being followed?  To say that the people in Palm Beach county
should have understood the ballot is simplistic.  The evidence shows that a
percentage of them did not.  I would consider it a significant percentage.
Not including the ballots which were disqualified, let's look for a moment
just at the percentage of votes for Pat Buchanan, which was 0.789%.  If you
allow as many as a thousand of them as actually being intended votes for
Buchanan, it's still 0.559%.  For anyone who shrugs their shoulders and says
that's not significant, let me point out something.  That 0.559% is still
far higher than the 0.006% failure rate we target in my business and *much*
higher than any company which targets a six sigma process.

That in this day and age, the same basic quality standards used in industry
are not be applied to our elections is something I find truly sad.  If I
were a county supervisor of elections, I would consider any election held in
my county with a 3.242% ballot disqualification rate to be embarrassingly
bad and completely unacceptable.  Or to put it in more politically correct
terms, it is an opportunity for improvement.

And there is a lot of improvement possible.  I would examine those
disqualified ballots to see *why* they were disqualified.  I would determine
the root causes, survey the voters as they leave the polls about their
voting experience.  It's typical of quality improvement efforts that large
gains can be made in the beginning with not too much effort.  I'm not
talking about revamping the entire election system.  That's a complicated
issue.  I'm talking about doing a typical quality improvement effort with a
typical limited scope - reduce the number of disqualified ballots.  IMO, the
single biggest thing which could be done to reduce that number is very
simple.  It's this - at each polling place have a reading machine whose sole
purpose is not to count the vote on the ballot but simply to see if the
ballot would be disqualified because of double voting or the mark not being
legible or whatever reason.  If it gets disqualified, it would happen
immediately while the voter was still there.  Then the ballot could be
returned to the voter and he would be instructed that there is a problem
with his ballot.  He then has the opportunity to exchange that ballot and
vote again if he so wishes.  To me that could function as either a quick fix
or a quick check.  In a true quality conscience system, the other
improvements would have been implemented, and it would function as a final
quick check.

For me with my background, I ache over this situation because with some
knowledge of basic quality improvement techniques and the will to fix this
problem, the number of disqualified ballots could be easily improved.
Whether or not you agree every single vote counts, I hope most of the people
here agree that over 3,000,000 votes count.  The idea that many voters could
be disenfranchised, I consider a scandal.

I happen to know the person who heads up the state of Florida's quality
effort.  He's on the governor's staff.  I intend on writing him basically
presenting this same information and same suggestions I said to this group.
I'm going to urge he bring this problem up with the governor.  Frankly, I
think it's a problem which needs to be addressed nationwide.  Because if the
problem really is this widespread, then I do think people need to be
awakened to it.

Margaret




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17866
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:04:17 -0600
Subject: Re: L. Sprague de Camp
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3a0f811d.2693811@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
>   This is from an SFWA email newsletter:
>
> > > L. Sprague de Camp:  1907-2000

I hadn't heard.  I got to meet him and his wife once.  They were both so
charming.  They lived a full life and loved fully.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17867
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:11:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3a0c9626.94251887@news.sff.net...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:30:44 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
> wrote:
> >
> >  Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
> >country look like?
>
> Ours is a "fill in the arrow" system.  Each candidate or ballot
> question has an arrow with the middle part blank.  You want the
> candidate or "Yes" or "No" on the ballot, you fill in the arrow by
> your choice.

We use the same thing here.  I much prefer it to the punch hole system we
used to have in this county.  Since you mark the ballot itself, it's crystal
clear.  The ballots are well laid out.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17868
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:13:14 -0600
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Robert A. Woodward <robertaw@halcyon.com> wrote in message
news:robertaw-1011001829010001@blv-tnt0-1-ip102.nwnexus.net...
> Last two elections, my part of the state of Washington had a ballot with
> circles we fill in with an ink pen. The ballot is fed into the machine
> (which rejects ones that are invalid - people can get a new one to fill in
> correctly - I saw it happen).

Yes!  That's exactly the idea I proposed.  Nice to see somewhere someone was
smart enough to put it into place.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17869
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:34:49 -0600
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A0CC8A5.9D11DB49@ix.netcom.com...
> I wonder... is this number invalid ballots *on the presidential line
only*, or total
> invalid ballots? If the latter, then it's not an apples-to-apples
comparison, as the
> 19,000 invalid ballots being reported in this election were for *president
alone*;
> there were (much) smaller numbers of similar errors in other parts of the
ballot.

The number is for the presidential line only.  The news was saying the
number of invalid votes for the senator part of the ballot was around 3,000.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17870
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:34:54 -0600
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a0ddd3b.39973956@news.sff.net...
> Sorry, I just don't agree that vote swapping is illegal.  And living
> in KS, I've done not a little research on it and put in a great deal
> of thought.

When the "Nader Trader's" idea came out, the US Justice Department was
contacted and a spokesperson said it was *not* illegal.  Also, I haven't
heard of any other state, besides California, saying it was.  I haven't seen
the exact wording of the California law being applied, does anyone know it?
The ACLU is challenging the California law.  The courts will decide if vote
swapping is legal or not.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17871
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:14:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> As I said, I have a manufacturing background.  I had no idea the level of
> ballot disqualification was this high.  The saddest part to me is if the
> people running the elections applied some basic principles of quality
> improvement, I think it would be relatively easy to gain a substantial
> reduction in the amount of disqualified ballots.

I agree wholeheartedly. I don't work in manufacturing myself, but I work for a
manufacturing company that <sigh> tries to apply manufacturing principles to
office processes, so I'm familiar with some of the concepts you're talking
about. Much as I think my company goes overboard sometimes (there was a recent
rumor, unrealized so far, that we were going to have to shadow-box our desk
tools -- stapler, holepunch, etc. -- the way the shop floor folks do their
production tools!), I absolutely agree that quality improvement principles must
be applied to the election process. Further, I think it should be mandated at
the federal level that states have approved, validated, auditable quality
management plans in place for all elections involving national office.  (I
actually think elections -- at least those involving national office -- should
be managed by at the national rather than state level, but I know that
suggestion is a political non-starter... and likely to be unpopular in this NG,
too.)

An invalid ballot is what my company would call an "escape." So is a vote
recorded for a candidate other than the one the voter intended. Regardles of
who wins the current election, or how you think the mess we're in should be
resolved, this year's events should stand as a wakeup call that our current
process (process*es*, actually -- one of the big problems is the variation of
process from state to state and precinct to precinct) allows far too many
quality escapes. Gordon will probably say, hey, stuff happens; there will
always be errors. He's right, to a point: It's impossible to imagine a human
process working totally without error. But that's no reason not to minimize
errors where possible.

We have a process we call mistake-proofing (I can't be sure how universal these
quality buzzwords are; don't think I'm claiming anything is unique to my
company), in which you work to identify and eliminate the systemic sources of
error in a process. It's not acceptable to say "aw, c'mon; people ought to be
able to do *that* right." If some part of a process is in fact generating
errors, it has to be fixed. Fixes involve anticipating the sources of error,
designing the process to actively prevent errors from being made in the first
place, and error-trapping the process so that errors that *are* made are caught
and corrected before they exit the process. Examples for the electoral process:

1. When the ballot/voting system for a particular election has been finalized,
it should be tested in a mock election using a representative sample of real
voters, and audited for errors. Any errors found should be subjected to
root-cause analysis and, where applicable, corrective actions should be
applied. Note that this has to happen far enough in advance of the election
that there's time to *fix* problems that turn up.

2. All voting systems should be designed so that it's physically impossible to
cast an invalid ballot (esp. that it's impossible to vote for an invalid number
of candidates in the same race).

3. In the event that someone *does* find a way to mark an invalid ballot, the
system should reject it immediately and give the voter the opportunity to start
over.

4. At the end of the voting process, the system should present the voter with a
list of the votes that will be recorded, ask the voter to confirm that these
were hir intended choices, and give the voter the opportunity to correct any
that are not.

Compliance with all of the above will probably require some sort of machine
system (probably electronic, although doing it with an electromechnical system
wouldn't be impossible), and would spell the end of paper ballots (other than
for absentee voting). I say good riddance. An all-machine voting system,
properly mistake-proofed, would be faster, more accurate, and less subjective.

Finally, I think we need spot audits of all elections to determine the error
rate. Some (maybe most?) states have rules requiring a recount if the margin is
less than a certain predetermined figure; perhaps we should think about rules
requiring a revote if the audited error rate was above a predetermined figure?

Will all of this cost more money? Probably (though maybe not; electronic
systems might turn out to be significantly cheaper than those based on paper
ballots). How much is confidence in our electoral process worth to you? I know
my answer.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17872
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:12:09 -0600
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3a0ee4ee.0@news.sff.net...
>If I
> were a county supervisor of elections, I would consider any election held
in
> my county with a 3.242% ballot disqualification rate to be embarrassingly
> bad and completely unacceptable

Sorry.  That should have been 3.105%.  The 3.242 was based on an earlier
calculation I had done.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17873
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:22:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> The [19,000] number is for the presidential line only.  The news was saying
> the
> number of invalid votes for the senator part of the ballot was around 3,000.

Oh, I knew that. In fact, the fact that the very same voters made more than 6
times as many errors on the presidential line as on other parts of the ballot
strikes me as the strongest evidence that the presidential ballot line was
defective.

But folks on the other side are pointing to a reported 15,000 invalid ballots
in the 1996 election (which had significantly lower total turnout) and using
that as an argument that this year's errors represent a historical norm, rather
than a uniquely confusing ballot. If that 15,000 number is correct, AND if it's
for president only, that argument has some merit; if, OTOH, that 15,000 was the
*total* invalid ballot count from all races in 1996, the argument goes the
other way: In that case, I can say there were more errors on a single page of
this year's ballot than in the *entire* 1996 election... which again bolsters
the notion that the page in question was especially confusing.

JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17874
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:15:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


> I would consider any election held in
>my county with a 3.242% ballot disqualification rate to be embarrassingly
>bad and completely unacceptable.  Or to put it in more politically correct
>terms, it is an opportunity for improvement.

  I heard that in Cook County, Illinois 120,000 votes were
disqualified for same or similar reasons to those in Palm Beach. If
that includes Chicago, the failure rate was 4.3%. If not, the
disqualification rate for Cook Co. was 6.5%. 

  If those figures are correct, and representative, Palm Beach
actually had quite a low failure rate. I wonder what California's
failure rate is where we have a far less user-friendly system than
Palm Beach had? 

  A better voting system, as many have described, would be wonderful,
but one fellow I heard talking pointed out that when allocating money
and they have a choice between voting equipment that will be used one
day every couple years and road repairs, or to hire more cops or
teachers, they make the obvious choice. 

  Perhaps this is the place to put that disputed budget surplus.
Though, if this keeps up much longer, and the stock market keeps
falling, there won't _be_ a budget surplus. Our losses this last week
alone are in 5 figures, and we're little bitty investors. At least,
whoever ends up in the Whitehouse, we look poised for four good years
of gridlock, which is a good thing. Gridlock is not only good for the
country, it's _very_ good for the stockmarket. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17875
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:32:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> Geo had an interesting solution, but it involves a gentlemen's
> agreement that I doubt any of them are gentlemen enough to adhere
> to...<details of solution snipped>

Ny initial reaction to Geo's suggestion was flippant (hope I didn't offend
anybody), but since SNL "proposed" essentially the same idea in a very
funny skit on last night's show, I've thought about it some more... and I
think it's a truly dangerous and horrible idea. Any sort of brokered
settlement between the two campaigns would have the effect of ignoring the
election results in favor of expediency. You all know I'm not fond of
"slippery slope" arguments, but that would be a very steep and slippery
slope indeed. It might set us on the path to becoming the world's largest
and most powerful banana republic.

As it is, we may be having trouble figuring out precisely what the will of
the people is, but at least everyone involved is still committed to the
idea of abiding by it when we do. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17876
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:44:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> If those figures are correct, and representative, Palm Beach
> actually had quite a low failure rate.

All the more reason, if true, for the kind of quality improvement reforms
Margaret (and I) talked about.

> A better voting system, as many have described, would be wonderful,
> but one fellow I heard talking pointed out that when allocating money
> and they have a choice between voting equipment that will be used one
> day every couple years and road repairs, or to hire more cops or
> teachers, they make the obvious choice.

If you had a choice between fixing a crack in the foundation of your house or
buying shoes for your kids, what would be the "obvious" choice? The public's
confidence in the electoral process is the very foundation of our political
system, and it must be protected. It's a "must fix" item: If your car has a
dent, you can decide whether or not to fix it; if its brakes are defective,
you *must* fix them (or stop using the car), even if you can't afford to. The
electoral process is more like brakes than like bodywork. I know folks will
say that the errors have probably always been there, probably used to be worse
than they are now, and we've managed to get along so far. The difference is
that now *everybody knows about them*. Elections are like the stock markets:
Confidence *matters*.

> Our losses this last week
> alone are in 5 figures,

Not if you didn't sell, they weren't.

> we look poised for four good years
> of gridlock, which is a good thing. Gridlock is not only good for the
> country, it's _very_ good for the stockmarket.

Not everything that's good for the stock market is automatically good for the
country. And while gridlock might normally be a good thing (esp for those
among us who wish Government would just go away), four years of gridlock cause
by the fact that half the people (regardless of which half) don't believe the
election was legitimate would, IMHO, NOT be a Good Thing, no matter what the
markets do during that time.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17877
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:25:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In any manufacturing process you have people who have passed a quality
control procedure working for you.  There is no quality control procedure
for voters.  One problem is that it takes time to vote, and if you have
limited resources then sending the same person back into the voting booth
for the 10th time may disenfranchise all of the people waiting in line
behind that person.  In my classes, 5% of students can't fill in the pencil
marks with their social security number (this is college).  I wonder how
many people who can't read were simply told to vote for the second person
because it will be the democrat.

Given our current system, we could surely have some type of block grant from
the federal govt to the states and municipalities to change to an updated
voting system.  However, I would be very afraid of any system on the
internet.  If you want to have precinct level networks completely detached
from any communication device until after backup media (paper, disk, etc)
have been removed from the system, then I could agree to that.  Also that
would require higher pay for the voting officials.

But there will still be cases of the ballot cast not matching the conscious
intention of the voter.

Other changes would be to physically remove exit pollsters from the voting
area.



"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A0EFA14.F728907F@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Margaret Albrecht wrote:
>
> > As I said, I have a manufacturing background.  I had no idea the level
of
> > ballot disqualification was this high.  The saddest part to me is if the
> > people running the elections applied some basic principles of quality
> > improvement, I think it would be relatively easy to gain a substantial
> > reduction in the amount of disqualified ballots.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. I don't work in manufacturing myself, but I work
for a
> manufacturing company that <sigh> tries to apply manufacturing principles
to
> office processes, so I'm familiar with some of the concepts you're talking
> about. Much as I think my company goes overboard sometimes (there was a
recent
> rumor, unrealized so far, that we were going to have to shadow-box our
desk
> tools -- stapler, holepunch, etc. -- the way the shop floor folks do their
> production tools!), I absolutely agree that quality improvement principles
must
> be applied to the election process. Further, I think it should be mandated
at
> the federal level that states have approved, validated, auditable quality
> management plans in place for all elections involving national office.  (I
> actually think elections -- at least those involving national office --
should
> be managed by at the national rather than state level, but I know that
> suggestion is a political non-starter... and likely to be unpopular in
this NG,
> too.)
>
> An invalid ballot is what my company would call an "escape." So is a vote
> recorded for a candidate other than the one the voter intended. Regardles
of
> who wins the current election, or how you think the mess we're in should
be
> resolved, this year's events should stand as a wakeup call that our
current
> process (process*es*, actually -- one of the big problems is the variation
of
> process from state to state and precinct to precinct) allows far too many
> quality escapes. Gordon will probably say, hey, stuff happens; there will
> always be errors. He's right, to a point: It's impossible to imagine a
human
> process working totally without error. But that's no reason not to
minimize
> errors where possible.
>
> We have a process we call mistake-proofing (I can't be sure how universal
these
> quality buzzwords are; don't think I'm claiming anything is unique to my
> company), in which you work to identify and eliminate the systemic sources
of
> error in a process. It's not acceptable to say "aw, c'mon; people ought to
be
> able to do *that* right." If some part of a process is in fact generating
> errors, it has to be fixed. Fixes involve anticipating the sources of
error,
> designing the process to actively prevent errors from being made in the
first
> place, and error-trapping the process so that errors that *are* made are
caught
> and corrected before they exit the process. Examples for the electoral
process:
>
> 1. When the ballot/voting system for a particular election has been
finalized,
> it should be tested in a mock election using a representative sample of
real
> voters, and audited for errors. Any errors found should be subjected to
> root-cause analysis and, where applicable, corrective actions should be
> applied. Note that this has to happen far enough in advance of the
election
> that there's time to *fix* problems that turn up.
>
> 2. All voting systems should be designed so that it's physically
impossible to
> cast an invalid ballot (esp. that it's impossible to vote for an invalid
number
> of candidates in the same race).
>
> 3. In the event that someone *does* find a way to mark an invalid ballot,
the
> system should reject it immediately and give the voter the opportunity to
start
> over.
>
> 4. At the end of the voting process, the system should present the voter
with a
> list of the votes that will be recorded, ask the voter to confirm that
these
> were hir intended choices, and give the voter the opportunity to correct
any
> that are not.
>
> Compliance with all of the above will probably require some sort of
machine
> system (probably electronic, although doing it with an electromechnical
system
> wouldn't be impossible), and would spell the end of paper ballots (other
than
> for absentee voting). I say good riddance. An all-machine voting system,
> properly mistake-proofed, would be faster, more accurate, and less
subjective.
>
> Finally, I think we need spot audits of all elections to determine the
error
> rate. Some (maybe most?) states have rules requiring a recount if the
margin is
> less than a certain predetermined figure; perhaps we should think about
rules
> requiring a revote if the audited error rate was above a predetermined
figure?
>
> Will all of this cost more money? Probably (though maybe not; electronic
> systems might turn out to be significantly cheaper than those based on
paper
> ballots). How much is confidence in our electoral process worth to you? I
know
> my answer.
>
> -JovBill
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17878
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:13:08 +0900
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I think Frank has an important point here.  Comparisons between what a
company would do to fix such a problem and what the government has to do
fall apart because at the end of the day the company can fire someone
who can't grasp the process, while the government still has to let the
person vote.

Having said that, I totally agree with Margaret and Bill that the
process has some obvious places for improvement, and that the error rate
could be reduced.  However, before you start, I think it's important to
have a goal in mind (and 0% disqualifications is unrealistic no
matterhow good it sounds), and to have some idea of how much time and
money it will take to reach that goal.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17879
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:17:07 +0900
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin wrote:

> Margaret Albrecht wrote:
>
> > The [19,000] number is for the presidential line only.  The news was saying
> > the
> > number of invalid votes for the senator part of the ballot was around 3,000.
>
> Oh, I knew that. In fact, the fact that the very same voters made more than 6
> times as many errors on the presidential line as on other parts of the ballot
> strikes me as the strongest evidence that the presidential ballot line was
> defective.

But if you truly want to compare apples to apples here, then isn't it also
important to know how many candidates there were in the Senate race (i.e. an
estimate of how many opportunities there were for each person to make a mistake)
and how many people actually voted in that race vs. the Presidential one?

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17880
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:41:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a0ee4ee.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
....
> I find that to be appalling.  For people who would say, "Well, that's just
> business as usual," let me tell you, I've worked in manufacturing for over
> ten years.  A 3.105% failure rate would be totally unacceptable for us.  In
> our business we aim for a four sigma process.

Note that you said "business".  Now, I think that if this country is 
worth saving, it is worth saving at a profit - but I'm not sure if that 
view is widely held.  ;-)

> As I said, I have a manufacturing background.  I had no idea the level of
> ballot disqualification was this high.  The saddest part to me is if the
> people running the elections applied some basic principles of quality
> improvement, I think it would be relatively easy to gain a substantial
> reduction in the amount of disqualified ballots.

Perhaps so.  But how many manufacturing processes involve getting 
100,000,000 people to do something?
....
> I happen to know the person who heads up the state of Florida's quality
> effort.  He's on the governor's staff.  I intend on writing him basically
> presenting this same information and same suggestions I said to this group.
> I'm going to urge he bring this problem up with the governor.  Frankly, I
> think it's a problem which needs to be addressed nationwide.

Despite my flip opening comment, I would be very interested in learning 
what he has to say.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17881
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:15:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0F0131.16C9BC78@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> If you had a choice between fixing a crack in the foundation of your house or
> buying shoes for your kids, what would be the "obvious" choice?

Depends on how bad the crack is compared to the shoes.  Many elections 
are won by more than the margin of error.

....
> > Our losses this last week
> > alone are in 5 figures,
> 
> Not if you didn't sell, they weren't.

No, it just means the losses aren't even useful to offset any capital 
gains.  ;-)  The wealth is gone - but it /might/ come back.
....
> Not everything that's good for the stock market is automatically good for the
> country.

What!?!?  Oh, I get it, you're just trying to scare me.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17882
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:18:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0F07E4.9611A04E@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> I think Frank has an important point here.  Comparisons between what a
> company would do to fix such a problem and what the government has to do
> fall apart because at the end of the day the company can fire someone
> who can't grasp the process, while the government still has to let the
> person vote.

Well, that suggests the best way to fix the problem I have heard so far!!  
(Of course, Mr. Heinlein already thought of it.)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17883
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:56:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford wrote:

>
> So what's equitable and statesmanlike in this case? Gore took a clear
> majority in the popular vote, which IMO gives him a mandate from the
> populace no matter what the electoral vote situation is.

So you are in favor of just ignoring the constitution?  This makes you a very
dangerous person.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17884
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:56:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> Back in 1960, even /Nixon/ had the statesman-like quality needed to
> settle the issue without provoking a crisis, and he had very good
reason
> to think that he had been robbed.  We will see if Gore can manage to
take
> after Nixon or Clinton in this matter.  Some choice, eh?

Gore?  Have values?  Clinton?  He didn't even have the respect to resign
after being impeached.

It's amazing how good Tricky Dick looks in comparison to the currrent
Democratic crop of idiots.

     My memory is also that JFK won the popular vote in 1960.  How, a
fair vote would have still given him the election under the
constitution.  His decision to not challenge the vote was based on the
probably correct assumption that the country and his ability to govern
would be hurt by the fight.

     It does make my having brought up the electoral college feel a bit
prescient, though.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17885
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:02:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann wrote:

> Solomon might say we should give them each half the country to govern for four
> years.

     I have a better idea.  Let's just not have a president for the next four
years.  Just think.  Without a president to sign bills, all legislation would have
to pass by a 2/3 majority.  (Or perhaps not--any other have thoughts on this?)
That would certainly gridlock the law making process, which I would consider  good
thing.


--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17886
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:24:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

>   At a minimum his driver's license should be revoked for, by his own
> statement, he has absolutely no depth preception. And, apparently,
> when he voted he squatted down so he was on a level with the ballot,
> rather than looking down at it.

     Hey, Deb--you're hitting below the belt here.  I have no depth perception,
yet I have driven nearly a million miles, flown airplanes around 200,000 miles,
operated locomotives a few thousand -- you try coming after my licenses, I (and a
few hundred thousand other people without depth perception)  will not take it
lying down.

    In any case, picking out relative positions on a flat surface involves no
depth perception whatsoever.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17887
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:56:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Eli Hestermann wrote:

> But if you truly want to compare apples to apples here, then isn't it also
> important to know how many candidates there were in the Senate race

Not sure about this one... the specific error here is double-punching... I'll have
to mull over whether I think that's affected by the number of choices... <scratches
head>

But it brings up another question: Is the 15,000 number from 1996 limited to
double-punch ballots (as the 19,000 from this year is), or does it include ballots
invalidated for other reasons (knot sure what those might be, right off the top of
my head, but I bet there *are* other reasons).

> ...and how many people actually voted in that race vs. the Presidential one?

Yah, that would be important to know. Should be pretty easy to look up... but as a
first guess, I'd suspect the numbers are pretty close. It's hard for me to imagine
that many folks would vote for Prez and skip the Senate line, since [a] it's also a
national office and [b] both McCollum (one of the House impeachment managers) and
Nelson (former Congressman/Space Shuttle rider) are pretty high-profile guys.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17888
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:46:15 +0900
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charles Graft wrote:

>      I have a better idea.  Let's just not have a president for the next four
> years.  Just think.  Without a president to sign bills, all legislation would have
> to pass by a 2/3 majority.  (Or perhaps not--any other have thoughts on this?)

Bills which are not acted upon by the President become law after a defined period of
time (I don't recall what it is).  This suggests to me that simple majorities would
still pass laws.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17889
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:43:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> He also didn't believe the state legislatures used to choose the
Senators.
> He was adamant in his beliefs.  I didn't know what I was talking
about.
> He told me to prove it.  I ended up printing out the Constitution,
> highlighting the relevant portions and giving it to him.

     Been there, done that.  In fact, I had that argument with a
co-worker yesterday.  He also did not know that the constitution does
not recognize political parties, and that the vice president used to be
the runner up in the EC vote.  Just think how that latter might have
played out during this election--if the Senate ended up tied, and Bush
won the presidency, Gore would have the tie breaking voted in the
Senate.

     I settled the argument by offering to bet $10 and getting the
printout.  He backed off i a hurry.

     But I find it disgraceful that a person can get a high school
education, and even a college one, without even once needing to read the
constitution.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17890
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:13:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Frank Fujita wrote:

> In any manufacturing process you have people who have passed a quality
> control procedure working for you.  There is no quality control procedure
> for voters.

True, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be one for the folks who design and
implement the process. You *can* fire them if they fail. The right model is to
think of voters as users/customers, not producers. The voting process is like
any other tool: It should be designed to work in the hands of the actual people
who are going to use it. Wishing for better-quality users is nice, but it
doesn't do much to reduce the error rate in the real world.

>  One problem is that it takes time to vote, and if you have
> limited resources then sending the same person back into the voting booth
> for the 10th time may disenfranchise all of the people waiting in line
> behind that person.

Absolutely correct... that's why I favor a system that doesn't let them leave
the booth the first time without casting a valid ballot. If 3.<whatever>
percent (according to Margaret's analysis) of PBC had taken 15 seconds longer
each to vote in an error-trapped system, the "cost" in line time would've been
a lot lower than the price we're all paying now.

> we could surely have some type of block grant from
> the federal govt to the states and municipalities to change to an updated
> voting system.

That would be a Good Thing. The move away from paper ballots would probably
result in lower recurring cost, too, once the initial transition had been
capitalized.

> However, I would be very afraid of any system on the
> internet.

Yikes! Me, too. I would *never* suggest internet-based voting. Not only is
there too great a chance of domestic fraud, but the possibilities for
international monkeywrenching are too scary to even think about.

> If you want to have precinct level networks completely detached
> from any communication device until after backup media (paper, disk, etc)
> have been removed from the system, then I could agree to that.

Yup, that's pretty much what I was thinking of.

> Also that
> would require higher pay for the voting officials.

But also probably fewer of them. Certainly less manpower to handle, transport,
and secure ballots. And no printing and distribution costs for the ballots
themselves (in Florida, if 6 million ballots were actually cast, I'm guessing
10 million had to be printed, to make sure there were no shortages). I don't
know for sure, but I don't consider it unreasonable to hope that an
all-electronic system would actually be cheaper than paper ballots.

-JovBill




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17891
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:00:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Fader--
     One of the major purposes of our present precinct system is to give
a reasonable assurance that the voting process was done in private.  If
you and Beth go to vote, you are not allowed in the booth at the same
time.  Yet, online you do not know that Beth is not looking over your
shoulder threatening to leave unless you vote "properly".  Or your union
leader, or welfare worker, or whatever.

     I just have this picture of a big union meeting with the president
saying, "all right, all of you line up and place your votes on this
computer while we watch".

     Not that I am disinterested, of course; a big move to electronic
precinct based voting could make me quite rich.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17892
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:05:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:

> >Electronic voting might be the answer to the recent election
>
>   BC--how does your voting system fit into this scenario?
>
> Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.sff.net/people/Deb

Deb--

     My patent specifically covers the use of a permanent media
(non-eraseable CD-ROM in the current technology) in addition to a
certain amount of signature verification, voter list comparisons, and
several etc.'s best left to the lawyers.  My system is precinct based;
should mail in elections (ah la Oregon) or internet based voting come
in,  it could end up being worthless.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17893
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:08:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb--
     We still use the mechanical lever action big clunky voting machines
in Marion County (Indianapolis).  Replacing these was my original object
when I started the voting machine project.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17894
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:23:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:30:44 GMT, debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
> wrote:
> >
> >  Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
> >country look like?
>
> Ours is a "fill in the arrow" system.  Each candidate or ballot
> question has an arrow with the middle part blank.  You want the
> candidate or "Yes" or "No" on the ballot, you fill in the arrow by
> your choice.
>
> The completed ballot is fed into a locked bin, which scans the ballot
> to see which choices have been picked.  The ballot also has a serial
> number on it, which I *think* ties back into a card that you sign
> initially before you get the ballot.
>
> (Aside:  I've never quite understood how they just couldn't track your
> vote that way, but I assume it must be blinded somehow--or the machine
> doesn't track the serial number of the ballot when it records it, I
> guess.)

     You might want to check in to this.  My understanding is that such a
system would be illegal -- it is not supposed to be even theoretically
possible to link the votes with the voter.

     Which makes design of "audit trails" to detect voting fraud an
interesting challenge.  I've been  there and done that. My system recorded
the ballot results in randomly picked fields and voter information and
signatures in sequential fields.

> I actually prefer the old-style lever machines, but I know that's
> gotta be a lot more work, and a lot more cumbersome.
>
> I saw a thing on CNN today about computerized voting systems, and they
> mentioned a company from Indianapolis--but I didn't think those were
> the folks that bought BC's idea.

     That company is most likely Micro-vote, which uses a suitcase sized
machine and a paper roll style of ballot.  Results are recorded on EPROMS
which are erased after the election for re-use.  It is mechanically and
electrically complex.

      My patent rights were sold to a company in Boulder, CO (Worldwide
Voting Systems) who sold out about a year ago lock, stock and barrel to
Hart Election Systems in (I believe) Dallas, TX.

> It's been, what, six (!!) years since we saw that working model in OR,
> BC.  Can you give us any update on what they've done with your
> technology?  Not only is it interesting generally, but also
> specifically. <G>
>
> JT

    Yes, it was the '94 gathering at which I demonstrated my prototype.
(I also demonstrated it to two people who wanted to invest but got cold
fingers when it came time to write the check.  Too bad for them -- I have
cleared six figures on it already, any me patent lawyer considers this
small change.
 The rights were sold in '95.

OTOH, had I been able to build (easy enough given some capital) and sell
(not my field), I could have easily netted a million dollars in Marion
County (Indiana) alone.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17895
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:45:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Bill Dauphin wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
<p>> we vote by numbers on a punch
<br>> card. You don't punch a hole near anything at all. You have a numbered
<br>> grid and a little stylus and punch out numbers 6, 17, 109, ...
<br>> etc.<more details snipped>
<p>Sounds horribly likely to produce unintentional and/or invalid votes.
<br>*You* managed to make it work by dint of intellignece and extreme care...
<br>but *most* of the electorate isn't as smart as your are, and *most*
of
<br>the folks who are as smart as you aren't as careful... but all of those
<br>folks have just as much right to vote as you. IMHO, it's *absolutely
<br>vital* that the voting process be as accurate and idiot-proof as humanly
<br>possible.</blockquote>

<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I would favor federal legislation mandating, in all
elections
<br>involving federal offices (i.e., Congress and the President), the use
of
<br>a machine system that is incapable of accepting an invalid ballot.
Punch
<br>cards, bubble forms, and the like are too susceptible to error, and
<br>should be banned. In addition, I favor systems that involve as little
<br>handling of physical ballots, or hand-transcription of tallies, as
<br>possible.</blockquote>
      So do I.  But, as I mentioned, I am
<b><i><u>not</u></i></b> disinterested on this subject.  I will even
accept federal intrusion into states rights if it make me that rich. <VBG>
<br> 
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> 
<br>As for your original question, in my precinct here in Connecticut we
used
<br>the old-fashioned lever machines. Each race is on a single column of
<br>levers, and I believe (though I didn't risk testing it) that it's
<br>physically impossible to throw two levers in the same race. I think
the
<br>touch-screen system I saw featured on CNN (I forget which state it
was
<br>in) holds even greater promise.</blockquote>
     I wish you could get that information to me. 
He is probably infringing my patent, and my lawyer would like to know.
<br> 
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I didn't get a chance to see the software
<br>interface, but I can imagine software that would be very highly
<br>idiot-proofed.</blockquote>
     Yes.  Dedicated very simplified operating
system, no magnetic media whatsoever.  Official results stored in
the WORM (Permanent CD-ROM) disc, unofficial votes available at the precinct
within about 2 minutes of the last voter voting (and my demonstrator was
a 386-16mHz).  These same tallies could be telecommunicated to county
headquarters for near instant release of the preliminary results, but the
official results come from having the county officers carry the discs to
HQ and having then read there.  
<br> 
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Plus, by networking all the machines in a given precinct
<br>together, you could reduce human counting and transcription to almost
<br>nil. Since the system would be a totally isolated LAN for each precinct,
<br>there wouldn't be the same kind of security concerns you'd have with
an
<br>internet-based or statewide network system.</blockquote>

<blockquote TYPE=CITE>-JovBill</blockquote>
 
<br>      My system used PC technology (deliberately
made non compatible for security purposes) with one master unit sitting
on the Judge's desk (that being the Indiana name for where the voter signs
in) and up to 4 slaves, which are voting booths as simple or fancy as the
county wants to buy.  The heart of it is a terminal with eight buttons
along the side to select candidates and four buttons (Start, Finish, Next,
Previous -- Start and Finish can be compared to or even hooked to switches
telling whether the curtain is open or closed)  long the base. 
When the votes opens the curtain (or presses "finish") the vote and it's
complement (again, a fraud preventer) is recorded on a random track in
the results area.
<p>     Voter's are displayed to the judge when the
voter checks in.  He then uses a stylus pad of some sort to sign in
and that signature is recorded for possible future validation. 
<br>Anyone who is interested can look at a patent database (IBM has access
to one on their web site; I'm sure there are others) for my name and look
over the patent.
<p>--
<br><<Big Charlie>>
<p>Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.
<br> </html>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17896
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:51:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>     Hey, Deb--you're hitting below the belt here.  

  As I obviously meant to <g>

>    In any case, picking out relative positions on a flat surface involves no
>depth perception whatsoever.

  However, I stand corrected on relating that man's stupidity to depth
perception. 

Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17897
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:57:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JovBill wrote--

> Will all of this cost more money? Probably (though maybe not;
electronic
> systems might turn out to be significantly cheaper than those based on
paper
> ballots). How much is confidence in our electoral process worth to
you?
> I know my answer.

     How much is it worth to me?  Potentially millions.  Thank  you.

     This would involve a lot of one time capitol investment and
retraining of those responsible for voting machine maintenance.  If that
person happens to be the Mayor's idiot brother in law, we are in deep
trouble.

     You would still need roughly the same number and skills (not a lot;
I have been a precinct worker) for you precinct workers and support
systems.  You would not need a truck to haul these machines (I am using
mechanical machines for my comparisons)  but someone with approximately
the same skills as necessary to hook up a complex PC would be needed for
the hookup.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17898
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:25:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:46:15 +0900, Eli Hestermann
<ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:

>Bills which are not acted upon by the President become law after a defined period of
>time (I don't recall what it is).  This suggests to me that simple majorities would
>still pass laws.

Are you sure?  I thought the president could exercise a "pocket veto."
Or maybe that's just state governors?

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17899
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:48:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A0F5C47.290F3A75@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> The right model is to
> think of voters as users/customers, not producers.

I think "consumers" would be even more accurate.

> The voting process is like
> any other tool: It should be designed to work in the hands of the actual people
> who are going to use it.

Think of all those VCRs flashing "12:00"

....
> That would be a Good Thing. The move away from paper ballots would probably
> result in lower recurring cost, too, once the initial transition had been
> capitalized.

No paper ballots?  What will we recount, when a recount is needed?  
....
> Yikes! Me, too. I would *never* suggest internet-based voting.

Nor I an electronic ballot.

> Not only is
> there too great a chance of domestic fraud, but the possibilities for
> international monkeywrenching are too scary to even think about.

We have that now.  It's called the "China Lobby".  ;-)
 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17900
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:08:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:48:02 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>In article <3A0F5C47.290F3A75@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
>...
>> The right model is to
>> think of voters as users/customers, not producers.
>
>I think "consumers" would be even more accurate.
>
>> The voting process is like
>> any other tool: It should be designed to work in the hands of the actual people
>> who are going to use it.
>
>Think of all those VCRs flashing "12:00"

I think that Bill and Margaret are referring to the Deming model of
"Statistical Quality Managment" (or something derived from Deming's
work).  Deming proposed statistical analysis of results to determine
when and where systemic problems exist in manufacturing and management
processes.  If we're talking Deming, "customer" is the correct term.  

NO good business would write off a potential customer because he/she
might be too stupid to buy, use, or understand its product or service.
[In fact, some businesses take great advantage of the stupidity of
their customers--Psychic Friends Netword comes to mind <g>.] 
Instead, a successful business modifies its product, advertising
and/or instruction manual to reach as many customers as is possible.

If one (or a handful) county has a statistically higher error rate
than all the rest, it is probably because of a problem with its
process.  Either that, or the voters in places like PBC are
signficantly more stupid than citizens elsewhere.  Or there really was
fraud involved.  Take your pick.

The military had a big push to implement Deming's principals a few
years ago.  It sort of died out, as do most management innovations.
But basically, military leadership has always recognized a basic idea
that applies, I think, to election management.  In the military
(especially in the Army where you get the recruits and draftees that
the other services turn down), you have to operate within the
capabilities of the soldiers you get.  If you design a rifle, or a
radio, or a computer, that even a tiny minority of soldiers (not just
the average) cannot operate, reliably, all the time, they you've
failed.  We called it "private-proofing" (altho sometimes it was
called "lieutenant-proofing" too).  It's one of the reasons, probably
the main reason, that fielding military equipment takes so long and is
so expensive.  But they do it that way because it's necessary.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17901
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:32:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a100ba9.9945878@news.sff.net...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:48:02 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
....
> >I think "consumers" would be even more accurate.
> >
> >> The voting process is like
> >> any other tool: It should be designed to work in the hands of the
actual people
> >> who are going to use it.
> >
> >Think of all those VCRs flashing "12:00"
>
> I think that Bill and Margaret are referring to the Deming model of
> "Statistical Quality Managment" (or something derived from Deming's
> work).  Deming proposed statistical analysis of results to determine
> when and where systemic problems exist in manufacturing and management
> processes.  If we're talking Deming, "customer" is the correct term.

I am familiar with Deming.  I was making an oblique (and sarcastic, of
course) reference to the idea that voting can not be rationally explained as
behavior to produce a result, but can be understood as consuming a product.
However, it is no doubt true that the experience of consuming the "voting
product" could be improved.

> NO good business would write off a potential customer because he/she
> might be too stupid to buy, use, or understand its product or service.

But Bill doesn't seem to like likening government to business.  ;-)





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17902
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 20:51:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>     We still use the mechanical lever action big clunky voting machines
>in Marion County (Indianapolis).  Replacing these was my original object
>when I started the voting machine project.

  I've never seen one of these voting machines several have mentioned.
Sounds like they were the closest to standardization the country had.
If I recall correctly, where I last was in Minnesota had the fill in
the arrow with a pencil ballot. 

  Before that, and it's probably still this way, in rural Minnesota we
had a piece of paper and put an X by the one we wanted to vote for. 

  These sort of places couldn't possibly afford any sort of
computerized or electronic voting system. If the Federal gov't
provided these sytems, that's a huge equipment cost for a few hundred
voters. Yet if cities were given, or required to get, standardized
elec. voting sytems, then everybody must get them. If any other sort
of balloting is decided to be too complicated, or too error prone,
then outlying areas can't be expected to keep using what are
considered defective ballot systems. I can also see all sorts of
problems arising when the electronic gadget is dragged out of the
closet of the unheated townhall where it's been kept for years. 

Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17903
From: lal_truckee@my-deja.com
Date: 13 Nov 2000 23:03:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> 
> >     We still use the mechanical lever action big clunky voting machines
> >in Marion County (Indianapolis).  Replacing these was my original object
> >when I started the voting machine project.
> 
>   I've never seen one of these voting machines several have mentioned.
> Sounds like they were the closest to standardization the country had.

I've never understood how abuse and fraud could be investigated using those
type of machines. With the paper card ballot a stub with a serial number
matching the one on the ballot is given the voter. No cross reference is
kept so the ballot is still secret, but suspected fraud could be checked
by voters checking to see that their ballot was properly handled and counted
if they so desired.

How does it work with the lever systems?

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17904
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 00:47:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 21:02:10 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:

>That would certainly gridlock the law making process, which I would consider  good
>thing.
>
I was having a discussion at work the day after the election.  Someone
pointed out that with no overwhelming majority that Congress would
most likely not pass many new laws.  They pointed to me and said
"People like him thing that's a good thing", to which I replied "Damn
straight." 

<EG> I guess I've been talking politics at work more than I thought. 

JT  

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17905
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 01:06:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Gordon Sollars wrote:

> I was making an oblique (and sarcastic, of
> course) reference to the idea that voting can not be rationally explained as
> behavior to produce a result, but can be understood as consuming a product.
> However, it is no doubt true that the experience of consuming the "voting
> product" could be improved.

Not sure I'm following you here. Sometimes I get the impression you basically
think all voting (or at least, voting with any expectation of actually
participating in the selection of the government) is fundamentally irrational.
If that's your belief, I don't know of any argument that will change it... but
in that case, I wonder why it's worth your time to argue with the rest of us
poor benighted fools over *how* we choose to pursue our sad collective fantasy.

To be sure, voting is (and rationally understood to be so, in my own humble
ansd worthless opinion) behavior intended to produce a result: specifically, an
accurate expression of the voter's preferences for certain elective offices.
But the relationship of the voter to the voting *process* is that of a
customer, not a producer... in the same way that, even though I'm a *producer*
of technical publications at work, my relationship to the folks who provide me
my working tools (e.g., software vendors, computer support professionals, our
copy center, etc.) is that of *customer*. Not "consumer" -- I don't consume
software in the same sense that I consume popcorn when I go to the movies --
but customer/user. The software vendor has a responsibility to supply me with
tools I can reasonably use. If my fellow users and I can't consistently use the
software for its intended purpose without making an unacceptable number of
errors, the software is *by definintion* defective, quite regardless of any
argument that I "ought to be smarter than that." Similarly, if the voting
process is producing an unnacceptable number of errors (I define an error as
any ballot that is not recorded as the vote the voter intended to cast), then
it is by definition defective, and should be corrected.

Now, that still leaves open the question of what we consider an unnacceptable
rate of errors. As many have said, it's unreasonable to think that number can
be zero. Florida law sets a limit for margin of victory, below which a recount
is required. Presumably, that represents an estimate of the closest a "normal"
election is ever expected to be. As a SWAG, I'd suggest the maximum allowable
error rate should be one order of magnitude smaller than the "closest normal
election" standard; thus, a normal election would never even come close to
being swung by ballot error. I'm open to other suggestions on that... but only
from people who actually give a rodent's glutei about voting in the first
place, please! <g>

> > NO good business would write off a potential customer because he/she
> > might be too stupid to buy, use, or understand its product or service.
>
> But Bill doesn't seem to like likening government to business.  ;-)

When folks say they want government to "run like a business," they usually mean
they want expenditures evaluated on a strictly financial profit/loss basis. I
think those things that *CAN* be provided at a (strictly financial) profit
ought not be the province of Government in the first place... and I also
believe that there are things of significant social value that cannot be
provided at a profit (or, to put it a different way, where the profit is
calculated in non-financial value), and that those things *ARE* the proper
province of Government. Thus, in my view, the folks who say we should run the
government like a business have got it *exactly backward*. I mention all this
not to bring the argument up again, but to point out that nothing in it argues
against Government (or other noncommercial enterprises) using the same sort of
process-improvement techniques that are used in business. Every institution has
processes that can be made more effective.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17906
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 06:07:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

10 days. IIRC that's business days, not sure though. Pocket veto
occurs when congressional session ends less than 10 days before
president gets bill and he fails to sign it. It is automatically
vetoed.
all IIRC of course.

>>Bills which are not acted upon by the President become law after a defined period of
>>time (I don't recall what it is).  This suggests to me that simple majorities would
>>still pass laws.
>
>Are you sure?  I thought the president could exercise a "pocket veto."
>Or maybe that's just state governors?

Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17907
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 09:52:56 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Article 1, Section 7

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the
United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return
it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who
shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to
reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall
agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to
the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved
by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases
the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names
of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the
journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the
President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been
presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had
signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in
which case it shall not be a law.


"Bob Lawson" <bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com> wrote in message
news:3a10d66e.2668977@news.sff.net...
> 10 days. IIRC that's business days, not sure though. Pocket veto
> occurs when congressional session ends less than 10 days before
> president gets bill and he fails to sign it. It is automatically
> vetoed.
> all IIRC of course.
>
> >>Bills which are not acted upon by the President become law after a
defined period of
> >>time (I don't recall what it is).  This suggests to me that simple
majorities would
> >>still pass laws.
> >
> >Are you sure?  I thought the president could exercise a "pocket veto."
> >Or maybe that's just state governors?
>
> Bob
> bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
> www.bluepoet.com



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17908
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:16:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> If my fellow users and I can't consistently use the
> software for its intended purpose without making an unacceptable number of
> errors, the software is *by definintion* defective, quite regardless of
any
> argument that I "ought to be smarter than that." Similarly, if the voting
> process is producing an unnacceptable number of errors (I define an error
as
> any ballot that is not recorded as the vote the voter intended to cast),
then
> it is by definition defective, and should be corrected.

Whose definition is this (serious, not rhetorical question)?  Does your
software need to be able to be used without error *the first time* you use
it?   Do you use your software only once every four years?  How much does
your software cost per person?

Now, let us suppose that for a $5 per person per election (1.25 Billion per
year) we can get the error rate down to 1%, and that for $50 per person per
election (12.5 Billion per year) we can get the error rate down to .01%
(that is reduce the error rate by two orders of magnitude by increasing cost
one order of magnitude).
I would propose that we could get much better government by using that money
to increase the salary of congress, senate, and Executive branches of
government so that it was equitable with business, netting us a better
selection of candidates to choose from, rather than worrying about which one
of two candidates gets elected on the rare chance that the difference in the
electorate is less than 1%.

Of course, if the errors are random rather than biased, even large error
rates infrequently elect the "wrong" person.  (I put "wrong" in quotes
because in most cases I think most of the candidates are wrong).  Rather
small biases (cheating) can change the elected person in comparison to
rather large random errors.  Of course, if one can make a ballot that will
confuse democrats, but that republicans can figure out -- that would be a
bias, not a random error.

> Now, that still leaves open the question of what we consider an
unnacceptable
> rate of errors. As many have said, it's unreasonable to think that number
can
> be zero. Florida law sets a limit for margin of victory, below which a
recount
> is required. Presumably, that represents an estimate of the closest a
"normal"
> election is ever expected to be. As a SWAG,

What is a SWAG?

> I'd suggest the maximum allowable
> error rate should be one order of magnitude smaller than the "closest
normal
> election" standard; thus, a normal election would never even come close to
> being swung by ballot error. I'm open to other suggestions on that... but
only
> from people who actually give a rodent's glutei about voting in the first
> place, please! <g>


>
> > > NO good business would write off a potential customer because he/she
> > > might be too stupid to buy, use, or understand its product or service.
> >
> > But Bill doesn't seem to like likening government to business.  ;-)
>
> When folks say they want government to "run like a business," they usually
mean
> they want expenditures evaluated on a strictly financial profit/loss
basis. I
> think those things that *CAN* be provided at a (strictly financial) profit
> ought not be the province of Government in the first place... and I also
> believe that there are things of significant social value that cannot be
> provided at a profit (or, to put it a different way, where the profit is
> calculated in non-financial value), and that those things *ARE* the proper
> province of Government. Thus, in my view, the folks who say we should run
the
> government like a business have got it *exactly backward*. I mention all
this
> not to bring the argument up again, but to point out that nothing in it
argues
> against Government (or other noncommercial enterprises) using the same
sort of
> process-improvement techniques that are used in business. Every
institution has
> processes that can be made more effective.

I would agree that this is *a* good perspective to look at the problem from.
I disagree that it is the only or best perspective.  Complete the following
analogy:  A representative republic is to a voter as a corporation is to
(a) an employee  (b) a customer  (c) a shareholder  (d) OSHA

 All of my opinions are subject to change when faced with good arguments  :)

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17909
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:33:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:

> Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> >
> > >     We still use the mechanical lever action big clunky voting machines
> > >in Marion County (Indianapolis).  Replacing these was my original object
> > >when I started the voting machine project.
> >
> >   I've never seen one of these voting machines several have mentioned.
> > Sounds like they were the closest to standardization the country had.
>
> I've never understood how abuse and fraud could be investigated using those
> type of machines. With the paper card ballot a stub with a serial number
> matching the one on the ballot is given the voter. No cross reference is
> kept so the ballot is still secret, but suspected fraud could be checked
> by voters checking to see that their ballot was properly handled and counted
> if they so desired.
>
> How does it work with the lever systems?

     Lever systems have a mechanical counter for each lever.   The appropriate
counters are advanced when the "curtain" lever is opened.  They are concealed
behind a panel (normally locked) during the time the polls are open.  At the
beginning of the voting day, the precinct judge and the observer for each party
interested enough to have an observer there confirm that the counters are set to
zero.  There is also a "test" vote taken to make sure the machine is working
properly; these are simply subtracted from the end of day totals.  At the end of
the voting day, the panel is opened and the results recorded with the precinct
judge being observed by the observers from each party.  (In Indiana, the judge
calls out the count for each counter then each party representative likewise
calls it.)  To reset the counters takes additional keys to open other panels and
is not done for at least several weeks.  Some jurisdictions photograph the
counters.  Others don't.  In Indiana the ballots are supposed to be destroyed
after a certain time period.  (We used a steam locomotive boiler for this
purpose one year -- the RR president was the mayor of Connersville.)

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17910
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:39:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Deb Houdek Rule wrote--

> I can also see all sorts of problems arising when the electronic
gadget is dragged out
> of the closet of the unheated townhall where it's been kept for years.

     No more so than a precision mechanical device.  Both have to be
pulled out of storage checked out and tuned up before each election.  In
any case, MicroVote has not had a problem with this.

 --
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17911
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:15:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A10C865.A78A1AEE@ix.netcom.com...
....
> Not sure I'm following you here.

First, let me say that some of my posts are more whimsical than others.  I
try to make liberal use of Smileys, but the effect is not the same as
hearing my scintillating commentary in person.  Second, let me add that much
truth has been said in jest.

> Sometimes I get the impression you basically
> think all voting (or at least, voting with any expectation of actually
> participating in the selection of the government) is fundamentally
irrational.
> If that's your belief, I don't know of any argument that will change it...

Of course voting is "participating" in the selection of government.  The
question is whether it is rational to participate in this way.  When you
participate in the selection of, say, the next house you will own or car you
will buy, your efforts have an enormous effect on the outcome - so it is
quite rational for you to deliberate carefully over your choices.  When you
vote along with 100M others, your efforts have an extrremely tiny effect on
the outcome - so it does not seem rational for you to deliberate so
carefully among your choices /from the standpoint of determining the
outcome/.

However, if you value the act of voting in itself - if you are a "vote
consumer" as an economist might say - then it could make perfect sense to
vote even though the effect is small.  However, I think that this view makes
most sense when you view voting as a symbolic act to show your alligence to
certain principles - why else would the act of voting for a /particular
candidate/ (as you must ultimately do when you vote) have value?  This, at
any rate is why I vote.


> but
> in that case, I wonder why it's worth your time to argue with the rest of
us
> poor benighted fools over *how* we choose to pursue our sad collective
fantasy.

Merely because it is consumer behavior does not make it a "sad collective
fantasy".  As to why I argue, isn't such argument the essense of the
democratic process?  ;-)  And the level of discourse /here/ is /much/ higher
than what I would expect from a random sample of voters.
....
>As many have said, it's unreasonable to think that number can
> be zero. Florida law sets a limit for margin of victory, below which a
recount
> is required. Presumably, that represents an estimate of the closest a
"normal"
> election is ever expected to be. As a SWAG, I'd suggest the maximum
allowable
> error rate should be one order of magnitude smaller than the "closest
normal
> election" standard; thus, a normal election would never even come close to
> being swung by ballot error. I'm open to other suggestions on that... but
only
> from people who actually give a rodent's glutei about voting in the first
> place, please! <g>

Now, if you were from Texas, you would have said "runny, red rodent's"
glutei.  ;-)

Since this process is used to pick persons who have power over me, I care
about it to some degree regardless of my view of its rationality.

(Speaking of rationality, as I write this I have just learned from a news
report that there are five kinds of chad: one-, two-, and three-cornered
hanging chad; dimpled chad; and pregnant chad.  This is fascinating, and I
will be posting a followup to my "Darwin, Dennett, and Democratic Voting"
post soon.)

I am all for improving the process, as long as costs as well as benefits are
considered.  Frank has already posted in reply on this.





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17912
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:24:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

....
> But in all such cases
> the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the
names

I wonder how many kinds of "yeas and nays" there are?  Perhaps there are
"dimpled" yeas and "pregnant" nays.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17913
From: lal_truckee@my-deja.com
Date: 14 Nov 2000 18:55:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Unfortunately this is exactly what I suspected. There would be no way to
investigate and prove voter fraud using lever voting machines such as you
describe. I think I prefer the punch card ballot, in spite of Florida, as
the best current compromise between automated counting, hard copy backup,
and audit trail for fraud investigations.

(Did Daley/Cook County in Chicago use lever voting machines in 1960? Anyone
know?)

Heinleinia: Did Double Star mention voting technology?

Charles Graft wrote:
> 
> lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:

> > I've never understood how abuse and fraud could be investigated using
those
> > type of machines. With the paper card ballot a stub with a serial number
> > matching the one on the ballot is given the voter. No cross reference
is
> > kept so the ballot is still secret, but suspected fraud could be checked
> > by voters checking to see that their ballot was properly handled and
counted
> > if they so desired.
> >
> > How does it work with the lever systems?
> 
>      Lever systems have a mechanical counter for each lever.   The appropriate
> counters are advanced when the "curtain" lever is opened.  They are concealed
> behind a panel (normally locked) during the time the polls are open. 
At the
> beginning of the voting day, the precinct judge and the observer for each
party
> interested enough to have an observer there confirm that the counters
are set to
> zero.  There is also a "test" vote taken to make sure the machine is working
> properly; these are simply subtracted from the end of day totals.  At
the end of
> the voting day, the panel is opened and the results recorded with the
precinct
> judge being observed by the observers from each party.  (In Indiana, the
judge
> calls out the count for each counter then each party representative likewise
> calls it.)  To reset the counters takes additional keys to open other
panels and
> is not done for at least several weeks.  Some jurisdictions photograph
the
> counters.  Others don't.  In Indiana the ballots are supposed to be destroyed
> after a certain time period.  (We used a steam locomotive boiler for this
> purpose one year -- the RR president was the mayor of Connersville.)

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17914
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:20:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 12:15:04 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>Of course voting is "participating" in the selection of government.  The
>question is whether it is rational to participate in this way.  When you
>participate in the selection of, say, the next house you will own or car you
>will buy, your efforts have an enormous effect on the outcome - so it is
>quite rational for you to deliberate carefully over your choices.  When you
>vote along with 100M others, your efforts have an extrremely tiny effect on
>the outcome - so it does not seem rational for you to deliberate so
>carefully among your choices /from the standpoint of determining the
>outcome/.

Reminds me of a (male) friend who once said to me, "I decide all the
important matters of the household; my wife decides the minor ones.  I
decide whether Red China should be admitted to the UN (this was many
years ago), how oil reserves should be used to offset shortages,
whether control of the canal should be returned to Panama; she decides
what car we buy, where we live, when we need a new washer/dryer....

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17915
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:08:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Frank Fujita wrote:

> > Similarly, if the voting
> > process is producing an unnacceptable number of errors (I define an error
> as
> > any ballot that is not recorded as the vote the voter intended to cast),
> then
> > it is by definition defective, and should be corrected.
>
> Whose definition is this (serious, not rhetorical question)?

Mine, of course... didn't I say so? But I don't think it's an unreasonable one.

> Does your
> software need to be able to be used without error *the first time* you use
> it?   Do you use your software only once every four years?  How much does
> your software cost per person?

Any tool -- software, voting machine, toothbrush, whatever -- that can't
reliably be used as intended, on the intended schedule, by the intended pool of
users, to get the intended results an acceptably high percentage of the time, I
say again, it is by (my) definition, defective. We've had this argument here
before regarding computer interfaces (where *is* bytor these days, anyway): I
say any interface that regularly confuses or frustrates average uses is
defective, no matter how abstractly "good" or "right" it may be. To your
question: A tool designed to be used heavily day-in and day-out by highly
skilled users must be designed to function as intended under those conditions,
which probably means that it's not too terribly important that it be simple,
but it must be durable, robust, and comfortable to use (so as not to produce
fatigue-driven errors). Similarly, a tool designed to be used once every 4
years by people with no special training and of unknown basic intelligence must
be designed to function as intended under *those* conditions... which probably
means it should be transparently simple and highly error-trapped. In either
case, the tool -- if it is to be considered non-defective -- must function as
intended in the conditions that actually exist; the object is to serve the
*actual* user, not scold or manipulate or improve hir.

> Now, let us suppose that for a $5 per person per election (1.25 Billion per
> year) we can get the error rate down to 1%,...

An error rate of 1% would be twice as high as Florida's mandatory recount
threshhold... *way* too high to be acceptable, IMHO.

> and that for $50 per person per
> election (12.5 Billion per year) we can get the error rate down to .01%
> (that is reduce the error rate by two orders of magnitude by increasing cost
> one order of magnitude).

Why do you assume there's this kind of relationship between cost and error
rate? While there'd be an up-front cost for R&D and for equipment replacement,
there's no reason to think it would cost more to make the rate a LOT better
than it would to make it a little bit better. And, depending on what the answer
was, a more accurate system might actually be cheaper in terms of recurring
operations cost. Certainly, a system that reduced the number of recounts and
challenges would be cheaper in the long run.

> I would propose that we could get much better government by using that money
> to increase the salary of congress, senate, and Executive branches of
> government so that it was equitable with business, netting us a better
> selection of candidates to choose from, rather than worrying about which one
> of two candidates gets elected on the rare chance that the difference in the
> electorate is less than 1%.

I strongly agree that we should pay those folks better... but if the people
lose faith in the electoral system, it'll be a moot point. It's not really
about the one or two races that might occasionally go the wrong way due to
errors; it's about people's fundamental belief that their votes are being
counted, and that they're actually participating in their own government. Lose
that, and the quality of candidates will be cosmically irrelevant. As I said
elsewhere, confidence in the electoral process is like the brakes on your
family's car: It's a *must-fix* item, whether you think you can afford it or
not. I firmly believe there's a lot more at stake in Florida (and probably in
the Supreme Court) over the next few days than the relatively unimportant
question of which of these two bozos gets to be president.

> Of course, if the errors are random rather than biased, even large error
> rates infrequently elect the "wrong" person.

Good point. But I don't know that there's any reason to assume errors usually
*are* randomly distributed. If they're caused by positional confusion, as seems
to have been the case this time 'round, that will likely always favor (or hurt)
one particular candidate. Somebody's always going to be the top line on the
ballot... and that line is less likely to be confused.

> What is a SWAG?

A highly technical engineeering term: Scientific Wild-Ass Guess (as opposed to
the more common, and far less precise, WAG <g>).

> Complete the following
> analogy:  A representative republic is to a voter as a corporation is to
> (a) an employee  (b) a customer  (c) a shareholder  (d) OSHA

Regardless of how you would complete this analogy (I think a good case could be
made for "all of the above"), it's not the one I proposed. I said "The *voting
process* is to the voter as...."

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17916
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:12:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Gordon Sollars wrote:

> Now, if you were from Texas, you would have said "runny, red rodent's"
> glutei.  ;-)

I only *used to be* from Texas (lived there from 'til I went away to grad
school). Now that I've gone and become a d@mn Yankee, I don't s'pose they'll
even let me come back to visit!  ;^)

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17917
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:20:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

URKKK!


> ...lived there from 'til ...

....should be: "...lived there from _2_ 'til..."

Rented fingers <sigh>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17918
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:40:53 -0600
Subject: Legality of Concession
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Someone brought this up at work.  I didn't argue because I didn't know.
This person was saying if Al Gore had given that speech conceding the
election then he would have been out of the election regardless of the
outcome of the votes.  I've never heard of that.  My gut feeling is a
concession speech isn't legally binding.  Yet I can see that person's
point -- the idea Gore would have withdrawn from the election by conceding.
Does anyone know for sure?
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17919
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:52:48 -0600
Subject: Oregon Voting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I clipped this from a news article on the CNN site:

    Meanwhile, in Oregon, Republicans seemed to be laying the groundwork
     for a recount of the ballot there. A Monday letter from Bush campaign
     counsel Michael Toner to Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury
     raised concern that some Oregonians might have voted in more than one
     county as Oregon conducted all voting by mail.

I've read it and read it and can't come to any other conclusion than it
means to say that there was no voting at polls in local precincts in Oregon,
that all votes were sent in by mail.  I'll admit it -- my mind is boggling.

This is the first I've ever heard of all voting by mail.  Did this actually
happen or is the news story wrong?

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17920
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:18:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Oregon Voting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> This is the first I've ever heard of all voting by mail.  Did this
actually
> happen or is the news story wrong?

The news story is consistent with all of the other news stories that I've
seen.  I wasn't in Oregon, but everything I've heard suggests that all
voting was done by mail in Oregon.

Frank



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17921
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:20:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A11B8C9.F35935B4@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > Now, if you were from Texas, you would have said "runny, red rodent's"
> > glutei.  ;-)
>
> I only *used to be* from Texas (lived there from 'til I went away to grad
> school).

Then I am completely at a loss as to why you didn't say "runny, red rat's
ass", as any Real Texan would!!



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17922
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:36:07 -0800
Subject: New entries for the Notebooks found!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The following was found in dusty piles of unread magazines -- look! Lost
Heinlein!


"Notes from Magdalen More"
L*z*r*s L*ng
(Analog, October 1973)

Any similarity between the following notes
and "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" from our
June 1973 issue, is strictly, well...

* Any instant idea is suspect -- it is either superficial or a cliché.

* A man should never let his wit trap him. The witty man often finds
himself
the victim of aphorism. He is unable to hold a true conversation, for he
speaks only pithy quotable observations. Such a one has no friends. He
has
only students, or, heaven help him, _followers_.

* You can always tell saints -- they never tell _you_ what they are.

* A boor speaks clichés; a wit creates his own.

* Innocence is not ignorance. There is a difference, and if you plan to
be a
"sweet young thing," keep it in mind. Learn everything you can about
sex,
but do not ever speak your knowledge. Show it subtly, deceptively, that
is,
be able to blush at the most obscure references. This can be highly
entertaining for everyone concerned, especially for the "sweet young
thing."

* Are they making love or fighting? Both?

* Nothing tastes good when you have to eat alone.

* Life is like a _crëme de menthe_ bottle -- it looks much fuller when
you
invert it.

* There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. There are, however, cheap
ones
aplenty if you know where to look.

* I am often grateful that I am free of the personal ignorance many men
have. I am sometimes resentful that many men know themselves better than
I.
This makes me even with humanity, in case you were keeping score.

* Sex is a comforting aggravation.

* No man is an island, but I have met many isthmuses and a few
peninsulas.

* Cookies are better comfort than religion -- more immediate and
understandable, and hardly likely to do any lasting harm.

* Massage his scalp.

* What is man but a mote of dust to the universe? Why, he _is_ the
universe!
All we ever can know is ourselves.

* Always carry a grapefruit.

[real author unknown - I suspect then-editor Ben Bova. But DAMN these
are funny!]

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17923
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:45:59 +0900
Subject: Re: Legality of Concession
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> Someone brought this up at work.  I didn't argue because I didn't know.
> This person was saying if Al Gore had given that speech conceding the
> election then he would have been out of the election regardless of the
> outcome of the votes.  I've never heard of that.  My gut feeling is a
> concession speech isn't legally binding.  Yet I can see that person's
> point -- the idea Gore would have withdrawn from the election by conceding.
> Does anyone know for sure?

Don't know if this helps, but there has been an email circulating with a title
something like "13 Myths about the Election", supposedly from a con law
department.  According to that document, the concession is never binding.  That
is, the concession is essentially just for form.  If a candidate concedes and
then wins the EC vote, that person is still President.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17924
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:48:56 +0900
Subject: Re: New entries for the Notebooks found!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford wrote:

> The following was found in dusty piles of unread magazines -- look! Lost
> Heinlein!
>
> "Notes from Magdalen More"
> L*z*r*s L*ng
> (Analog, October 1973)
>
> <snip>

> [real author unknown - I suspect then-editor Ben Bova. But DAMN these
> are funny!]

They sure are.  Thanks!

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17925
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 03:50:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>I strongly agree that we should pay those folks better

  I agree that congressmen and the president and such don't get paid
all that well, certainly not when compared to some Silicon Valley-type
salaries, but I also don't think it's the sort of job where the amount
of pay influences the decision of whether they want it or not. I don't
think upping the salaries would increase or improve the pool of
contenders. Even if the president was paid nothing I don't think it
would change who ran very much, if at all. 

Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17926
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:20:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars wrote in message ...
|In article <3a0b18a6.70748681@news.sff.net>, JT writes...<snips>
|Yes.  Without the Electoral College, travel during presidential campaigns
|would be limited to NY, LA, Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia.  The rest
|would be TV media blitz only.
|
My little metro area would not have been visited by so many candidates, so
many times if the EC hadn't made WA so important.  Bush and Cheney were both
here more than once.  Gore was here twice.  The Republican Governor tour
went through.  The Democratic Tours went through here and Yakima.  The
Libertarian Gubernatorial Candidate lives here.  Ralph Nader had the good
sense NOT to show his face in this part of WA (the Green Party is not
welcome on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the Umatilla Army Depot, or the
Dams of the Lower Snake River.)

Washington's presidential vote divided right down the Cascades; West to
Gore, East to Bush.  We are still waiting for Seattle/King County to count
their ballots the first time so we know who our U.S. Senator is.

Casting my vote in what to do about the Florida mess--Let it stand.  Fix it
for next time.  Pay close attention to the process during all the local
elections and the 2002 midterms and watch for the problems.  Find solutions
and test them in mock elections.
---
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17927
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:55:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

My absentee ballot for Benton County, WA is a punch card like the ones on
the news from Florida.  My voting instructions include a notice on how to
completely remove "chads."  The actual ballot has numbers next to the
candidates names and Yes/No for ballot measures that correspond to punches
on the card.

I haven't gone to the polls since 1994, but based on news footage, I'd say
they're still using a single page punch card ballot here.

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
Deb Houdek Rule wrote in message <3a108219.2945522@NEWS.SFF.NET>...
|
|  Just curiosity... what did the various ballots we used around the
|country look like?
|
|  In CA, at least near Sacramento, don't know if they're the same
|throughout the state but probably are, we vote by numbers on a punch
|card. You don't punch a hole near anything at all. You have a numbered
|grid and a little stylus and punch out numbers 6, 17, 109, ... etc.
|There is nothing at all printed near the actual ballot and no
|indication on the ballot card itself what any given hole means or to
|which election (pres., senate, initiative) it belongs. You get a
|booklet in the mail a month or so earlier that tell you what each
|number means. You're supposed to fill it out ahead of time (but they
|have spare booklets there) and then you copy over your choices to the
|number grid. Geo said he rechecked his hole punches by comparing them
|number by number. I checked mine (4 times) by laying it over the paper
|grid in which I had previously filled in the numbers with a pen to
|make sure all the holes lined up.
|
|
|Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
|http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
|



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17928
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:43:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Oregon Voting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht wrote in message <3a11c091.0@news.sff.net>...
<snip> raised concern that some Oregonians might have voted in more than one
|     county as Oregon conducted all voting by mail.
|<snip>
|This is the first I've ever heard of all voting by mail.  Did this actually
|happen or is the news story wrong?
|
|Margaret

Yes folks, the great state of Oregon conducted the election totally by mail.
Umatilla County across the Columbia River from me finally finished their
count November 14.  I don't know how the rest of Oregon is doing in their
count.
--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17929
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:04:28 -0500
Subject: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I haven't been able to follow all of the recent posts, but has anyone 
discussed the "anti-democratic" nature of the U.S. Senate?

In particular, I am curious if anyone here who has come out against the 
Electoral College in some way, also wants to reform the structure of the 
Senate as well.  After all, while the EC process can occasionally elect 
a "minority President", the Senate is regularly voting on legislation, 
and it gives Wyoming's vote as much weight as New York's.

Surely this is a serious violation of democratic principles?  (Indeed, 
given her courage and intellectual honesty, I would expect that Hillary 
Clinton's /second/ legislative initiative, after reform of the EC, will 
be to abolish the chamber of which she has just become a member.)

I am interested in seeing arguments that support EC reform that do 
not at the same time argue for Senate reform. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17930
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:20:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

One of the things we could do if we increased the salaries of elected
officials would be to require them to not engage in any other sort of income
creation while in office.  All speeches would be done pro-bono, no royalties
from books, no corporation boards to sit on, etc.  And absolutely no gifts.

Many people that I think would be good president say they couldn't afford
the pay cut.


"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
news:3a120636.509836@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >I strongly agree that we should pay those folks better
>
>   I agree that congressmen and the president and such don't get paid
> all that well, certainly not when compared to some Silicon Valley-type
> salaries, but I also don't think it's the sort of job where the amount
> of pay influences the decision of whether they want it or not. I don't
> think upping the salaries would increase or improve the pool of
> contenders. Even if the president was paid nothing I don't think it
> would change who ran very much, if at all.
>
> Deb  (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.sff.net/people/Deb
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17931
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:39:22 GMT
Subject: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

....when the email jokes start.  Note that I am reproducing them as I
got them and that I think you could easily interchange party names. ;)

JT
**************************************************************************************
Democrats announced today that they are changing their emblem from a
donkey to a condom because it more clearly reflects their party's
political stance. 

A condom stands up to inflation, halts production, discourages
cooperation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives one a sense of
security while screwing others.
**************************************************************************************
You know, I didn't win the state lottery the other night, but they
should give me the money anyway. The form was VERY confusing, and the
right numbers were very close on the page to the wrong numbers-the
whole thing was like a crossword puzzle. I left the Stop'n'Go crying
it was so intimidating.  State law paperwork reduction act REQUIRES
that all governmental forms be easy to use.  The fact that 60 million
people who filled out this lotto form chose the wrong numbers PROVES
that the form is ILLEGAL, CONFUSING, and DRASTICALLY in need of
revision. Now that I know the correct numbers, I demand my
constitutional right to fill out the form again. Can somebody get me
my Congressman's phone number? We're going to court--where's Jesse
Jackson....



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17932
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:46:52 -0800
Subject: Ballot phun
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I was sent what I think is a screamingly funny explanation for the
ballot mess in Florida. It's a 136k Windows .exe, so I can't post it.

Email me if you want a copy. (I got it from a reliable source and
virus-checked it, BTW.)

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17933
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:30:40 -0500
Subject: Latest Election Fallout
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE
To the citizens of the United States of America
In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to
govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties
over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which
she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt.hon. Tony Blair,MP
for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world
outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need
for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.  A questionnaire will be
circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following
rules are introduced with immediate effect:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation.

++++++++++++++++++++++

I am merely the messenger, not the author. But let me add that there are
numerous other practical considerations involved here. For Example:

Learn to drive on the correct, proper side of the motorway, the left side.
(I have avoided using "right" in order to keep from confusing those of you
in Palm Beach.)

Learn what "chips" are.

(Add your own list here.)

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17934
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 14:34:31 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

As a related topic, has anyone seen an analysis of how the Electoral College
vote would go if Electors were allocated under the Maine system?

Correct me if I'm wrong:

2 Electors go to the winner of the popular vote in that state.
An Elector goes to the winner of the popular vote in each House District.

Who would win the 2000 election in this system?

WJaKe



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17935
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:26:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JovBill--

     They let me go visit Texas.  But then again, I'm easy to get along
with.  :-)

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17936
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:43:25 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon--
     Why the senate?  Because the small population states were afraid of
being dominated by the large population states.  Why the house?  Because
the large population states wanted their influence felt.

     I personally feel the "direct election of senators" was a mistake.
It took the states as a political entity out of the power loop.  The
people were intended to be represented in the house, the interests of
the states per se in the senate.  You would not have encroachments such
as speed limits, welfare requirements, blood alcohol level for drunk
driving if you had a senate that could get fired by their states for
supporting dilution of state's rights.

     My brother Jon (some of you have met him) brought up another
point.  He said that a direct popular vote count to choose the president
would have the effect of drastically increasing federal control of
elections.  I am of the opinion that we are already there with things
like motor voter and requirements for voting machines.  (These came in
about 1994; the current "disputed" systems are grandfathered.)  His
point was that a state could lower the voting age to 10 (for example)
and/or or allow proxy votes to inflate their counts.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17937
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:58:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:

> Unfortunately this is exactly what I suspected. There would be no way to
> investigate and prove voter fraud using lever voting machines such as you
> describe. I think I prefer the punch card ballot, in spite of Florida, as
> the best current compromise between automated counting, hard copy backup,
> and audit trail for fraud investigations.
>

     The requirements for a secret ballot directly preclude a direct audit trail.
That is also the reason my machine did not include a printout of how you voted.
("Bring your ballot marked for Gore to Joe's Bar for a Free drink!)  My system
recorded the actual results in a random area, and voter data separately.  There is
and can be no way that you can link the vote with the voter.

     A mechanical machine that is checked before the election, after the election,
and has no reported problems during the election, is far more reliable than any
other system then available.

>
> (Did Daley/Cook County in Chicago use lever voting machines in 1960? Anyone
> know?)

    More than likely, nearly all cities did during that time.    But there are
absentee ballots and "party regulars" who come in to vote the graveyards.  And paper
ballots that show up where the machines fail.

> Heinleinia: Did Double Star mention voting technology?

     No.  But his experience from "Take back Your Government" showed rather
strongly.  See also "A Home of Her Own".

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17938
From: lal_truckee@my-deja.com
Date: 15 Nov 2000 21:58:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charles Graft wrote:
> 
> lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> > Unfortunately this is exactly what I suspected. There would be no way
to
> > investigate and prove voter fraud using lever voting machines such as
you
> > describe. I think I prefer the punch card ballot, in spite of Florida,
as
> > the best current compromise between automated counting, hard copy backup,
> > and audit trail for fraud investigations.
> >
> 
>      The requirements for a secret ballot directly preclude a direct audit
trail.
> That is also the reason my machine did not include a printout of how you
voted.
> ("Bring your ballot marked for Gore to Joe's Bar for a Free drink!)  My
system
> recorded the actual results in a random area, and voter data separately.
 There is
> and can be no way that you can link the vote with the voter.

I think you are mis-interpreting the system. The only connection to the
ballot is in the control of the voter, who therefore could instigate an
audit of his ballot if he so desired, or simply discard his anonymous receipt
to break the connection with his ballot permanently. In fact most voters
just toss theirs in the waste on the spot, along with all the other receipts;
paranoids like me might keep the receipt around for a while, carefully separated
from our person in case the thought police were after us (I'm kidding. I
hope.) Anonymity AND potential audit capable. Best of both worlds. Defeats
deliberate fraud. Accidental fraud and stupidity are whole other ball games.

It also provides for backup if the machine fails by dropping a tooth on
its cogs or something. I would want an actual hardcopy ballot so that second
parties can be sure the vote is correctly recorded, or is discarded for
improper double voting.

BTW I see nothing wrong with "bring your voting receipt to Joe's Bar for
a Free drink! There would be no way to tell who the voter voted for, just
that he received a blank ballot, which he turned in, marked or unmarked.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17939
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:21:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Charles Graft wrote:

>> I think the
>> touch-screen system I saw featured on CNN (I forget which state it
>> was
>> in) holds even greater promise.
>
>      I wish you could get that information to me.  He is probably
> infringing my patent, and my lawyer would like to know.

Sorry, it was just a quickie piece on CNN (before all H#ll broke loose),
and I don't have any more info than what I've already posted. Wish I
could help.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17940
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:16:45 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3A12F56D.882D120F@aol.com...
> Gordon--
>      Why the senate?  Because the small population states were afraid of
> being dominated by the large population states.  Why the house?  Because
> the large population states wanted their influence felt.

BC, I'm no scholar of the Constitution, but I am aware of this.

What I am looking for are arguments against the EC that are not also
arguments against the Senate.  I suspect that there aren't any, but I also
suspect that EC reformers are reluctant to come out in favor of scrapping
the Senate.

>      I personally feel the "direct election of senators" was a mistake.
> It took the states as a political entity out of the power loop.

I am inclined to agree.  More generally, it is a tradegy of huge proportions
that the issue of states rights was tied to the issue of slavery.   It was
probably necessary for federal action to end slavery, but, however
jusitified the reasons for starting down that path, the momentum has carried
us to a bad place.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17941
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:57:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Frank Fujita wrote:

> Many people that I think would be good president say they couldn't afford
> the pay cut.

In response to...

> "Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@jps.net> wrote in message
> news:3a120636.509836@NEWS.SFF.NET...
> >... I also don't think it's the sort of job where the amount
> > of pay influences the decision of whether they want it or not. I don't
> > think upping the salaries would increase or improve the pool of
> > contenders. Even if the president was paid nothing I don't think it
> > would change who ran very much, if at all.

My take on the pay issue is a little different. Like Deb, I doubt money is a
prime motivator for people to seek public office. Being a politician -- even a
corrupt one -- is a *lousy* way to get rich, compared to the alternatives
available these days.

Like Frank, I believe the prospect of a "pay cut" might keep some good people
out of public service, but unlike Frank, I'm not thinking of zillionaires or
high-paid executives (at least, I *think* that's what Frank meant). Those folks
can afford to donate 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 years of their time at (relatively
speaking) little or no pay.

Instead, I'm thinking of the other end of the economic scale... of people who
don't run for public office because they can't afford to risk giving up their
"day jobs." I'm constantly hearing folks complain about how the Congress is
made up of too many lawyers and millionaires, and not enough "ordinary people."
Well, part of the reason may be that "ordinary people" generally have to work
for a living, and can't afford to take a year off (without pay) to run for (for
instance) the House and 2 years off (with pay that may not be much more, if
more at all, than what they were getting at the job they left) to actually
serve a term, potentially to find themselves out of a job and broke at the end
of that time. I know if *I* were approached to run for Congress (fat chance,
but hey, it's just a hypothetical <g>), I'd have to say "no," out of fear that
I'd destroy my ability to feed my family and send my daughter to college. If we
want Mr. Smith to go to Washington, we need to find *some* way to make sure he
doesn't come home to the poor house.

How? Well, salaries two or three times higher would help, because then members
could reasoanbly be expected to save enough during their terms to [a] make up
for pay missed during the campaign and [b] tide them over while re-establishing
their careers. In addition, early pension eligibility for even one-term members
would help. I have to think a little harder about the specifics, but the
general principle should be that "regular" folks should feel like they can run
for the Congress without putting the financial future of their families at
risk.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17942
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:26:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A132300.60B86EC3@ix.netcom.com...
....
> My take on the pay issue is a little different. Like Deb, I doubt money is
a
> prime motivator for people to seek public office. Being a politician --
even a
> corrupt one -- is a *lousy* way to get rich, compared to the alternatives
> available these days.

It's a poor way to get rich if you have strong business and technical
skills.  It is a much better way if you have good political skills instead.
The Clintons have moved into a rather impressive house in Westchester
County.  I would dearly like to see the sources of income listed on their
mortgage application.  Or perhaps they took a no-income-verification option.





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17943
From: SpaceCadet <cdozo@hotmail.com_delete_this>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:10:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> Charles Graft wrote:
> 

> >      I wish you could get that information to me.  He is probably
> > infringing my patent, and my lawyer would like to know.

BC, 

go to http://www.examiner.com/991104/1104voting.html It's an
article about touch-screen voting from the San Francisco
Examiner.

Carol

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17944
From: SpaceCadet <cdozo@hotmail.com_delete_this>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:23:29 -0600
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> > Charles Graft wrote:
> >
> 
> > >      I wish you could get that information to me.  He is probably
> > > infringing my patent, and my lawyer would like to know.
> 

BC,


I read a few more of the search results. There was another good
touch-screen voting link at http://www.spve.com/products/. This
is a link to a company that makes electronic voting machines.

I did the search on Google using the search parameters '"touch
Screen" voting' with double quotes around the words 'touch
screen' to search for the phrase.  You also might want to do this
or a similar search on Google yourself and check out some more of
the links that came up.

Carol

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17945
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:17:20 GMT
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This refers more to an earlier thread than this one, altho it's close,
but I've already deleted the former.  Ah me...

'Rita said something about the EC ensuring that candidates visit
little burgs like hers, as opposed to concentrating in the large
states (and this seems to be the main argument, altho not the one
necessarily being presented in this thread). However, I'm not
convinced that this is true.

If it were, when Bush and Gore went to Washington State, shouldn't
they hanve only visited the big cities like Seattle and Spokane?  Why
spend any time in the small towns if only the major populations
concentrations count?

Also, a Rhode Island or Wyoming has so few electoral votes that there
is (relatively) little chance of one or the other making a difference
in winning the EC.  Even now, it is a relatively large state in
dispute.  No one much cares who won in New Mexico.  Yet these small
states were still visited during the campaign.

There may be arguments for keeping the EC, but I see no "evidence"
that candidates would not visit or otherwise pay attention to a RI,
WY, NM etc, without it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17946
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:38:27 GMT
Subject: Re: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:39:22 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

>...when the email jokes start.  Note that I am reproducing them as I
>got them and that I think you could easily interchange party names. ;)
>
***********************************************************************************
This one's slightly different from what WJaKe posted, worth it for #12
;) ....

OFFICIAL NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your failure to elect anybody as President of the USA
andthus to govern yourselves and, by extension, the free world, we
hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective
today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties
over all states, commonwealths and other territories including New
Jersey.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, please comply
withthe following acts:

1. Look up "revocation" in the now official Oxford Dictionary ($75).
Start spelling English words correctly.

2. Learn at least the first 4 lines of "God Save The Queen"

3. Start referring to "soccer" as football

4. Declare war on Quebec and France

5. Arrest Mel Gibson for treason

6. Close down the NFL. Learn to play rugby

7. Enjoy warm flat beer and steak & kidney pudding. Train waitresses
to be more aggressive with customers and not to tell you their names
before you eat.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday, this has been replaced with
November 5th

9. All members of this British Crown Dependency will be required to
take 6 weeks annual vacation and observe statutory tea breaks.

10. Driving on the left is now compulsory - recall all cars to effect
the change immediately.

11. Report to our Consulate General in NY - M Wragg - for your new
passport and job allocation.

12. Have Meg Ryan report to the Prince Andrew's Bedchamber.

13. Add the Royal insignia to the top of the Washington Monument - and
the Queens Christmas speeches to the Lincoln Memorial.

14. Stop referring to the World Series of Baseball and instead call it
the National Series of USA, Cuba and Japan.

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly
to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation and have a nice day!

************************************************************************************
 
 NEW YORK (AP) --The New York Mets announced today that they are
 going to court to get an additional inning added to the end of Game 5
of the World Series.
    
The batting, pitching, and bench coaches for the Mets held a press
conference earlier today. They were joined by members of the  Major
League Players Union.
    
     "We meant to hit those pitches from the Yankee pitchers," said
     the Mets batting coach. "We were confused by the irregularities
of the pitches we received and believe we have been denied our right
to hit."
    
     One claim specifically noted that a small percentage of the
     Mets batters had intended to swing at fast balls, but actually
swung at curve balls. It was clear that these batters never intended
to swing at curve balls, though a much higher percentage were not
confused by the  pitches.
    
     Reporters at the press conference pointed out that the Mets had
     extensively reviewed film of the Yankees pitchers prior to the
World Series and had in fact faced the Yankees in inter-league play
earlier in the year.
    
     "The fact remains that some of the pitches confused us and denied
us of our right to hit," said the Mets batting coach. "The World
Series is not over yet and the Yankees are celebrating prematurely."
    
     Major League Baseball has reviewed the telecast of all the
     World Series games and recounted the balls and strikes called by
the umpires of each game.
    
     "While some of the strikes called against the Mets were, in fact,
balls, there were not enough of them to change the outcome of the
World Series," the commissioner said.
    
     Another portion of the Mets legal claim stated that, based on
on-base percentage, the Mets had actually won the World Series,
regardless of the final scores of the games. "It's clear that we were
slightly on-base more often than the Yankees," said a Mets spokesman.
"The World Series crown is rightly ours."
    
     The manager of the Mets has remained in relative seclusion,
engaging in some light jogging for exercise. He has stated that he
believes "we need to let the process run its course without a rush to
judgment."
 
 





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17947
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:39:38 -0600
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a140648.79486085@news.sff.net...
> There may be arguments for keeping the EC, but I see no "evidence"
> that candidates would not visit or otherwise pay attention to a RI,
> WY, NM etc, without it.

I've wondered that myself.  Proportionally the states with the larger
population are going to have more electors.  Therefore, the candidates are
*already* more interested in those states.  If the candidates are currently
visiting states with a small number of electors, I really don't see where
that's going to change if you substitute "population" for electors.  The
only "evening out" effect of the electors between heavily populated and
lightly populated states are the two electors which every state gets for its
senators.  Just my opinion, but I've never considered the candidates were
going out of their way because of those two electors.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17948
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:45:57 -0600
Subject: Florida Secretary of State
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Look what I found on the internet today.  Anyone want to say anything to the
Florida Secretary of State?  Here's Katherine Harris' official e-mail
address.  I decided to express my opinion as one of the citizens Ms. Harris
is supposedly a "public servant" for.  RAH was right.  Public servant =
public master.

secretary@mail.dos.state.fl.us

I will say this about the Internet.  It makes it easier to send messages to
those public servants.  Doesn't mean they read them.  Course I don't have
much faith they read the paper mail.  I know my congressman, Joe
Scarborough, does not.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17949
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:00:59 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a140648.79486085@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...
....
> 'Rita said something about the EC ensuring that candidates visit
> little burgs like hers, as opposed to concentrating in the large
> states (and this seems to be the main argument, altho not the one
> necessarily being presented in this thread). However, I'm not
> convinced that this is true.
> 
> If it were, when Bush and Gore went to Washington State, shouldn't
> they hanve only visited the big cities like Seattle and Spokane?  Why
> spend any time in the small towns if only the major populations
> concentrations count?

It's a question of marginal cost.  Once a candidate decides to go to 
Seattle, it could be worth while to visit nearby areas, especially to 
keep the "party faithful" energized.  I suspect that the small towns that 
/were/ visited were very carefully selected.  But if you don't have any 
reason to visit Seattle in the first place, the whole picture changes.
 
> Also, a Rhode Island or Wyoming has so few electoral votes that there
> is (relatively) little chance of one or the other making a difference
> in winning the EC.  Even now, it is a relatively large state in
> dispute.  No one much cares who won in New Mexico.  Yet these small
> states were still visited during the campaign.

Each candidate builds a strategy for getting at least 271 electoral 
votes.  Given the EC, some candidates will find that their best strategy 
requires that they visit some small states, and, as a result, their major 
opponent may have to visit those same states.
 
> There may be arguments for keeping the EC, but I see no "evidence"
> that candidates would not visit or otherwise pay attention to a RI,
> WY, NM etc, without it.

Well, I wasn't asking about arguments for /keeping/ the EC; as far as I 
am concerned, a perfectly good reason to keep it is that we already have 
it, and any change to it will be very difficult.  I was asking if there 
were any arguments /against/ the EC that were not /also/ arguments 
against the Senate. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17950
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:35:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Gordon Sollars wrote:

> [Being a politician is] a poor way to get rich if you have strong business
> and technical
> skills.  It is a much better way if you have good political skills instead.

I think anyone who has the skills, determination, and fortitude required to
make any sort of career in politics could almost certainly have a more
lucrative one in some other field.

> The Clintons have moved into a rather impressive house in Westchester
> County.

AFAIK that house is essentially the only asset they own (before buying it, they
hadn't owned any house since Bill first became Governor of Arkansas, IIRC)...
and it, as you point out, is mortgaged to the hilt. Regardless of what you
think about their politics or character, they're both intelligent, highly
educated people. I have no doubt they could be *much* wealthier today if they'd
simply worked as lawyers for all those years they've been in public life
instead.

I'm sure there are some people who go into politics in hope of personal gain,
but I think they're idiots: The job is too hard, and the life too vicious and
risky, to be worth it to anyone who didn't have a genuine commitment to public
service. That's true, I suspect, even of those whose vision of public service
seems dead wrong to you philosophically.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17951
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:51:48 GMT
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:00:59 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>It's a question of marginal cost.  Once a candidate decides to go to 
>Seattle, it could be worth while to visit nearby areas, especially to 
>keep the "party faithful" energized.  I suspect that the small towns that 
>/were/ visited were very carefully selected.  But if you don't have any 
>reason to visit Seattle in the first place, the whole picture changes.

Seattle is a good long way from where 'Rita lives, IIRC (and she or
anyone else is welcome to correct me if I don't).  Proximity would
apply more to Portland OR or maybe Boise ID, but those are different
states.  Most of the states where a major city is not fairly close by,
like parts of WY maybe, do not have many electoral votes either.
 
>Each candidate builds a strategy for getting at least 271 electoral 
>votes.  Given the EC, some candidates will find that their best strategy 
>requires that they visit some small states, and, as a result, their major 
>opponent may have to visit those same states.

Can you think of any of the small states which appears to have been
part of either Bush's or Gore's strategy?  Bush wrote off Iowa today
so as to appear to take the high road on recounts.  Can't say as I
blame him--Iowa would have had no impact at this point.

On the other hand, Kansas was a gimme to Bush, with Gore having no
chance here.  I don't think we were visited by either.  Altho both
came to Kansas City (MO) several times, and so may have crossed the
border for some realtively small function.  I hadn't thought about it
before, but if both candidates had had to worry about total popular
vote counts, maybe they would have come here to campaign.  I'm not
saying that would have been a good thing <g>.

>Well, I wasn't asking about arguments for /keeping/ the EC; as far as I 
>am concerned, a perfectly good reason to keep it is that we already have 
>it, and any change to it will be very difficult.  I was asking if there 
>were any arguments /against/ the EC that were not /also/ arguments 
>against the Senate. 

No, I know.  Apologies for "usurping" the thread.  Well, borrowing it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17952
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:51:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A148B3F.4A332E84@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> I think anyone who has the skills, determination, and fortitude required to
> make any sort of career in politics could almost certainly have a more
> lucrative one in some other field.

I think that this is wrong two ways.  First, I think there is a tendency 
to pick a career you will be happy with, and one important parameter in 
the "happiness bundle" is money.  Unless, of course, you already have a 
great deal of money.  Of course, by "more lucrative" you could mean only 
a small amount more.  This could well be true, but if what is given up is 
small, the compensation of power easily makes up for it. 

Second, the state-paid salaries of politicians are only source of their 
income, which sources range from perfectly kosher speaker's fees to 
outright bribes.  More importantly, many politicians are able to combine 
their roles as public servants with lucrative law practices, during and, 
perhaps especially, after public office.  In short, lawyers already have 
the "some other field".
      
> > The Clintons have moved into a rather impressive house in Westchester
> > County.
> 
> AFAIK that house is essentially the only asset they own (before buying it, they
> hadn't owned any house since Bill first became Governor of Arkansas, IIRC)...
> and it, as you point out, is mortgaged to the hilt.

You have to be able to qualify for a mortgage - at least I have always 
had to.  And the more you want to borrow on a property, the more income 
you have to show.  I take it that they were able to satisfy a bank 
somehow.  Now, it is true that Hillary has shown a remarkable ability in 
the futures markets, so perhaps the bank was satisfied with that.

> Regardless of what you
> think about their politics or character,

It's the character really; Bill Clinton has been about the best Democrat 
a libertarian could hope for (which admittedly is not much).  (Arguably, 
Gore's outrageous class warfare rhetorical bark was only needed to 
win the election, being much worse than the bite of his rather centrist 
career.  That's one of the reasons I'm optimistic that the republic will 
survive a Gore Presidency, if it comes to that.)  

> they're both intelligent, highly
> educated people. I have no doubt they could be *much* wealthier today if they'd
> simply worked as lawyers for all those years they've been in public life
> instead.
> 
> I'm sure there are some people who go into politics in hope of personal gain,
> but I think they're idiots: The job is too hard, and the life too vicious and
> risky, to be worth it to anyone who didn't have a genuine commitment to public
> service. That's true, I suspect, even of those whose vision of public service
> seems dead wrong to you philosophically.

It's not the difference in vision over "public service", it's much more 
radical than that.  Bill and Hillary are perfect examples of the lust for 
power.  My argument is not that people go into politics to make as much 
money as possible - that is probably not even true in countries far more 
corrupt than ours.  No, politics is really about power, but, as I said in 
my earlier post, it is a much better way for people with political skills 
to make money than to try to go into business.  But it appears you think 
that the "skills, determination, and fortitude" necessary for success in 
either field are more or less interchangeable.     

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17953
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:10:34 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a1499c1.30986516@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...
....
> Can you think of any of the small states which appears to have been
> part of either Bush's or Gore's strategy?  Bush wrote off Iowa today
> so as to appear to take the high road on recounts.  Can't say as I
> blame him--Iowa would have had no impact at this point.
> 
> On the other hand, Kansas was a gimme to Bush, with Gore having no
> chance here.  I don't think we were visited by either.  Altho both
> came to Kansas City (MO) several times, and so may have crossed the
> border for some realtively small function.  I hadn't thought about it
> before, but if both candidates had had to worry about total popular
> vote counts, maybe they would have come here to campaign.  I'm not
> saying that would have been a good thing <g>.

In any given election, I suppose almost anything is possible.  I am 
trying to focus on macro factors.  Of course, if a state is "locked up" 
for a candidate, he will not spend much time there whether it is large or 
small.  Hence all the effort devoted to the "battle ground" states of 
this election.  But a structural change to the EC needs to be evaluated 
against the background of many different possible elections.  Here is my 
"hypothesis": having the EC will cause a candidate to spend more time in 
smaller states (than not having the EC).  This is because some of the 
time a candidate's strategy for getting to 271 will depend upon small, 
undecided states.  Without the EC (I claim), a candidate needing only a 
small boost to get a majority of the popular vote is not going to travel 
to a small state - additional money spent near the media centers will be 
more cost effective.
 
> >Well, I wasn't asking about arguments for /keeping/ the EC; as far as I 
> >am concerned, a perfectly good reason to keep it is that we already have 
> >it, and any change to it will be very difficult.  I was asking if there 
> >were any arguments /against/ the EC that were not /also/ arguments 
> >against the Senate. 
> 
> No, I know.  Apologies for "usurping" the thread.  Well, borrowing it.

Well, at least you are replying to my post.  Apparently those who favor 
getting rid of the EC have all been frightened away by my challenge!  
Just as I thought.  ;-) 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17954
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:30:50 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote
> Well, I wasn't asking about arguments for /keeping/ the EC; as far as I
> am concerned, a perfectly good reason to keep it is that we already have
> it, and any change to it will be very difficult.  I was asking if there
> were any arguments /against/ the EC that were not /also/ arguments
> against the Senate.

I don't know that this is an argument *against* the EC, but it does make
politicians only want to get 51% of the votes in any one state.  That is, a
politician given 51% of the votes in California isn't willing to do more in
CA if it means losing votes in ME.  So, a candidate is unlikely to take
positions that are extreme in favor of one area of the country, just enough
to get 51%.  Of course, I think that's a good thing.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17955
From: acarnali@speedlinetech.com
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:03:58 GMT
Subject: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hi everyone,

I'm feeling a little lost here and figure the great minds of the
Heinlein forum might be able to help me out.

I've been listening to the Beyond X series on public radio and about a
month ago heard Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio.  The play was
introduced by Harlen Ellison, and he went on about what a wonderful
story this is.

The play was interesting and well done, it held my attention for the
full hour but at the end of the hour, I felt that I had missed
something.  I had taped the show and have listened to it two more
times but this still didn't help.  Then I thought that maybe it lost
something in the translation to radio, so I found a copy of the
original short story and read that.

I still didn't get it!

What am I missing here?  What is the point of this story?  I suspect
that I'm missing something really obvious here.  Can anyone help me
see the light on this one?

Thanks in advance,

	Al



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17956
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:16:23 GMT
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:04:28 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>I am interested in seeing arguments that support EC reform that do 
>not at the same time argue for Senate reform. 

Probably because no one has thought of it <g>.
But seriously, it may be a matter of perceptions.  People are
comfortable with the idea that a congressman/woman only represents a
portion of the people.  It seems almost natural (because we've always
had it this way) that one's representative represents a relatively
local subset, while one's senator represents a larger subset o f the
population.  The president, on the other hand, is felt to represent
the entire population.

I don't think anyone much feels that a senator represents the state
itself, as in the state govt, as they may have in the days when the
state legislature selected the senators.  Oh maybe they do in a 'way,
sort of the same way a GA resident might root for UGA's football team
against TN's or FL's, even tho they've never attended the school.  But
most folks no longer see the state as any kind of sovereign entity,
which its own rights with respect to the federal govt.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17957
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:09:26 -0800
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai,
just a quick geography note.  I'm proximate to none of the above.  Seattle
is about 220 miles WNW.  Portland is about 215 miles due West.  Boise is
about 275 miles SSE.  Spokane is closest, 140 miles NNE.

Finley is part of the Tri-Cities.  A misnomer because Tri-Cities, WA
includes four incorporated towns and four to seven unincorporated
communities in three counties.    How many and which unincorporated areas
are included in the Tri-Cities depends on who is doing the counting and for
what reason they're counting.  (During the campaign we grew to to include
six or eight muncipalities and over 10 rural communities in two states!)

Now for the polictical part of our program:  The Tri-Cities area is home to
the Hanford Nuclear Resevation; is less than forty miles from the Umatilla
Army Depot; and is located at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia
Rivers.  That makes us the recipients of whole lot of Federal dollars.  It
also puts us in the middle of three really HOT topics:  radioactive waste
clean up to the north, nerve gas incineration to the south, and the
endangered species act inbetween. (So I guess we're a little more important
than your average 100k-250k area.)

Back to the topic.

The Electoral College is far from perfect.  At the same time, I'm not sure I
want to change it.  Maybe eliminate the electors and just award the state's
electoral votes based on the general election.  I like the idea of electoral
votes being apportioned by Congressional District, also.

The Senate is a necessary evil.  Just think what the House would do if the
Senate wasn't over there amending their bills.  <shudder>  (and versa visa)

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote in message <3a1499c1.30986516@news.sff.net>...
|On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:00:59 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
|<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
|
|>It's a question of marginal cost.  Once a candidate decides to go to
|>Seattle, it could be worth while to visit nearby areas, especially to
|>keep the "party faithful" energized.  I suspect that the small towns that
|>/were/ visited were very carefully selected.  But if you don't have any
|>reason to visit Seattle in the first place, the whole picture changes.
|
|Seattle is a good long way from where 'Rita lives, IIRC (and she or
|anyone else is welcome to correct me if I don't).  Proximity would
|apply more to Portland OR or maybe Boise ID, but those are different
|states.  Most of the states where a major city is not fairly close by,
|like parts of WY maybe, do not have many electoral votes either.
|
|>Each candidate builds a strategy for getting at least 271 electoral
|>votes.  Given the EC, some candidates will find that their best strategy
|>requires that they visit some small states, and, as a result, their major
|>opponent may have to visit those same states.
|
|Can you think of any of the small states which appears to have been
|part of either Bush's or Gore's strategy?  Bush wrote off Iowa today
|so as to appear to take the high road on recounts.  Can't say as I
|blame him--Iowa would have had no impact at this point.
|
|On the other hand, Kansas was a gimme to Bush, with Gore having no
|chance here.  I don't think we were visited by either.  Altho both
|came to Kansas City (MO) several times, and so may have crossed the
|border for some realtively small function.  I hadn't thought about it
|before, but if both candidates had had to worry about total popular
|vote counts, maybe they would have come here to campaign.  I'm not
|saying that would have been a good thing <g>.
|
|>Well, I wasn't asking about arguments for /keeping/ the EC; as far as I
|>am concerned, a perfectly good reason to keep it is that we already have
|>it, and any change to it will be very difficult.  I was asking if there
|>were any arguments /against/ the EC that were not /also/ arguments
|>against the Senate.
|
|No, I know.  Apologies for "usurping" the thread.  Well, borrowing it.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17958
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:30:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:03:58 GMT, acarnali@speedlinetech.com wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm feeling a little lost here and figure the great minds of the
>Heinlein forum might be able to help me out.
>
Al, 

Boy, that's a lot to live up to!  Welcome, and I'm sure one of the
folks here has at least read the story.  I have not, so all I'm doing
is saying "Hi". ;)

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17959
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:43:54 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

....
>The Tri-Cities area is home to
> the Hanford Nuclear Resevation; is less than forty miles from the Umatilla
> Army Depot; and is located at the confluence of the Snake and Columbia
> Rivers.  That makes us the recipients of whole lot of Federal dollars.  It
> also puts us in the middle of three really HOT topics:  radioactive waste
> clean up to the north, nerve gas incineration to the south, and the
> endangered species act inbetween. (So I guess we're a little more
important
> than your average 100k-250k area.)

Great Googlie Mooglie!!  I would think that politicians would come to your
area just for the photo-opps, even if the population were 100 and falling.
;-)




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17960
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:58:57 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

....
> People are
> comfortable with the idea that a congressman/woman only represents a
> portion of the people.  It seems almost natural (because we've always
> had it this way) that one's representative represents a relatively
> local subset, while one's senator represents a larger subset o f the
> population.  The president, on the other hand, is felt to represent
> the entire population.

Right.  But I think that there is more, in a geographically large and
culturally diverse country, to "representing the entire population" than
simply getting a majority of the popular vote.
>
> I don't think anyone much feels that a senator represents the state
> itself, as in the state govt, as they may have in the days when the
> state legislature selected the senators.  Oh maybe they do in a 'way,
> sort of the same way a GA resident might root for UGA's football team
> against TN's or FL's, even tho they've never attended the school.

I don't quite follow this.  A senator nowadays indeed does not represent his
state /government/, but surely she represents the people of the state - or,
at least, the special interests of that state.  ;-)  How else to get
elected?

> But
> most folks no longer see the state as any kind of sovereign entity,
> which its own rights with respect to the federal govt.

Sad, but quite possibly true.  Yet, even with the huge growth of the federal
government, most of the law that we deal with on a regular basis is state
law.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17961
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:37:01 GMT
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hi 'Rita!  Long time no talk to.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:09:26 -0800, "Lorrita Morgan"
<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:

>just a quick geography note.  I'm proximate to none of the above.  Seattle
>is about 220 miles WNW.  Portland is about 215 miles due West.  Boise is
>about 275 miles SSE.  Spokane is closest, 140 miles NNE.

I knew you were from somewhere in the SE part of WA, but couldn't
remember a single one of the Tri-Cities' names.  So I used Walla Walla
in the "how distant is it?" website to figure that Boise might be
closer.

I've been to the Tri-Cities, by the way, a number of years ago.  We
RV'd it there, on the way to Vancouver.  As you know Chuck is
orginally from WA, and he had an uncle who was a wheat farmer, I
think, in the Bend OR area.

<snip>
>The Senate is a necessary evil.  Just think what the House would do if the
>Senate wasn't over there amending their bills.  <shudder>  (and versa visa)

Too true.  I like it best when the house and senate are controlled by
different parties.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17962
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:47:42 GMT
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:58:57 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

In reply to my:
>> I don't think anyone much feels that a senator represents the state
>> itself, as in the state govt, as they may have in the days when the
>> state legislature selected the senators.  Oh maybe they do in a 'way,
>> sort of the same way a GA resident might root for UGA's football team
>> against TN's or FL's, even tho they've never attended the school.
>
>I don't quite follow this.  A senator nowadays indeed does not represent his
>state /government/, but surely she represents the people of the state - or,
>at least, the special interests of that state.  ;-)  How else to get
>elected?

Well, yes, I guess so.  Certainly when it comes to pork-barrel
projects, or closing military bases, etc.  In other words, when the
people want a handout.  (Thank goodness we don't assign electoral
votes or elect senators by occupation!)  But I guess what I was saying
is that most people's "loyalty" to a state is purely emotional, and
mostly comes up when there's some sort of rivalry--usually with a
neighboring state, usually relatively harmless.  We're a long way from
the days when Robert E. Lee (and most of his fellow citizens, at least
in the South) felt his first allegiance was to Virginia.

And to my:
>> But
>> most folks no longer see the state as any kind of sovereign entity,
>> which its own rights with respect to the federal govt.
>
>Sad, but quite possibly true.  Yet, even with the huge growth of the federal
>government, most of the law that we deal with on a regular basis is state
>law.

True.  But I've never been convinced that's such a good thing.  50
ways to screw something up instead of one <g>.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17963
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:50:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:03:58 GMT, acarnali@speedlinetech.com wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm feeling a little lost here and figure the great minds of the
>Heinlein forum might be able to help me out.
>
>I've been listening to the Beyond X series on public radio and about a
>month ago heard Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio.  The play was
>introduced by Harlen Ellison, and he went on about what a wonderful
>story this is.
>
>The play was interesting and well done, it held my attention for the
>full hour but at the end of the hour, I felt that I had missed
>something.  I had taped the show and have listened to it two more
>times but this still didn't help.  Then I thought that maybe it lost
>something in the translation to radio, so I found a copy of the
>original short story and read that.
>
>I still didn't get it!
>
>What am I missing here?  What is the point of this story?  I suspect
>that I'm missing something really obvious here.  Can anyone help me
>see the light on this one?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>	Al

Hi and Welcome Al!  I haven't read the book(s) and so can't help
either.  But I'm reminded of way back when I first saw 2001: A Space
Odyssey.  I didn't understand the ending, so I ran out and bought the
book.  I still didn't understand the ending.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17964
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:49:36 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a1588f7.6149951@news.sff.net...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:58:57 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> >I don't quite follow this.  A senator nowadays indeed does not represent
his
> >state /government/, but surely she represents the people of the state -
or,
> >at least, the special interests of that state.  ;-)  How else to get
> >elected?
>
> Well, yes, I guess so.  Certainly when it comes to pork-barrel
> projects, or closing military bases, etc.  In other words, when the
> people want a handout.

There is something else people want from goverment?  ;-)

Here is the best model of government I have seen (courtesy of David
Friedman):

There are 100 people in a circle.  The "governor" walks around the circle
and takes a penny from each one, then he hands fifty cents to one of them -
who is overjoyed - and keeps fifty cents for himself.  The governor repeats
this slowly, 100 times, and everyone is happy.
....
> >Sad, but quite possibly true.  Yet, even with the huge growth of the
federal
> >government, most of the law that we deal with on a regular basis is state
> >law.
>
> True.  But I've never been convinced that's such a good thing.  50
> ways to screw something up instead of one <g>.

Well, if the "one way" is screwed up anyway, why not try 50 ways and see
what happens?



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17965
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:35:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> You have to be able to qualify for a mortgage - at least I have always
> had to.  And the more you want to borrow on a property, the more income
> you have to show.  I take it that they were able to satisfy a bank
> somehow.

No doubt they were able to qualify for the mortgage based on Bill's future earning
potential (from books, lectures, etc.). It's also probably generally true that a
former president is a pretty good risk. I don't deny that the Clintons are now set
for life financially, based on their fame (and, incidentally, based on the fact that
a significant number of people are actually grateful for their service).
Nevertheless, by all accounts I've heard, their current personal wealth (as opposed
to future earnings potential) will be something close to zero when they leave the
White House. And even their future wealth is likely to be less than they'd have
today if they'd just spent the last 25 years as corporate lawyers. Take a look at so
many of their contrmporaries -- may of them less gifted than the Clintons -- who
have done just that.

And while presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members, a few high-profile senators,
and the two or three top members of the House leadership are reasonably certain to
leave public life "set for life," I'm not at all sure that's true of the
rank-and-file members of Congress (esp. those who only serve one or two terms), nor
of the myriads of governors, state legislators, mayors, city council members, county
commissioners, school board members, etc., etc,. etc.... who make up the vast
majority of "politicians" in this country. I stand by my contention that going into
politics is a lousy decision if money is your primary motivation... even
notwithstanding the fact that a relative handful of politicans do end up getting
moderately wealthy. How many of the top 500 wealthiest Americans made their fortunes
in politics (note that this is *different* than making your fortune first, then
spending it to get into politics).

> Bill and Hillary are perfect examples of the lust for
> power.

Here's where the whole conversation breaks down, I'm afraid. Since you refer to the
Clintons' "lust for power" as if it is unquestionable, self-evident fact, I will no
doubt make myself look like an idiot to you (and probably to about 80% of the rest
of the gang here) when I say that I see no evidence for any such lust (other kinds
of lust, to be sure, but...). In Bill Clinton, I see a man who has tried very hard
-- and (as is true, IMHO, of all presidents regardless of party) at great personal
sacrifice -- to make his country and the world a better place. I can only speculate
that the fact his political philosophy embraces a far larger and more activist
government than *your* political philosophy can tolerate is what shapes your
perception... but even if I were to agree that his attitude toward *government*
power was inappropriate, I still don't see how that translates to a *personal* lust
for power on his part. The moment he leaves the White House, he will instantly have
far less real power than thousands of other men his age (likely less real power than
three of the four other living ex-presidents, fo that matter). I'm sure he knows
this, and it doesn't seem to bother him a bit.

I suspect we'll never get any closer to agreeing than we are now; I probably won't
post again in this thread after this note.

> ...politics is..., as I said in
> my earlier post, ...a much better way for people with political skills
> to make money than to try to go into business.

I think this statement *vastly* underestimates the value of political skills in the
business world. It may not be true of independent entrepreneurs, but the *corporate*
world is full of quite highly paid executives who have few skills other than
political ones.

> But it appears you think
> that the "skills, determination, and fortitude" necessary for success in
> either field are more or less interchangeable.

Not at all. What I think is that it requires an extraordinarily gifted human being
to rise to the level of President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, Senate
Majority Leader, etc. ( and yes, BTW, I include even holders of those offices whom I
despised in that assessment: Newt Gingrich, for instance, was undeniably a brilliant
man, for all that I hated his politics). My contention is that people that gifted
would likely rise to the top of any field they chose... and many of the fields they
might choose instead of politics would pay much better. That is NOT the same as
saying I think business and political skills are interchangeable. There are, for
instance, plenty of billionaire businessmen who would make *lousy* political
leaders.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17966
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:20:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A15DCE1.D36A0204@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> I don't deny that the Clintons are now set
> for life financially, based on their fame (and, incidentally, based on the fact that
> a significant number of people are actually grateful for their service).
> Nevertheless, by all accounts I've heard, their current personal wealth (as opposed
> to future earnings potential) will be something close to zero when they leave the
> White House. And even their future wealth is likely to be less than they'd have
> today if they'd just spent the last 25 years as corporate lawyers. Take a look at so
> many of their contrmporaries -- may of them less gifted than the Clintons -- who
> have done just that.

Here is what I originally posted:

"It's a poor way to get rich if you have strong business and technical
skills.  It is a much better way if you have good political skills 
instead."

I don't that you have contradicted that.
 
> And while presidents, vice presidents, cabinet members, a few high-profile senators,
> and the two or three top members of the House leadership are reasonably certain to
> leave public life "set for life," I'm not at all sure that's true of the
> rank-and-file members of Congress (esp. those who only serve one or two terms), nor
> of the myriads of governors, state legislators, mayors, city council members, county
> commissioners, school board members, etc., etc,. etc.... who make up the vast
> majority of "politicians" in this country.

I don't see that you have shown that any of this number would be much 
richer if they had had careers in business.  I suspect that they are 
doing what they know and do best.

> How many of the top 500 wealthiest Americans made their fortunes
> in politics (note that this is *different* than making your fortune first, then
> spending it to get into politics).

If you look at my original claim, re posted here, I think you will see 
that it does not state that politics is the best way to make it onto that 
list.  However, you did not address my point about lawyers mixing in 
political careers with their law practices.  I think that there are a 
number of very wealthy lawyers holding public offices.  The two careers 
play very well together. 
 
> > Bill and Hillary are perfect examples of the lust for
> > power.
> 
> Here's where the whole conversation breaks down, I'm afraid. Since you refer to the
> Clintons' "lust for power" as if it is unquestionable, self-evident fact, I will no
> doubt make myself look like an idiot to you (and probably to about 80% of the rest
> of the gang here) when I say that I see no evidence for any such lust (other kinds
> of lust, to be sure, but...).

Not at all, Bill.  In case you haven't noticed, I have the odd habit of 
stating judgments in just the way I state other facts.  I also think that 
judgements - most certainly mine - can be wrong, just like other attempts 
to state facts.  Surely you have seen much harsher language than "lust 
for power" applied to Bill Clinton?  In any event, I think it is a 
characteristic common among politicians, so, from my perspective, I'm not 
even singling Clinton out for special treatment.

> In Bill Clinton, I see a man who has tried very hard
> -- and (as is true, IMHO, of all presidents regardless of party) at great personal
> sacrifice -- to make his country and the world a better place.

And where is the "personal sacrifice"?  The fact that he has no large 
wealth now...but has great earnings potential in the future? 

> I can only speculate
> that the fact his political philosophy embraces a far larger and more activist
> government than *your* political philosophy can tolerate is what shapes your
> perception...

Well, I'm sure it must, Bill.  But, again, there are /many/ others with a 
more activist agenda for government than I who have said much worse about 
Clinton.

> but even if I were to agree that his attitude toward *government*
> power was inappropriate, I still don't see how that translates to a *personal* lust
> for power on his part. The moment he leaves the White House, he will instantly have
> far less real power than thousands of other men his age (likely less real power than
> three of the four other living ex-presidents, fo that matter). I'm sure he knows
> this, and it doesn't seem to bother him a bit.

That's been the price you pay for getting to be President, first by 
tradition and then by law.  You get enormously more power and prestige 
than other men your age, but only for eight years.
 
> I suspect we'll never get any closer to agreeing than we are now; I probably won't
> post again in this thread after this note.

Your choice...but that sort of makes your suspicion a self-fulfilling 
prophesy.  
 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17967
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:00:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:20:43 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>Bill Dauphin writes...

>> In Bill Clinton, I see a man who has tried very hard
>> -- and (as is true, IMHO, of all presidents regardless of party) at great personal
>> sacrifice -- to make his country and the world a better place.
>
>And where is the "personal sacrifice"?  The fact that he has no large 
>wealth now...but has great earnings potential in the future? 

I can't think of a single president who hasn't appeared to have aged
at least 10 years for every 4 in office.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17968
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:37:21 -0800
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai,
Walla Walla is still {{HOME}} so you did good.  It's only 45 miles or so
East on SR12.  The Johnathan M. Wainwright VAMC is in Walla Walla and I
frequent that facility too often.

Meanwhile, as my brother pointed out in a Bcc of email he sent Florida's
Secretary of State at least this mess with Gore and Bush is keeping the
press away from Olympia.  Washington still doesn't have a U.S. Senator.  The
margin is 2,000(+/- a few) in favor of Slade Gorton, incumbent Republican.
King County (Seattle) still has 250k+ ballots to count.  Washington code
calls for the election to be certified on the 23rd.  (Forgive me If I'm in
the wrong thread with this observation/complaint.)

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote in message <3a158759.5735944@news.sff.net>...
|Hi 'Rita!  Long time no talk to.
|
|On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:09:26 -0800, "Lorrita Morgan"
|<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
|
|>just a quick geography note.  I'm proximate to none of the above.  Seattle
|>is about 220 miles WNW.  Portland is about 215 miles due West.  Boise is
|>about 275 miles SSE.  Spokane is closest, 140 miles NNE.
|
|I knew you were from somewhere in the SE part of WA, but couldn't
|remember a single one of the Tri-Cities' names.  So I used Walla Walla
|in the "how distant is it?" website to figure that Boise might be
|closer.
|
|I've been to the Tri-Cities, by the way, a number of years ago.  We
|RV'd it there, on the way to Vancouver.  As you know Chuck is
|orginally from WA, and he had an uncle who was a wheat farmer, I
|think, in the Bend OR area.
|
|<snip>
|>The Senate is a necessary evil.  Just think what the House would do if the
|>Senate wasn't over there amending their bills.  <shudder>  (and versa
visa)
|
|Too true.  I like it best when the house and senate are controlled by
|different parties.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17969
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:37:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a160c1a.19203576@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:20:43 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> I can't think of a single president who hasn't appeared to have aged
> at least 10 years for every 4 in office.

You really think that Clinton looks over 20 years older than he did in 
1992? 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17970
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:30:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Green Lantern and Comics (was  Re: Gathering!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Fader:  My dim memory is of 5/6 men in dull orange (?tan) jump
suits.  Each one had a story of how he had 'cheated death'.  The
premise for all of them daring any odds, fighting any foe, etc. etc.

Ed J

On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:12:33 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:

>
>
>Comics were mostly 12 cents when I first started reading.
>
>>Does anyone recall reading 'Challengers of the Unknown'?  A group of
>>men snatched from the jaws of death and therefore 'living on
>>borrowed time' (or so they said). 
>
>5/6 (maybe more?) guys in Blue body suits, doing adventurous type
>stuff, or am I mistaking them for someone else?
>
>Fader
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17971
From: eljohn@cyberenet.spamthis.net (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:40:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Green Lantern and Comics (was  Re: Gathering!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Geo:  You might be interested in trying to find a Captain America
tie!  I picked one up a few years ago in a "Big/Tall Men" Shop.
This one is silk-screened with the Cap fighting the Watchdogs. It's
red, white and blue (of course! <g>)  by Esquire Neckwear, Inc. and
Marvel Comics.  "  c 1991 Marvelent Group Inc "

Ed J  

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:24:19 -0700, Geo Rule <Geo_Rule@msn.com>
wrote:

>
>    I do have an Avengers #4 (Cap'n America rescued from suspended animation in an
>iceberg).  I was a big Cap'n America fan.
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17972
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:21:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <3a160c1a.19203576@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
> writes...
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:20:43 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> > <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> ...
> > I can't think of a single president who hasn't appeared to have aged
> > at least 10 years for every 4 in office.
>
> You really think that Clinton looks over 20 years older than he did in
> 1992?

Without question. I recently saw some pictures of him from around the
time of the beginning of his first presidential campaign, and he looke
like a high-school kid by comparison to the way he looks tody. Heck,
Jimmy Carter looks about the same now, when he really *is* 20 years
older, as he did at the end of his term in office.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17973
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:50:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Well, you sweet-talked me into continuing... <g>

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> Here is what I originally posted:
>
> "It's a poor way to get rich if you have strong business and technical
> skills.  It is a much better way if you have good political skills
> instead."
>
> I don't that you have contradicted that.

I haven't been trying to contraict you, per se, but rather to bolster and explain my own
point, to which the above quote was responding. Frank, Jai (?), nd I had gotten into a
discussion of pay increases for Congress, the President, etc. Somewhere in that
discussion, somebody (I think it was Frank) said that better pay, along with some other
changes, would remove money as a source of temptation. I responded that I didn't believe
money was a primary motivator for politicians, and it was in *that* context that I said
"being a politician... is a lousy way to get rich." With your "lust for power" theory, I
would think you might  even agree with me that most politicians are not primarily
motivated by financial greed.

> I don't see that you have shown that any of this number [i.e., lower-ranked
> politicians] would be much
> richer if they had had careers in business.  I suspect that they are
> doing what they know and do best.

I suspect (but admit I can't prove) that, no matter what gifts you may have, most of the
non-political careers open to you will pay better than politics would (or at least,
better than you can *expect* politics to). My real, underlying point is that if you tell
your high school career counselor, or write in your college application essay, that you
aspire to a career in politics, it's probably NOT because you think it's a great way to
make a big pile of money. As with folks who want to be teachers, firefighters, etc., I
think folks who chose politics as a career do so in expectation of other, nonfinancial,
types of rewards.

> ...you did not address my point about lawyers mixing in
> political careers with their law practices.  I think that there are a
> number of very wealthy lawyers holding public offices.  The two careers
> play very well together.

Well, if you postulate a lawyer who moves in and out of government throughout hir career,
all the while continuing to practice law actively, I suppose I can see where s/he might
ratchet up hir earnings considerably. But a lawyer who takes the most productive 20 or 30
years of hir career and spends them in politics will have a lot of financial ground to
make up when s/he returns to the law, notwithstanding the fact that fame and connections
arising from the political career might well allow hir to command very high fees.

> And where is the "personal sacrifice"?  The fact that he has no large
> wealth now...but has great earnings potential in the future?

No, I meant personal sacrifice in terms of how demanding -- physically, intellectually,
emotionally, even in terms of personal safety -- the job is. (See Jai's reply, too.) This
is especially true of the president, but also true to a lesser degree for most of our
highest elected offices. We're fond in this country of seeing our elected leaders as
lazy, greedy scoundrels, but in fact, they work extremely hard for (relatively speaking)
very lettle material reward.

> > ...The moment [clinton] leaves the White House, he will instantly have
> > far less real power than thousands of other men his age (likely less real power than
> > three of the four other living ex-presidents, fo that matter). I'm sure he knows
> > this, and it doesn't seem to bother him a bit.
>
> That's been the price you pay for getting to be President, first by
> tradition and then by law.  You get enormously more power and prestige
> than other men your age, but only for eight years.

So we do agree, after all? This was my point: The power that comes with being president
is only available to any one person for a little while, and in any case, it accrues
really more to the office than the individual. The power that comes from great wealth (a
Carnegie or Rockefeller, or in our own time, a Gates or Turner or Trump or Buffett) is
more enduring, and you *OWN* it... and thus, it seems to me, that sort of power would far
better satisfy a personal "lust for power" than even the most successful political
career.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17974
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:20:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>> I can't think of a single president who hasn't appeared to have aged
>> at least 10 years for every 4 in office.
>
>You really think that Clinton looks over 20 years older than he did in 
>1992? 

  Clinton looked like he aged 10 years just in the week that the
mid-east 'peace' he negotiated fell apart. 

  Did anyone know Clinton is/was in Vietnam? It's a ground-breaking,
legacy-making sort of trip planned for the news lull after the
election. Poor Clinton. The last shot at the big legacy stuff and it
was blown into obscurity by his successor. They tried to talk about it
on one CNN show--the moderator asked one of the guys about it, who
said, "Oh, yeah. Vietnam. Big trip, very important... Now back to that
comment about Florida..."


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17975
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:29:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:50:27 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> ...you did not address my point about lawyers mixing in
>> political careers with their law practices.  I think that there are a
>> number of very wealthy lawyers holding public offices.  The two careers
>> play very well together.
>
>Well, if you postulate a lawyer who moves in and out of government throughout hir career,
>all the while continuing to practice law actively, I suppose I can see where s/he might
>ratchet up hir earnings considerably.

And let's face it, lawyers, much as I hate them <g> do NOT make the
most money in our society.  Many, many are salaried and don't make any
more the average grad-degree'd professional.  And even the big-shot
lawyers are not the top-dollar earners.

Someone with finely tuned political skills could most easily make
mega-bucks as CEO of some big corporation.  It is totally unnecessary
at that level to know anything about what the corporation actually
does.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17976
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:31:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:37:19 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>You really think that Clinton looks over 20 years older than he did in 
>1992? 

Yeah, about.
Of course, those of us who carry a few extra pounds tend not to show
our age as readily. <g>

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17977
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:48:57 -0600
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a160c1a.19203576@news.sff.net...
> I can't think of a single president who hasn't appeared to have aged
> at least 10 years for every 4 in office.

Reagan.  I don't think he looked any older.  Clinton -- he does look older.
I recently saw some pictures of when he first took office and was surprised
at the change.  I'm almost tempted to say Nixon didn't look any older but I
don't really remember.  When Watergate happened my primary concern was the
fact that Gilligan's Island wasn't shown because all these old boring guys
in suits wanted to talk.  I didn't even know Nixon was probably going to be
impeached until much later.  The first election I was old enough to take an
interest in was Carter's.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17978
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 00:56:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Latest Election Fallout
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

To the citizens of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Northern
Ireland, 

We have reviewed your notice of our revocation of independence, and after
giving it the consideration it deserved, we are afraid we must decline.
You people haven't done any better job governing yourselves than we have.
 I'm afraid that all of us over here in America had ourselves a good chuckle
when the Right Honorable Tony Blair denounced drunken hooliganism this past
summer only to have his son arrested for same a few days later.  Our national
leader has the sense to ride about town in a motorcade-escorted limousine
or an armored helicopter.  Yours bought a minivan, for God's sake -- an
American minivan, too.  And you say our leaders have no dignity. 

As for Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, we have a lot of respect
for her.  We have more respect for her than you do most days, in fact. However,
we in America are not nearly enlightened enough for a female ruler yet (Hillary
notwithstanding) and forcing one on our people would probably be a bad idea.
 In addition, since you would not allow cameras in her house, interviews
and trials involving her past lovers, and frank discussion of her sex life
and biological fluids in 12- to 36-point type in every newspaper in our
country, she simply would not do as a leader of the American people. 

Your statement regarding a questionnaire to be circulated next year illustrates
that you have not gained any greater understanding of us than you had 225
years ago, we're afraid.  Americans simply will not stand for any political
process which will not go forward NOW, live on CNN, with as many lawyers
involved as is humanly possible.  Our news media, without some new aspect
of the questionnaire to cover on at least an hourly basis, would probably
resort to setting fires and instigating riots in order to have something
to cover.  We're afraid there aren't enough British military forces on the
planet to quell the chaos that would result, especially since most of our
teenagers are more heavily armed than the British military. 

Regarding your new rules, we have rejected most of them for the following
reasons: 

1.   World language is being driven by something called globalization, which
of course means that one day, the whole globe will look like the United
States of America.  The beauty of globalization is the fact that it will
soon be enforcing a single culture on of all Earth's population, to wit:
everyone will own at least one album by either Britney Spears or N'Sync,
everyone will have visited a Disney theme park sometime in their lives,
everyone will have a strip mall on the corner, everyone will have an e-mail
address at Yahoo!, everyone will spend much of their time on the Internet,
and most important of all, everyone will soon speak good American English
after learning it from an unending series of movies starring Harrison Ford,
Cuba Gooding, Jr., Adam Sandler, Cameron Diaz, Sandra Bullock, Gwenyth Paltrow,
and a whole flock of others.  We realize it will take a while, but we've
only been working on this plan for about 20 years now.  Give us some time.


1.5. By the way, for variety, we'll really screw up the global language
by exporting movies now and then starring Mel Gibson, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Antonio Banderas, Charlize Theron, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and maybe, if you're
nice to us, Sean Connery.  It's also part of our plan. 

2.   There is no such thing as "US English"?  And you say WE have no idea
what goes on outside our borders?  Please see above regarding enforced globalization.
 We hate to inform you of this, but the world language is becoming "American"
faster than you could say, "Like, I'll totally have fries with that, dude."
 We doubt you would wish to claim that sentence exists in your language,
but it would be denial of reality for us to say it does not exist in ours.


3.   There's a difference between English and Australian accents?  We don't
understand.  However, pursuant to the points above regarding our enforced
globalization, you would do well to attempt to eliminate your accents altogether.
 They're going to make your people hard to communicate with in the global
economy. 

4.   Regarding your request to cast British actors as good guys in our movies,
all we can say is send us more GOOD British actors, and we'll be happy to
oblige.  There's only so many things we can give Patrick Stewart, Sean Connery,
and Emma Thompson to do, after all.  In the meantime, all we can say in
our defense is that the latest Bond movie (British good guy) made $400M
profit, the latest Patrick Stewart movie (British good guy) made $200M profit,
and the latest Mel Gibson movie (British bad guy) lost money. 

4.5. And yes, we know Pierce Brosnan is Irish, not English but (a) you probably
think we don't know enough about the difference to forgive that, and (b)
we gave the job to Timothy Dalton first and he was terrible. 

5.   Regarding your demand that we begin to sing "God Save the Queen" instead
of "The Star Spangled Banner" we're a little unclear on this point: you
folks don't seem to respect your Royals.  Why do you expect us to? 

6.   We tried rugby for a while in the 1700s and found it not at all violent
enough for our liking.  In addition, your sports do not provide the opportunity
for abject commercialism that is a fundamental requirement of all American
sport.  Take cricket, for instance (since we shall not): no American company
is going to spend $27.5 million dollars per annum to endorse a player who
cannot beat his opponent without requiring 5 days to do it in.  Americans
simply do not have the attention span for British sports, and you should
not expect us to.  If there is not a potential for critically damaging,
mind-destroying, permanent crippling injury, we're not interested. The Kevlar
in American football is not there to protect the players; the number of
injuries in American football should make that plain.  The Kevlar is there
to inflict further injuries on those tackled.  It's only a matter of time
before we start including spikes in the Kevlar.  We Americans go in for
that sort of thing.  The American alternative to horrifying violence is
a sport like basketball, which proceeds at roughly the rate of a well-caffeinated
ferret on speed. 

7.   Errr... we invaded Canada in the late 1700s, looked around a bit, and
then decided we didn't want it and came back home.  Two hundred years of
close association has not changed our opinion on the matter overmuch.  If
they had oil or gold or something valuable, you can bet we'd be in there
faster than you could say "threat to our national security," but there's
nothing there but trees, moose, and a few rather odd people.  You folks
didn't want Canada; why should we be any different?  We DO have to admit
that the fact that they keep sending us people like William Shatner, Mike
Myers, and Keanu Reeves probably constitutes a hostile act.  We'll think
about this one and get back to you. 

7.5. By the way, while you're developing your technology infrastructure
to support our enforced globalization of your culture, buy some calculators
from amazon.com (note good product placement, something else you're going
to have to learn about if you wish to govern us).  America, like most of
the world, is aware that 98.85% that you reference in point 6 plus the 2.15%
you reference in point 7 does not equal 100%. 

8.   Americans have but one national tradition that has survived for the
three hundred or so years we've been on this continent, and that is blowing
things up real good.  July 4 is merely an outlet for this purpose.  Don't
suggest that we stop, because if you do, we may become more violent than
normal and look for something larger to blow up than a few cardboard cones
and sparklers.  For instance, four years in America without fireworks resulted
in a little explosive mishap in Hiroshima, something that we're still trying
to atone for 50 years later.  We're just serious about our explosions, OK?


9.   We find it ironic in the extreme that you cannot be proud enough of
yourselves to promote British automobiles rather than German ones, and for
that reason, we will have pity on you and leave point 9 alone.  However,
see above re: rt. hon. Tony Blair's new American minivan.  Please see to
your own house before advising us on ours. 

10.  Please tell US who killed Princess Diana.  It's been driving us crazy.


Thank you for your cooperation. 

Your buds, 

The rt. hon. United States of America

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17979
From: filksinger@earthlink.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 01:42:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Legality of Concession
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

There is no requirement that a candidate even want to be elected in the
first place. Whether or not he becomes the president elect is entirely up
to the voting process. He can refuse to serve, he cannot refuse to be elected.

So, no, a concession speech doesn't mean much of anything.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17980
From: anonymous@sff.net (Anonymous Visitor)
Date: 19 Nov 2000 01:42:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Oregon Voting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Damn. I hate the mail-in ballot idea. The secret ballot, where you have
no way of proving which way you voted, and no one can watch you vote, is
essential for liberty. Mail-in ballots allow you to vote right in front
of someone.

OTOH, it is the only way for some people to vote. So I am not quite ready
to ban it.

But I don't have to like it.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17981
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 01:44:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I don't understand. Exactly what "trail" exists with paper ballots that
is superior to what can be had with a machine?

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17982
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 01:44:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In a previous post, Frank Fujita wrote:
 All of my opinions are subject to change when faced with good arguments
 :)

Which makes you the oddball around here. 

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17983
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 01:55:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Definitely not. It is highly desirable that the ballot be secret, with the
secrecy enforced. It should be impossible for me to prove that I voted any
one particular way. This is an absolute necessity for the defense of liberty.

Any voting system that doesn't _require_ that I vote in secret should be
disposed of and replaced with a system where secrecy is _mandatory_. They
are a serious threat to freedom.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17984
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 01:57:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Now it's getting interesting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

There is no real chance of getting rid of the Electoral College. Congress
will almost certainly not vote it out, and the State legislatures will _never_
vote it out.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17985
From: anonymous@sff.net (Anonymous Visitor)
Date: 19 Nov 2000 02:03:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> And where is the "personal sacrifice"?  The fact that he has no large

> wealth now...but has great earnings potential in the future? 

Years of very hard work to get there, while the entire free press of which
we are so proud tries to destroy you, so that you can then enter the office
and work very hard while that same free press continues to try to find things
to attack you with, while having "Special Prosecutors" set on you with mandates
to catch you at anything at all, as if you were a suspected mob boss, and
making yourself a public target who will never again be able to leave your
house without an armed guard?

Personally, that's enough "sacrifice" for me to never touch it, even if
I did think I was the best man on Earth for the job.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17986
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:11:15 -0600
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a17307f.0@news.sff.net...
> I don't understand. Exactly what "trail" exists with paper ballots that
> is superior to what can be had with a machine?
>
> Filksinger

Y'all are going to make me pay more attention to the mechanics of the
process the next time I vote.

When it comes to our paper ballots there are three ways of tracking the
number of ballots.  First, there's the ballots themselves.  Second, when you
turn in the ballot you place it in machine which counts it.  Third, you tear
off a receipt which is kept separate from the ballots by the poll workers.
So as far as a number of ballots you can compare the machine count with the
number of paper ballots and the number of receipts.

What I'm not sure about are the receipts.  I know there is identification
information on them.  I didn't see any corresponding information on the
ballot.  I also didn't notice whether when I got my ballot, any information
was recorded next to my name.  I'll have to look next time.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17987
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 02:38:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Actually, the impeachment of President Nixon was the first political activity
I ever recognized as such that I can recall. I knew the man getting into
the helicopter was President of the United States and he was leaving because
he did bad things and thought he should go.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17988
From: anonymous@sff.net (Anonymous Visitor)
Date: 19 Nov 2000 02:51:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

wrote in message news:3a17307f.0@news.sff.net...
> I don't understand. Exactly what "trail" exists with paper ballots that
> is superior to what can be had with a machine?
>
> Filksinger

Y'all are going to make me pay more attention to the mechanics of the
process the next time I vote.

When it comes to our paper ballots there are three ways of tracking the
number of ballots.  First, there's the ballots themselves.  Second, when
you
turn in the ballot you place it in machine which counts it.  Third, you
tear
off a receipt which is kept separate from the ballots by the poll workers.
So as far as a number of ballots you can compare the machine count with
the
number of paper ballots and the number of receipts.>

If a vote is recorded on a computer, there is a record on the computer,
which can be made permanent (that's what BC got his patent for). A counter
that counts people voting is trivial. And I can be printed a receipt before
I leave.

Auditing on a computer can be made at least as rigorous as paper ballots,
I'll bet.

Filksinger

What I'm not sure about are the receipts.  I know there is identification
information on them.  I didn't see any corresponding information on the
ballot.  I also didn't notice whether when I got my ballot, any information
was recorded next to my name.  I'll have to look next time.

Margaret

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17989
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:19:41 +0900
Subject: Re: Latest Election Fallout
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Filksinger-

Was that your work?  If so, jolly good show!

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17990
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:51:28 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> Sad, but quite possibly true.  Yet, even with the huge growth of the federal
> government, most of the law that we deal with on a regular basis is state
> law.

     But an increasing amount of state law is mandated by federal requirements.
Such as the change in the alcohol impaired driving blood level.  Welfare and
medicare requirements.  Schools.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17991
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:16:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Charles Graft wrote:
<br>>
<br>> lal_truckee@my-deja.com wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > Unfortunately this is exactly what I suspected. There would be
no way
<br>to
<br>> > investigate and prove voter fraud using lever voting machines such
as
<br>you
<br>> > describe. I think I prefer the punch card ballot, in spite of Florida,
<br>as
<br>> > the best current compromise between automated counting, hard copy
backup,
<br>> > and audit trail for fraud investigations.
<br>> >
<br>>
<br>>      The requirements for a secret ballot
directly preclude a direct audit
<br>trail.
<br>> That is also the reason my machine did not include a printout of
how you
<br>voted.
<br>> ("Bring your ballot marked for Gore to Joe's Bar for a Free drink!) 
My
<br>system
<br>> recorded the actual results in a random area, and voter data separately.
<br> There is
<br>> and can be no way that you can link the vote with the voter.
<p>I think you are mis-interpreting the system. The only connection to
the
<br>ballot is in the control of the voter, who therefore could instigate
an
<br>audit of his ballot if he so desired, or simply discard his anonymous
receipt
<br>to break the connection with his ballot permanently. In fact most voters
<br>just toss theirs in the waste on the spot, along with all the other
receipts;
<br>paranoids like me might keep the receipt around for a while, carefully
separated
<br>from our person in case the thought police were after us (I'm kidding.
I
<br>hope.) Anonymity AND potential audit capable. Best of both worlds.
Defeats
<br>deliberate fraud. Accidental fraud and stupidity are whole other ball
games.</blockquote>

<p><br>    You cannot have a connection between the voter
and his results.  If there is a way for a voter to show who he actually
voted for, the door is wide open for mis-use.
<br> 
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>It also provides for backup if the machine fails
by dropping a tooth on
<br>its cogs or something. I would want an actual hardcopy ballot so that
second
<br>parties can be sure the vote is correctly recorded, or is discarded
for
<br>improper double voting.</blockquote>
    The "dropping a tooth" will show up on the post election
check of the machine.  More than likely, the machine will jam at that
point and cease to operate.  You have to trust that these machines
do what they are designed to do with high reliability.  And they do. 
Far more accurately than any paper system.
<p>     I could easily have included a printer in my
system design that would give the voter a printout of who he voted for. 
But the potential for mis-use is astronomical!  My system does display
to the voter just before (s)he leaves the booth every candidate (s)he voted
for.  After recording that voter's vote (microseconds only) it double
checks the read against the display to make sure what it retrieved is what
ws displayed.
<p>     You can't improperly "double vote" on a mechanical
machine or a DRE (Direct Recording Electronic -- the federal term for the
ones using electronic technology)  machine.
<br> 
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>BTW I see nothing wrong with "bring your voting receipt
to Joe's Bar for
<br>a Free drink! There would be no way to tell who the voter voted for,
just
<br>that he received a blank ballot, which he turned in, marked or unmarked.</blockquote>
     I am referring in this case to having a receipt
showing who the voter voted for, and Joe giving the drinks only to those
who can show they voted for his candidate.  If a voter <i><u>can</u></i>
show how (s)he voted or how his/her vote was recorded, all the gremlins
are out of the bottle.
<p>     You can show now that you voted -- you sign
in at the precinct when you vote, and that is a public record.  But
not being able to show who you voted for as an essential part of the secret
ballot.
<p>--
<br><<Big Charlie>>
<p>Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.
<br> </html>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17992
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:21:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a17307f.0@news.sff.net...
> > I don't understand. Exactly what "trail" exists with paper ballots that
> > is superior to what can be had with a machine?
> >
> > Filksinger
>
> Y'all are going to make me pay more attention to the mechanics of the
> process the next time I vote.
>
> When it comes to our paper ballots there are three ways of tracking the
> number of ballots.  First, there's the ballots themselves.  Second, when you
> turn in the ballot you place it in machine which counts it.  Third, you tear
> off a receipt which is kept separate from the ballots by the poll workers.
> So as far as a number of ballots you can compare the machine count with the
> number of paper ballots and the number of receipts.
>
> What I'm not sure about are the receipts.  I know there is identification
> information on them.  I didn't see any corresponding information on the
> ballot.  I also didn't notice whether when I got my ballot, any information
> was recorded next to my name.  I'll have to look next time.
>
> Margaret

Margaret--

     You had to sign in to get your ballot.  There is no requirement that you
actually cast it, therefore ballots counted may not match the number of voters
who sign in.  The fact of you having signed in is a public record.

     I mistrust a tear off  because of the potential of matching the stub with
the ballot by microscopic analysis.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17993
From: anonymous@sff.net (Anonymous Visitor)
Date: 19 Nov 2000 20:23:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Latest Election Fallout
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli wrote:
>

No. Since many newsreaders and email programs remove anything after a ---
(since that was the old symbol for "don't add anything after this line to
a reply, it is just a sig"), I have a habit of removing such things myself.
I also habitually remove headers, and deliberatelyl remove the stupid carets
(">") from something like this, so in the process the author's name got
removed, because he didn't sign his work.

So far as I know, this is the author:

"Ross Glenn" 

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17994
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 19 Nov 2000 20:27:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Latest Election Fallout
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I forgot. The entire thing I meant to post was that, so far as I know, the
author is:

"Ross Glenn" 

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17995
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:32:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Oregon Voting
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

    Mail in for some absentee is a necessary evil, but when limited to
those with reason (such as being out of town, or unable to get to the
polling place) and is a small percentage, it needs to be and can be
lived with.

     My absentee vote this year was actually cast at the city-county
building (really ugly courthouse) with party representatives in
attendance -- pretty much just like casting it at my local precinct.
(Though it was on paper -- my system could have avoided that.)

     But if it ever gets universal, such as in Oregon, we are all in
deep trouble.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17996
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:33:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Thank you.  I will pass it on .

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17997
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:40:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Ballot Types
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Carol--

    Sequoia had been around a while; I think that is the outfit that had
the NYC fiasco a few years ago.  They were using strictly magnetic as
opposed to permanent technology at the time.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17998
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:27:29 -0500
Subject: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

    I had a nice phone call from my patent attorney this morning.  He
wanted to know if I have picked out my estate in the Bahamas yet.  It
seems that a royalty contract on voting machines has become much more
valuable this past couple of weeks....

    I told him I was waiting until I saw the check....

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17999
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:28:49 -0500
Subject: Re: End the Electoral College?  Why not the Senate?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A182F40.DCC08127@aol.com>, Charles Graft writes...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> 
> > Sad, but quite possibly true.  Yet, even with the huge growth of the federal
> > government, most of the law that we deal with on a regular basis is state
> > law.
> 
>      But an increasing amount of state law is mandated by federal requirements.
> Such as the change in the alcohol impaired driving blood level.  Welfare and
> medicare requirements.  Schools.

Well, sure, B.C., but those changes are, of course, all for the good, as 
everyone well knows.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18000
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:42:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:27:29 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:

>    I had a nice phone call from my patent attorney this morning.  He
>wanted to know if I have picked out my estate in the Bahamas yet.  It
>seems that a royalty contract on voting machines has become much more
>valuable this past couple of weeks....
>
>    I told him I was waiting until I saw the check....

Can't say I blame you (for waiting), but it sounds like GREAT news all
the same.  We've all got our fingers crossed.

Maybe you can host a gathering at that Bahamas estate.  Heck, maybe
you can treat us all to the airfare <bg>.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18001
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:47:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a1734e3.0@news.sff.net>, Anonymous Visitor writes...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> 
> > And where is the "personal sacrifice"?  The fact that he has no large
> 
> > wealth now...but has great earnings potential in the future? 
> 
> Years of very hard work to get there, while the entire free press of which
> we are so proud tries to destroy you,

Clinton?  Are you referring to fringe publications still trying to tie 
him to the cocaine trade in Arkansas?  Or the major media?

> so that you can then enter the office
> and work very hard while that same free press continues to try to find things
> to attack you with,

Such as ordering a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan to be bombed because 
if its grave threat to world peace?  The free press didn't have to "try" 
to find this - Clinton put it in their lap.  And what effect did it have?  
Or is the real effect hidden from us?  Do you expect to learn in 
Clinton's memoirs that he wept over this decision?

> while having "Special Prosecutors" set on you with mandates
> to catch you at anything at all, as if you were a suspected mob boss,

Clinton told us at the beginning that his would be the most moral 
administration in history.  Strong claims invite strong investigation.

> and
> making yourself a public target who will never again be able to leave your
> house without an armed guard?

What evidence is there that this represents a personal sacrifice for 
Clinton or any recent former President?

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18002
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:04:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a16e5ae.12574614@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 13:50:27 -0400, Bill Dauphin
> <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >> ...you did not address my point about lawyers mixing in
> >> political careers with their law practices.  I think that there are a
> >> number of very wealthy lawyers holding public offices.  The two careers
> >> play very well together.
> >
> >Well, if you postulate a lawyer who moves in and out of government throughout hir career,
> >all the while continuing to practice law actively, I suppose I can see where s/he might
> >ratchet up hir earnings considerably.
> 
> And let's face it, lawyers, much as I hate them <g> do NOT make the
> most money in our society.

Once again, my statement was:

"It's a poor way to get rich if you have strong business and technical
skills.  It is a much better way if you have good political skills 
instead."

First, most lawyers are not politicians (and I never said they were); but 
a very high percentage of politicians are lawyers.  Second, there is 
"rich", and then there is top one hundredth of one percent of the 
wealthy.  The fact that the Fortune 400 list of wealthiest families does 
not have a lot of lawyers on it does not rebut my point, which, however, 
does effectively rebut Bill's point.  Unless as part of the "lousy" we 
count all the terrible sacrifices it is alleged that politicians make, or 
we assume, with Bill, that even average politicians would be business 
dynamos, if only they permitted themselves the luxury.  I don;t see the 
evidence for either.   
.... 
> Someone with finely tuned political skills could most easily make
> mega-bucks as CEO of some big corporation.  It is totally unnecessary
> at that level to know anything about what the corporation actually
> does.

Really?  I only know one (former) CEO personally, but his knowledge of  
his corporation was immense.  What do you think a corporation "actually 
does"?
 
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18003
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 20 Nov 2000 17:22:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:

, Anonymous Visitor writes...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> 
> > And where is the "personal sacrifice"?  The fact that he has no large
> 
> > wealth now...but has great earnings potential in the future? 
> 
> Years of very hard work to get there, while the entire free press of which
> we are so proud tries to destroy you,

Clinton?  Are you referring to fringe publications still trying to tie 
him to the cocaine trade in Arkansas?  Or the major media?>>

If you are a major politician, you're life is subjected to minute scrutiny,
which is then used to sell newspapers and radio or TV shows. Even the ones
that supposedly have it "easy" are subject to an invasion of privacy of
monumental proportions.

Ever heard of Jennifer Flowers? Kathleen Wiley? Linda Tripp? Monica Lewinski?

No matter what you think of Clinton, or what happened with any of the above
women, you and I would have heard _NOTHING_ if he wasn't a major political
figure.

 so that you can then enter the office
> and work very hard while that same free press continues to try to find
things
> to attack you with,

Such as ordering a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan to be bombed because

if its grave threat to world peace?  The free press didn't have to "try"

to find this - Clinton put it in their lap.  And what effect did it have?
 
Or is the real effect hidden from us?  Do you expect to learn in 
Clinton's memoirs that he wept over this decision?>>

1) Who's talking about his open political decisions? I am talking about
his personal life, which has been opened up and displayed to the world because
of his decision to become President.

2) If you become President, you have two choices. Do what the press likes,
betray the trust placed in you when necessary for press support, and hope
that things don't go so bad that you get villified for it, or do what you
think best, ignore the press, and if the press doesn't like it, get villified
for it. Sounds like a problem to me.

 while having "Special Prosecutors" set on you with mandates
> to catch you at anything at all, as if you were a suspected mob boss,

Clinton told us at the beginning that his would be the most moral 
administration in history.  Strong claims invite strong investigation.>>

There is, IMNSHO, _no_ justification for an open-ended investitgator to
be set up with the instructions to find _anything at all_, even if he _were_
a mob boss. The Special Prosecuttor wasn't even told to only investigate
Whitewater, or only investigate political corruption, or only investigate
any particular crime at all. He was given free reign to investigate _anything_.

 and
> making yourself a public target who will never again be able to leave
your
> house without an armed guard?

What evidence is there that this represents a personal sacrifice for 
Clinton or any recent former President?>>

I'm not sure how to answer this. If you were forced to have an armed guard
follow you everywhere, you wouldn't find this more than a bit of a sacrifice?

Frankly, I'm not sure where this is going. I, personally, would find _all_
of the above a sacrifice, even if I knew there was nothing at all in my
past that could ever be used against me, I never commited any crime, and
I was convinced that all my decisions while in office would always be the
best possible decisions.

If you wouldn't, then I guess that those aren't a "personal sacrifice" for
you.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18004
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:40:24 GMT
Subject: Re: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 18:39:22 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

>...when the email jokes start.  
*******************************************************************************************
"HACKERS-FOR-NADER" DELIVER SURPRISE VICTORY
Group's 'Get Out and Change the Vote' Campaign Influences Dozens of
Races 

WASHINGTON, D.C. (SatireWire.com) — The Oval Office was snatched away
from Al  Gore and George W. Bush Friday when the International
Brotherhood of Computer Hackers, urging its members to "Get Out and
Change the Vote," endorsed Ralph Nader for president, leading the
Green Party candidate to a post-election landslide victory. 
 
While exit polls had Nader winning only 3 percent of the popular vote,
the hacker group's campaign proved remarkably effective, as election
computers gave the well-known consumer advocate a record 96 percent of
the ballots or 93 million votes. Vice President Gore won 3 percent,
and Texas Gov. Bush, initially assumed to be the winner, took minus-3
percent, had $50,000 charged to his credit cards, and had his middle
named changed to "Abby."

Across the nation, election officials were baffled. In Ontonagon,
Mich., town clerk Casandra Dortmund said she counted the votes before
sending the tally to the state, and recalled that Nader received only
18 of the 1,775 votes. But according to the state computer, Nader got
1,769 votes from Ontonagon, while Bush and Gore split the other six.
"I guess some of the voters changed their minds after they voted,"
Dortmund said.

In response, an IBCH spokesman said the group was "particularly
strong" in Michigan.

Several high-profile Senate races were also heavily influenced by late
IBCH endorsements:

¤ In the New York race Hillary Clinton's victory over Rick Lazio was
negated as Matrix co-directors Andy and Larry Wachowski won easily.
Neither Wachowski was on the initial ballot.

¤ In Virginia, George Allen and Chuck Robb were handily defeated by
"That '70s Show" character Steve Hyde, Eric's cool and serious friend
who pretends to be tough, but inside is a good guy.

¤ In Nebraska, a tight race between Democrat Ben Nelson and Republic
Don Stenberg never materialized, as both candidates were disqualified
when their birth records showed the two were born last April in Kobe,
Japan.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18005
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:43:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:42:58 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:

>Maybe you can host a gathering at that Bahamas estate.  Heck, maybe
>you can treat us all to the airfare <bg>.

Well, a couple of cabins at the Reel-n-Trigger should be no problem in
2002, then. <VBG>

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18006
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:06:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jai Johnson-Pickett <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a194620.5014368@news.sff.net...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:27:29 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >    I had a nice phone call from my patent attorney this morning.  He
> >wanted to know if I have picked out my estate in the Bahamas yet.  It
> >seems that a royalty contract on voting machines has become much more
> >valuable this past couple of weeks....
> >
> >    I told him I was waiting until I saw the check....
>
> Can't say I blame you (for waiting), but it sounds like GREAT news all
> the same.  We've all got our fingers crossed.
>
> Maybe you can host a gathering at that Bahamas estate.  Heck, maybe
> you can treat us all to the airfare <bg>.

I assume that B.C. will build an airfield on the estate.  He will need a
chief pilot and A&P mechanic for his fleet, so my wife will be sending her
resume shortly.  ;-)  I, on the other hand, don't do anything useful, but I
am fun to have around.  ;-)



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18007
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:06:43 GMT
Subject: Re: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Great authors on the recount (real authors unknown)

******************************
'Twas  A  Week  Past Election

'Twas a week past election and all through the land,
Not a president was chosen; no decision at hand.
The ballots were counted, again and again
In hopes that in Florida at last someone would win.

Georgie Dubya had won it, or so the vote said
And thoughts of his cabinet danced in his head.
While Gore and his lawyers, and Bush and his too,
Argued and argued about what to do.

When down in Palm Beach there arose such a clatter,
Where thousands of voters were mad as a hatter!
The box for Buchanan was too close to Gore's,
So Bush got the most votes.  Should Gore have had more?

Then what in the nation's poor eyes did appear?
But thousands of lawyers and lawsuits to hear.
Faster and faster the lawyers they came,
With truckloads of briefs, and some people to blame.

And then the Vice President said, and I quote:
"We must do a hand count of each voter's vote."
The country then watched as Florida reported
Numbers and figures that sounded distorted.

The Veep wasn't winning; his chances were thin,
But he hoped if he kept up, in the end, he might win.
The governor's aides were upset, and they shouted,
"We've won the election.  Why should we hand count it?"

Soon no one cared just who'd be elected,
As long as it ended and one was selected.
As they pulled Palm Beach County and counted again,
We knew this fiasco was not soon to end.

Thousands protested the votes that were tossed,
No one would ever concede that he'd lost.
The media debated long into the night,
Whether the holes should have been on left or the right.

And so no one knew from the west to the east,
Who got the most votes and who got the least.
'Cause ballots that no one had counted before
Suddenly showed up as votes for Al Gore.

The courts all decided; the votes certified.
The race was decided; it was no longer tied.
It took quite a while, but the count was complete.
One was victorious, the other was beat.

One of them waits for his inauguration.
The other goes home.  He won't lead our nation.
The people were calm, and now so were their fears.
And the media warned, "We'll be back in four years."

Now our country must judge -- was it all just a game?
The folks down in Florida will ne'er be the same.
They have lost all respect; they have lost all their pride
Now the State has come out with a new voter's guide.

- Author Unknown

*****************************
Dr. Seuss takes a look at election recounts:

    I cannot count them in a box
    I cannot count them with a fox
    I cannot count them by computer
    I will not with a Roto-Rooter
    I cannot count them card-by-card
    I will not 'cause it's way too hard
    I cannot count them on my fingers
    I will not while suspicion lingers.
    I'll leave the country in a jam -
    I won't count ballots, Sam-I-Am.

***************

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow:

    Listen, my children, don't dare ignore,
    The midnight actions of Bush and Gore
    In early November, the year ought-ought,
    Hard to believe the mess they wrought.
    Two billion bucks of campaign bounty
    All came down to Palm Beach County.
    What result could have been horrider
    Than the situation we found in Florider?

***************

Britain's Edward Lear's limerick:

  There once was a U.S. election
    That called for some expert detection -
    How thousands of pollers
    Could become double-holers
    Then claim they had no recollection.

***************

  Edgar Allen Poe on election 2000:

    Once upon a campaign dreary,
one which left us weak and weary
    O'er many a quaint and curious promise of political lore
    While we nodded, nearly napping,
suddenly there came a yapping,
    As of some votes overlapping,
energy-zapping to the core
    "'Tis a mess here," we all muttered,
as the network anchors stuttered,
    Stuttered over Bush and Gore.
    Could there be another election with such
a case of misdirection,
    One with such a weak selection,
yet fraught with tension to the core?
    Quoth the ravers, "Nevermore."

****************************
THE PALM BEACH POKEY

 You put your stylus in,
  You put your stylus out,
  You put your stylus in,
  And you punch Buchanan out.
  You do the Palm Beach Pokey
  And you turn the count around,
  That's what it's all about!

  You put the Gore votes in,
  You put the Bush votes out,
  You put the Gore votes in,
  And you do another count.
  You do the Palm Beach Pokey
  And you turn the count around,
  That's what it's all about!

  You bring your lawyers in,
  You drag the whole thing out,
  You bring your lawyers in,
  And you put it all in doubt.
  You do the Palm Beach Pokey
  And you turn the count around,
  That's what it's all about!

  You let your doctors spin,
  You let the pundits spout,
  You let your retirees sue,
  And your people whine and pout.
  You do the Palm Beach Pokey
  And you turn the count around,
  That's what it's all about!

  You do the Palm Beach Pokey,
  You do the Palm Beach Pokey,
  You do the Palm Beach Pokey,
  That's what it's all about!


Can we count them with our nose?
Can we count them with our toes?
Should we count them with a band?
Should we count them all by hand?
If I do not like the count,
I will simply throw them out!

I will not let this vote count stand
I do not like them, AL GORE I am!

Can we change these numbers here?
Can we change them, calm my fears?
What do you mean, Dubya has won?
This is not fair, this is not fun
Lets count them upside down this time
Lets count until the state is mine!

I will not let this VOTE count stand!
I do not like it, AL GORE I am!

I'm really ticked, I'm in a snit!
You have not heard the last of it!
I'll count the ballots one by one
And hold each one up to the sun!
I'll count, recount, and count some more!
You'll grow to hate this little chore

But I will not, cannot let this vote count stand!
I do not like it, Al Gore I am!

I won't leave office, I'm stayin' here!
I've glued my desk chair to my rear!
Tipper, Hillary, and Bubba too,
all telling me that I should sue!
We find the Electoral College vile!
RECOUNT the votes until I smile!

We do not want this vote to stand!
We do not like it, AL GORE I am!

How shall we count this ballot box?
Let's count it standing in our socks!
Shall we count this one in a tree?
And who shall count it, you or me?
We cannot, cannot count enough!
We must not stop, we must be tough!

I do not want this vote to stand!
I do not like it AL GORE I am!

I've counted till my fingers bleed!
And still can't fulfill my counting need!
I'll count the tiles on the floor!
I'll count, and count, and count some more!
And I will not say that I am done!
Until the counting says I've won!

I will not let this vote count stand!
I do not like it, AL GORE I am!

What's that? What? What are you trying to say?
You think the current count should stay?
You do not like my counting scheme?
It makes you tense, gives you bad dreams?
Foolish people, you're wrong you'll see!
You're only care should be for me!

I WILL NOT LET THIS VOTE COUNT STAND!
I DO NOT LIKE IT. AND AL GORE I AM!


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18008
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:19:01 GMT
Subject: Re: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:40:24 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

>>...when the email jokes start.  
>*******************************************************************************************
partisan things, both favoring the Republicans:
http://www.dovewinds.com/dubya/
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~bkm/algore.jpg

I'm assuming enough of you are finding these things at least worth a
chuckle to keep posting!

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18009
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:21:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a195dc7.0@news.sff.net...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> , Anonymous Visitor writes...

> If you are a major politician, you're life is subjected to minute
scrutiny,
> which is then used to sell newspapers and radio or TV shows. Even the ones
> that supposedly have it "easy" are subject to an invasion of privacy of
> monumental proportions.

Public figures get public scruntiny, which can be intense, but not just for
politicians.
>
> Ever heard of Jennifer Flowers? Kathleen Wiley? Linda Tripp? Monica
Lewinski?

And was Clinton "destroyed" by these stories?  He was elected President
after we knew of the first, and he remained President, depsite perjury and
obstruction of justice (IMHO, of course), after the last.  His superb
political instincts failed him for once - he could have come clean on the
Monica business, avoided impeachment and weathered the media storm.  But his
penchant for proving (to himself) what a good liar he is got the better of
him.

> No matter what you think of Clinton, or what happened with any of the
above
> women, you and I would have heard _NOTHING_ if he wasn't a major political
> figure.

The personal lives of all manner of famous people scream at me each time I
go to the grocery store.  No one goes into public life unawares.
....
> 1) Who's talking about his open political decisions? I am talking about
> his personal life, which has been opened up and displayed to the world
because
> of his decision to become President.

Sorry, my mistake, I got carried away.  The failure of the press to hound
Clinton for his real misdeeds is a separate issue.

> 2) If you become President, you have two choices. Do what the press likes,
> betray the trust placed in you when necessary for press support, and hope
> that things don't go so bad that you get villified for it, or do what you
> think best, ignore the press, and if the press doesn't like it, get
villified
> for it. Sounds like a problem to me.

Three choices: (3) Recognize that JFK was probably the last President who
could get away with banging any female who tickled his fancy and have the
press keep silent about it.

Your (2) fails the make the clear personal/non-personal distinction you
insisted on before.  Do you think that the major media has any real "likes"
about a President's /personal/ life?
....
>> What evidence is there that this represents a personal sacrifice for
>> Clinton or any recent former President?>>
>
> I'm not sure how to answer this. If you were forced to have an armed guard
> follow you everywhere, you wouldn't find this more than a bit of a
sacrifice?

The issue (I claim)  is not whether you or I would find this a sacrifice,
but whether Bill Clinton (and other politicians) find it so.  You seem to
think, e.g., that it is possible to embarass Bill Clinton.  But if all you
are arguing is that /some/ sacrifice from an ideal state of privacy is
required of politicians, then I guess we have no real disagreement.
However, I strongly doubt that they count their actual media experiences as
"sacrifices" on net.  Of course, it is entirely possible that many good (in
some sense) people who /would/ consider political life a great sacrifice of
personal privacy don't go into public life.  Nor is this to say that, ex
post, Bill Clinton is on balanace satisfied with the trade off he made.  But
almost everyone has 20/20 hindsight.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18010
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:58:00 GMT
Subject: Re: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jjgordon/elections/PBballot.htm

  This is a revison of the Palm Beach ballot.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18011
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:54:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:04:32 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:


>> Someone with finely tuned political skills could most easily make
>> mega-bucks as CEO of some big corporation.  It is totally unnecessary
>> at that level to know anything about what the corporation actually
>> does.
>
>Really?  I only know one (former) CEO personally, but his knowledge of  
>his corporation was immense.  What do you think a corporation "actually 
>does"?

Depends on the corporation, as far was what I was trying to say.

That is, If a large corporation makes hammers, the CEO doesn't need to
know much about hammers, or the process of making hammers.

Of course, if you define "what a corporation does" as providing a
structured environment in which its workers can make hammers, then of
course the CEO must know about how to provide such an environment.

One of the CEOs I know (professionally, not personally) married rich
and with his wife's money bought the patent for a particular type of
propeller.  He runs the company that manufactures that propeller, but
I doubt he really knows all that much about propellers.  He does know
about running a company, of course, and is currently looking for
another one-of-a-kind item to either buy or have some one develop
before his patent runs out.  His skills are organizational, not
technical... and probably not political.  But it's a small company
which he had the capital to create on his own.  Someone trying to rise
up the food chain in a large corporation would need political skills
as well.

The best candidate for general officer is not the guy with the highest
score on the rifle range.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18012
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:01:51 GMT
Subject: Re: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

How the Grinch Stole the Election
(ostensibly) by Bill Maher

 Every Jew down in Jewville liked elections a lot. 
 But the Grinch who lived over in Austin did not. 

 "I know they will be voting for Gore" he was thinking 
 By Wednesday the latest I'll be back to my drinking. 

 Election Day came and the voting was close. 
 At one point the Grinch even started to boast, 

 "It's the Grinch by a nose", all the newsmen explained 
 Even Dan Rather who was clearly insane. 

 But was he the winner?  Hey not so fast!
 Al Gore called him up and said "Kiss my ass!" 

 The race was too tight to say who was elected 
 The Grinch was so stressed his face got infected. 

 All the eyes turned to Jewville to sort out the mess 
 But Hyman and Hershall and dear old Aunt Bess 
 were too senile to vote for the one that they liked 
 They poked the wrong hole and joined the Third Reich. 

 The Jews down in Jewville took to the street 
 to complain about fraud, not to mention the heat. 

 The Grinch said something that couldn't be gosher 
 "This election my friends is perfectly kosher". 

 Then a judge ruled, "Each vote must be counted by hand" 
 The Grinch said "That's not what my brother Jeb had planned". 

 His lawyers filed motions and junctions and writs, 
 Demanding that Gore and the Jews call it quits. 

 But just when the Grinch thought the deal had gone through 
 He met Cindy Lou Lipshichtz, aged ninety-two. 

 "Why", she cried, "did you steal our election" 
 He just laughed... and gave her a lethal injection. 

 They say the Grinch's ego grew three sizes that day 
 Unfortunalty his brain went the opposite way. 

 So, here is a lesson for now and for later,  
 Don't blame me I voted for Nader! 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18013
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:55:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:

> Depends on the corporation, as far was what I was trying to say.
>
> That is, If a large corporation makes hammers...

I think we've hit the nail on the head here <g>: Given his apparent belief
that political skills are not a critical asset in a business setting, I
suspect Gordon is NOT equating "business setting" with "large corporation."
In a small entrepreneurial setting or a sole proprietorship, political
skills may not be so important. In a large corporation, OTOH, even
technical *wizards* usually don't rise to great success as executives
(never mind CEOs) without benefit of some significant political acumen.

> Someone trying to rise
> up the food chain in a large corporation would need political skills
> as well.

Word.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18014
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:15:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> The fact that the Fortune 400 list of wealthiest families does
> not have a lot of lawyers on it does not rebut my point, which, however,
> does effectively rebut Bill's point.

This is only the case if you persist in misunderstanding my point. I say again: My point is
that I don't believe most folks who go into politics are motivated to do so out of a belief
that they will thereby become wealthy. Not only do I not think you've said anything that rebuts
that basic point, I think you actually agree with it: Didn't you identify lust for power (as
opposed to monetary greed) as the politician's primary motivation? I'm not sure I agree with
that thesis, but it is at least in accord with my belief that lust for money *isn't* the number
one driver.

> Unless as part of the "lousy" we
> count all the terrible sacrifices it is alleged that politicians make,

Why, of course. How could you evaluate whether something's a "lousy way to get rich" without
including BOTH the potential for gain AND the personal cost in the calculation. If it's
possible to make $1 million a year sitting on the beach trading stock on Ameritrade over your
cell phone, then by comparison, making $1 million a year by dint of 16 hr per day of
mind-numbing, health-wrecking, family-alienating work is a lousy way to get rich, never mind
that you end up with the same size bank account either way.

> or
> we assume, with Bill, that even average politicians would be business
> dynamos, if only they permitted themselves the luxury.

Bill never assumed any such thing, nor should you. What I said was that, given any plausible
set of skills that might lead to any sort of success in politics, there's probably *something*
else that person could do that would pay better than public office. That's clearly nothing like
saying that any mediocre politician could be a great businessman. It's more like saying any
mediocre politician could probably make more money being a *mediocre* businessman... but that's
not quite it, either (and BTW, why do you assume business is the only alternative to politics
[other than lawyering, which you seem to view as an unholy mix of the two <g>]?): So-called
"political" skills -- good oral communication skills, good personal presentation, a quick wit,
an agile mind (NOT the same as quick wit), ability to read people, decision-making skills,
dedication, commitment to hard work, integrity (don't laugh; I'm dead serious), etc. -- are
actually broadly applicable to a great many fields of endeavor. Now, I'm not suggesting that
every politician has all these skills, but to the extent that s/he has some of them, they can
probably be employed to pull down more cash in some other field besides holding elected office.
Do you really disagree with that?

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18015
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 21 Nov 2000 01:53:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:
 wrote in message news:3a195dc7.0@news.sff.net...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> , Anonymous Visitor writes...

> If you are a major politician, you're life is subjected to minute
scrutiny,
> which is then used to sell newspapers and radio or TV shows. Even the
ones
> that supposedly have it "easy" are subject to an invasion of privacy of
> monumental proportions.

Public figures get public scruntiny, which can be intense, but not just
for
politicians.>>

True. Doesn't make losing your privacy not a sacrifice.


> Ever heard of Jennifer Flowers? Kathleen Wiley? Linda Tripp? Monica
Lewinski?

And was Clinton "destroyed" by these stories?  He was elected President
after we knew of the first, and he remained President, depsite perjury and
obstruction of justice (IMHO, of course), after the last.  His superb
political instincts failed him for once - he could have come clean on the
Monica business, avoided impeachment and weathered the media storm.  But
his
penchant for proving (to himself) what a good liar he is got the better
of
him.>>

All true, of course. However, that is beside the point. They were still
all public because he decided to go into politics instead of something more
private.

 No matter what you think of Clinton, or what happened with any of the
above
> women, you and I would have heard _NOTHING_ if he wasn't a major political
> figure.

The personal lives of all manner of famous people scream at me each time
I
go to the grocery store.  No one goes into public life unawares.>>

True. Some sacrifice for art. Some for fame. Some to become powerful. Some
to do good.

Now, we may argue about _why_ he sacrificed his privacy. He still sacrificed
it, and it is still a sacrifice. Unless, of course, you are convinced that
he is so obsessed with getting attention on himself that he became president
just so people could catch him cheating on his wife.

 1) Who's talking about his open political decisions? I am talking about
> his personal life, which has been opened up and displayed to the world
because
> of his decision to become President.

Sorry, my mistake, I got carried away.  The failure of the press to hound
Clinton for his real misdeeds is a separate issue.>>

True. An interesting one, but one for a different discussion, at least.

 2) If you become President, you have two choices. Do what the press likes,
> betray the trust placed in you when necessary for press support, and hope
> that things don't go so bad that you get villified for it, or do what
you
> think best, ignore the press, and if the press doesn't like it, get
villified
> for it. Sounds like a problem to me.

Three choices: (3) Recognize that JFK was probably the last President who
could get away with banging any female who tickled his fancy and have the
press keep silent about it.

Your (2) fails the make the clear personal/non-personal distinction you
insisted on before.  Do you think that the major media has any real "likes"
about a President's /personal/ life?>>

Sorry, I expressed that very badly. The second was a counterpoint. I should
have made it clearer by saying something like, "OTOH, let's take a look
at public political decisions...."

> What evidence is there that this represents a personal sacrifice for
>> Clinton or any recent former President?>>
>
> I'm not sure how to answer this. If you were forced to have an armed guard
> follow you everywhere, you wouldn't find this more than a bit of a
sacrifice?

The issue (I claim)  is not whether you or I would find this a sacrifice,
but whether Bill Clinton (and other politicians) find it so.  You seem to
think, e.g., that it is possible to embarass Bill Clinton.  But if all you
are arguing is that /some/ sacrifice from an ideal state of privacy is
required of politicians, then I guess we have no real disagreement.
However, I strongly doubt that they count their actual media experiences
as
"sacrifices" on net.  Of course, it is entirely possible that many good
(in
some sense) people who /would/ consider political life a great sacrifice
of
personal privacy don't go into public life.  Nor is this to say that, ex
post, Bill Clinton is on balanace satisfied with the trade off he made.
 But
almost everyone has 20/20 hindsight.>>

The question of "sacrifice" is always a difficult one. For example, suppose
you had to spend 14 hours a day in a closed up room with no windows, working
continuously, virtually without vacations or days off? To some that is a
sacrifice, to Isaac Asimov, it was how he had fun, and he didn't want to
leave the room.

So, about the only thing we can say is that Clinton worked hard for years
to get to a tough job. Other than that, "sacrifice" is an unprovable either
way.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18016
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:33:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a19d58e.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....
> So, about the only thing we can say is that Clinton worked hard for years
> to get to a tough job. Other than that, "sacrifice" is an unprovable either
> way.

Well, I prefer to say that it is very difficult to prove one way or the 
other. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18017
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:19:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A19B9D3.21F3EBCD@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
> 
> 
> Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> 
> > Depends on the corporation, as far was what I was trying to say.
> >
> > That is, If a large corporation makes hammers...
> 
> I think we've hit the nail on the head here <g>: Given his apparent belief
> that political skills are not a critical asset in a business setting, I
> suspect Gordon is NOT equating "business setting" with "large corporation."
> In a small entrepreneurial setting or a sole proprietorship, political
> skills may not be so important.

Well, yes and no.  You spoke of the "alternatives available these days" 
for earning money, and I think it is fair to say that that suggests high-
tech companies, many of which are entrepreneurial.  But I am willing to 
look at the situation with regard to the Fortune 500 as well.  I guess we 
will need to get clear about what "political skills" are.

> In a large corporation, OTOH, even
> technical *wizards* usually don't rise to great success as executives
> (never mind CEOs) without benefit of some significant political acumen.

And what "significant" means, as well.  Did Andy Grove - to pick a rather 
large high-tech firm - have significant "political skills"?  If so, how 
much do you think that accounted for his success?  Now - to pick a large 
diversified firm - what about Jack Welsh?

I use the term "political skills" to refer fairly narrowly to the ability 
to get voters to elect you and to get colleagues to vote for your 
proposals.  If you want to broaden this to "any skill useful for success 
in a hierarchical organization", then, obviously high-level managers in 
large corporations will have these "political skills" to /some/ degree.

Will it be a "significant" degree?  I'm not so sure.  Even very large 
corporations can get into trouble if they do not make money for several 
quarters.  At that point (if not before) senior managers (or boards of 
directors) begin to cast around for people who can actually "make rain" 
rather than just dance around.

There are no doubt some politicians who could be very successful in large 
corporations, enough to out earn their chosen careers, but, returning to 
the point Bill said started this whole discussion, I don't think that 
this means that politicians are, as a rule, under-compensated for what 
they do or that raising legislative or executive pay would net us much 
better candidates.  (OTOH, paying judges something more might be very 
desirable, given the money that top lawyers make.)  The jobs have other 
compensations - Bill can think of these in terms of "public service" 
while I continue to say "lust for power" - not to mention other ways of 
earning money besides a government salary.      

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18018
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:19:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Thank you.  I have already had thoughts along that line.....

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18019
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:21:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT wrote:

> Well, a couple of cabins at the Reel-n-Trigger should be no problem in
> 2002, then. <VBG>
>
> JT

     Getting cabins has not been the problem when I proposed a gathering
there.  Getting people out there is.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18020
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:23:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> I assume that B.C. will build an airfield on the estate.  He will need a
> chief pilot and A&P mechanic for his fleet, so my wife will be sending her
> resume shortly.  ;-)  I, on the other hand, don't do anything useful, but I
> am fun to have around.  ;-)

     That sounds like a good start.  But the qualifications include single.  Is
she attractive?
--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18021
From: J. Barry Traylor" <btraylor@desupernet.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:07:44 -0500
Subject: Argosy with Heinlein story
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Just in case anyone is interested I saw the May 1948 issue of Argosy up for
auction on eBay today. This is the issue with the first publication of
Robert A. Heinlein's "Gentlemen, Be Seated".

                                           J. Barry Traylor



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18022
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 01:15:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> You spoke of the "alternatives available these days"
> for earning money, and I think it is fair to say that that suggests high-
> tech companies, many of which are entrepreneurial.

Not at all. The *very* high-tech company I work for is also a large, lumbering,
so-called "old economy" corporation. But again, I ask why you think of business
as the only "alternative available these days." It seems to me there are more
different ways to make serious money these days than ever before.

> I guess we
> will need to get clear about what "political skills" are.

Aha! I think it's on this very point that we have, so far, been talking past
each other.

> Did Andy Grove - to pick a rather
> large high-tech firm - have significant "political skills"?  If so, how
> much do you think that accounted for his success?  Now - to pick a large
> diversified firm - what about Jack Welsh?

Without knowing much personal detail about either one of them, I can confidently
say that neither would be in the position they're in today without a generous
helping of what *I'm* calling "political skills." (It's Welch, BTW, if you're
talking about the CEO of GE... but as an employee of his archrival company, I
rather like "Welsh"! <vbg>)

> I use the term "political skills" to refer fairly narrowly to the ability
> to get voters to elect you and to get colleagues to vote for your
> proposals.

And what would be the underlying skills relevant uniquely to these tasks without
broad applicability elsewhere? I don't believe any such set of skills exists.
It's not like being an aerodynamicist or microbiologist or possessing some other
highly specialized skill-set: I think political skills (as I've enumerated them
in another posting) are really *people* skills, and so are likely to be as
useful in a wide variety of other endeavors as in politics. As for parliamentary
skills (e.g., ability to negotiate and manipulate the rules of Congress), I
think in most cases those are gained through OJT, after the candidate becomes
the officeholder, and so can't be considered as a factor in the choice to go
into politics in the first place.

> returning to
> the point Bill said started this whole discussion, I don't think that
> this means that politicians are, as a rule, under-compensated for what
> they do or that raising legislative or executive pay would net us much
> better candidates.

Recall that these were NOT my points; they were Frank's (IIRC). I said I agreed
with Frank that elected officials should get higher pay, but for *different
reasons* than these. So far, in this whole exchange, you haven't commented on
*my* position, even though all these notes have been addressed to (or about) me.
In fact, the one thing I said that you *have* been commenting on -- that
politicians are generally not primarily motivated by money -- was originally
offered as a *refutation* of the ideas you attribute to me above... and you seem
to agree:

> The jobs have other
> compensations -

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18023
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:23:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A19F8CB.32467B64@aol.com>, Charles Graft writes...
....
>      That sounds like a good start.  But the qualifications include single.

Are you kidding?  We'll tie you up in legal knots if you try to make that 
a job qualification.  What do you think, that you are spending /your/ 
money?  As /you/ see fit?  You are a dreamer, B.C.  ;-)

>  Is
> she attractive?

Would you prefer a picture of her working on the engine or in the left 
seat?  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18024
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:48:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I was hoping to become enlightened in this thread -- for example I never
understood how important the secrecy of the ballot was until I read it here.

"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A1A04F1.96212F47@ix.netcom.com...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> > returning to
> > the point Bill said started this whole discussion, I don't think that
> > this means that politicians are, as a rule, under-compensated for what
> > they do or that raising legislative or executive pay would net us much
> > better candidates.
>
> Recall that these were NOT my points; they were Frank's (IIRC). I said I
agreed
> with Frank that elected officials should get higher pay, but for
*different
> reasons* than these. So far, in this whole exchange, you haven't commented
on
> *my* position, even though all these notes have been addressed to (or
about) me.
> In fact, the one thing I said that you *have* been commenting on -- that
> politicians are generally not primarily motivated by money -- was
originally
> offered as a *refutation* of the ideas you attribute to me above... and
you seem
> to agree:

I originally posited that we would be better off paying our elected federal
officials a *lot* more money.  I agree that our current crop of politicians
are not interested in making money, that other impulses are more important
to them.  I am yet to be convinced that we couldn't attract a different crop
of politicians if the pay were increased by an order of magnitude or more.
Part of my unspoken intent in my original post was to be the opposite of the
average newspaper editorial letter writer saying that the current pay for
congresscritter is too much, and that to represent us, they should make the
median US salary.  But, I know that *I* am not interested in running for
elective office mostly because the combination of pay/security isn't enough.
Maybe that is a good thing, when there are enough people who are
independently wealthy to donate a part of their life to their country.  On
the other hand, if we believe the best people aren't born wealthy, then we
should make the job attractive so that we can have a better selection.  On
the other hand, the constitution was written in the belief that you wouldn't
have the best people in the job -- that is, our system of government doesn't
(isn't supposed to) depend on having good people fill the positions.

Were government officials paid lots in other Heinlein books (that is other
than Glory Road.)

Frank Fujita





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18025
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:39:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a1a7d2e.0@news.sff.net>, Frank Fujita writes...
> I was hoping to become enlightened in this thread -- for example I never
> understood how important the secrecy of the ballot was until I read it here.

For a radically different view, try Lysander Spooner's /No Treason - The 
Constitution of No Authority/.  Spooner holds that a secret ballot 
creates a secret government.  When agents of the government come to 
interfere with you (Spooner started his own postal service company and 
was shut down by the Feds), you ask in vain who they are agents of.  "The 
people" they say, or a majority of the people, but who exactly is that?  
The usual legal situation is for an agent to reveal for whom he is 
acting.   

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18026
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:07:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A1A04F1.96212F47@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
> 
> 
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> 
> > You spoke of the "alternatives available these days"
> > for earning money, and I think it is fair to say that that suggests high-
> > tech companies, many of which are entrepreneurial.
> 
> Not at all. The *very* high-tech company I work for is also a large, lumbering,
> so-called "old economy" corporation. But again, I ask why you think of business
> as the only "alternative available these days." It seems to me there are more
> different ways to make serious money these days than ever before.

Because we were talking about various skills that politicians had that 
might be money-making in other contexts.  What, besides business, do you 
have in mind? 
 
> > I guess we
> > will need to get clear about what "political skills" are.
> 
> Aha! I think it's on this very point that we have, so far, been talking past
> each other.
> 
> > Did Andy Grove - to pick a rather
> > large high-tech firm - have significant "political skills"?  If so, how
> > much do you think that accounted for his success?  Now - to pick a large
> > diversified firm - what about Jack Welsh?
> 
> Without knowing much personal detail about either one of them, I can confidently
> say that neither would be in the position they're in today without a generous
> helping of what *I'm* calling "political skills."

Fine.  I try to avoid arguing over definitions if I possibly can.  I 
granted that very successful people in hierarchical organizations must 
have some degree of skill at interacting with other people.  But even if 
Grove and Welch (and I did mean "Neutron Jack"; I'm just a lousy typist) 
are master politicians on your view, it does not follow that persons 
skillful at holding public office could meet a single payroll, let alone 
make a great deal more money in business than they do in politics.  It is 
/possible/, of course, but I think we are arguing general trends here. 

....
> And what would be the underlying skills relevant uniquely to these tasks without
> broad applicability elsewhere? I don't believe any such set of skills exists.
> It's not like being an aerodynamicist or microbiologist or possessing some other
> highly specialized skill-set: I think political skills (as I've enumerated them
> in another posting) are really *people* skills, and so are likely to be as
> useful in a wide variety of other endeavors as in politics.

"People skills" are useful - that does not mean that Grove's, Welch's, 
etc., monetary success primarily depended on their people skills.

....
> > returning to
> > the point Bill said started this whole discussion, I don't think that
> > this means that politicians are, as a rule, under-compensated for what
> > they do or that raising legislative or executive pay would net us much
> > better candidates.
> 
> Recall that these were NOT my points; they were Frank's (IIRC). I said I agreed
> with Frank that elected officials should get higher pay, but for *different
> reasons* than these.

Well, if Grove, etc. are master politicians, then perhaps Frank is right 
- we might get much higher quality elected officials by paying them much 
more.  I don't think that is the case, but my participation in this 
thread was not on that issue. 

> So far, in this whole exchange, you haven't commented on
> *my* position, even though all these notes have been addressed to (or about) me.

Sorry, Bill.  Indeed, I have not been focusing on your complete position.  
What I did was make a rather brief response to a single statement you 
made in the course of a larger argument.  To wit, you wrote:

> My take on the pay issue is a little different. Like Deb, I doubt money is a
> prime motivator for people to seek public office. Being a politician -- even a
> corrupt one -- is a *lousy* way to get rich, compared to the alternatives
> available these days.

And I replied:

It's a poor way to get rich if you have strong business and technical
skills.  It is a much better way if you have good political skills 
instead.

I did not mean to suggest that money was the prime motivator, as I think 
I later made clear - to make the focus of my original reply more clear I 
probably should have trimmed everything from your text but the sentence 
that begins "Being a politician..."
 
I repeat, being a politician (I.e., being an elected or appointed "public 
servant" - not a master at "people skills") in /not/ a lousy way to get 
rich, /given the skills that politicians have/.  It is, of course, 
probably not the best way to get rich, if that is your primary goal, and 
certainly not the best way to get /very/ rich.  (In the U.S., anyway.)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18027
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:27:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A19BEAD.B3702445@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> This is only the case if you persist in misunderstanding my point.

I have just posted elsewhere that I have not been considering your larger 
point, but only contesting one claim.

....
> > Unless as part of the "lousy" we
> > count all the terrible sacrifices it is alleged that politicians make,
> 
> Why, of course. How could you evaluate whether something's a "lousy way to get rich" without
> including BOTH the potential for gain AND the personal cost in the calculation.

I was (sarcastically) suggesting the personal costs were not that great.  
I might (like most good sarcasm) have been slightly exaggerating.

> If it's
> possible to make $1 million a year sitting on the beach trading stock on Ameritrade over your
> cell phone, then by comparison, making $1 million a year by dint of 16 hr per day of
> mind-numbing, health-wrecking, family-alienating work is a lousy way to get rich, never mind
> that you end up with the same size bank account either way.

If it were possible to make $1M/year that easily with the skills of a 
politician, why don't they merely work, say, 14 hour days as public 
officials, and pick up three or four hundred thousand in their spare 
time?  Or is there something about Ameritrade that you have to be on a 
beach to make money?  ;-)
 
....
> Now, I'm not suggesting that
> every politician has all these skills, but to the extent that s/he has some of them, they can
> probably be employed to pull down more cash in some other field besides holding elected office.
> Do you really disagree with that?

Yes.  Good "people skills" (since that is what it seems you mean by 
"political skills") are not sufficient to make more money than the 
average politician (I claim, IMHO, etc.).

Now, /perhaps/ most politicians have, in addition to their people skills, 
other skills necessary for making more money, /but/ they eschew this 
possibility for the additional satisfactions ("public service" for you; 
"power lust" for me  ;-) ) of public office. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18028
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:35:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hopefully there is something about conflict of interest that prevents
legislators from day trading.

"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14845e82f252a0c3989721@news.sff.net...
> If it were possible to make $1M/year that easily with the skills of a
> politician, why don't they merely work, say, 14 hour days as public
> officials, and pick up three or four hundred thousand in their spare
> time?  Or is there something about Ameritrade that you have to be on a
> beach to make money?  ;-)





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18029
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:47:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Frank Fujita <ffujita@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:3a1a9636.0@news.sff.net...
> Hopefully there is something about conflict of interest that prevents
> legislators from day trading.

I'm not sure how tight the rules are, but it seems that the futures markets
escape sanction - or did Hillary make her money while Bill was out of office
(I forget the timing)?  However, I suspect that legislators tend more
towards real estate than financial markets for "extracurricular" income.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18030
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:37:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 11:47:17 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>I'm not sure how tight the rules are, but it seems that the futures markets
>escape sanction - or did Hillary make her money while Bill was out of office
>(I forget the timing)?  However, I suspect that legislators tend more
>towards real estate than financial markets for "extracurricular" income.

I don't know any of the details concerning Sen (elect) Rodham
Clinton's futures trading, but would pose the question, hypotheically:

Can a person's financial dealings be (legally) curtailed because of
his/her spouse's political status?  Should it be?

Just interested in feedback/opinions.  I'm not sure what I think about
the issue.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18031
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:02:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Consolidating my replies here...

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> >...I ask why you think of business
> > as the only "alternative available these days." It seems to me there are more
> > different ways to make serious money these days than ever before.
>
> Because we were talking about various skills that politicians had that
> might be money-making in other contexts.  What, besides business, do you
> have in mind?

Writing books? Making movies? Leading adventure tourism expeditions? Breeding exotic
fish? Daytrading? Putting nekkid pictures of your wife on the web? Selling Range
Rovers? Managing professional athletes? Promoting monster truck rallies? Operating a
skydiving school? Local TV news anchor? Software engineer? Drummer/band-leader?
Comedy writer? Syndicated radio talk show host (irrelevant doctorate preferred but
not required <g>)? Installing restaurant dishwashers?

My brother-in-law, who never finished his first year of college, does the last and
makes >$70k/yr at it... you have to rise reasonably high in elective politics to
match that salary (even members of Congress only make ~2 times that much). Seriously,
not all of the above are great ways to make money, but I bet most of them are
*better* ways to make money than elective politics, given the same level of personal
gifts and skills. And some of the above could be classified as "business"... but you
seem to have been referring to executive/managerial positions when you've used that
term. My point is that persuasiveness, integrity, capacity for hard work, intellect,
charisma, etc., are all pretty broadly applicable attributes. About those "political
skills"...

> "People skills" are useful - that does not mean that Grove's, Welch's,
> etc., monetary success primarily depended on their people skills.

I think I made a tactical error in using the term "people skills"; it sounds a bit
squishy, and maybe that's led you to miss my point. Try *leadership* skills, instead.
That's what that list of skills I enumerated elsewhere adds up to (plus a few other
things like integrity, dedication, and commitment to hard work), and I assert that
these are *precisely* the reasons Grove and Welch and their peers at other large
companies are where they are. Successful top executives are rarely the best engineer
or scientists or acountants or lawyers in their organizations; they are almost always
the best *leaders*. The most effective and successful exec I know personally at P&W
has degrees in English and Biology and a previous background in MIS... yet he directs
a sector of the business that has nothing to do with any of those pursuits. His
success is entirely based on his personal characteristics of leadership, intellect,
straightforwardness, and dedication. He could almost certainly use those same traits
to win election to any number of offices... but short of the White House, he'd have
to take a big cut in pay to do so.

You seem to be suggesting that there's some set of "political skills" so specific to
holding elective office that people possessing them probably *can't* do better
(financially) in any other career. I repeat: What would those skills be?

> Sorry, Bill.  Indeed, I have not been focusing on your complete position.
> What I did was make a rather brief response to a single statement you
> made in the course of a larger argument.

Fair enough. You're obviously not required to stick to *my* main point... but surely
you'll forgive me for trying to hew to my own "larger argument" as opposed to a
"single statement" that was originally offered fairly casually in support. At some
points in the thread, though, it's seemed as if you were attributing to me ideas that
were not only NOT mine, but that were in fact the ideas I intended to be refuting. I
just wanted to clear the air.

> I repeat, being a politician (I.e., being an elected or appointed "public
> servant" - not a master at "people skills") in /not/ a lousy way to get
> rich, /given the skills that politicians have/.

And I repeat, what are these specialized "skills that politicians have" that have so
little value outside of politics?

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18032
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:48:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a1ac011.9785754@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
....
> I don't know any of the details concerning Sen (elect) Rodham
> Clinton's futures trading, but would pose the question, hypotheically:
> 
> Can a person's financial dealings be (legally) curtailed because of
> his/her spouse's political status?  Should it be?

I thought of insider trading when Frank mentioned "conflict of interest".  
It is certainly true that a person's trading in securities can be limited 
in specific ways because of his spouse's (or family member's) business 
status.  But as long as you avoid trading in those securities in which 
your spouse has inside knowledge, you can trade all you like. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18033
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 01:52:18 GMT
Subject: Re: The presidental election takes too long....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


> Don't blame me I voted for Nader! 

This brought something to mind..  I read, in the SF Chronicle a few
days ago, in the Scott Ostler column, a rather amusing suggestion for
a bumper sticker..

"Don't blame me, I think I voted for Gore"
well I found it quite amusing...

And besides.... with Bush having to wait up these nights waiting for
that phone call he knows what it's like to be on death row! (again,
not original, I heard it on Letterman)
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18034
From: acarnali@speedlinetech.com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:12:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Well, It looks like this thread has died and I'm not going to get any
feedback on this story.

I would like to thank both JT and Jai for such a warm welcome.  I've
been monitoring the Heinlein group on and off for a few years now but
for some reason I never got around to posting anything.  This seems
like a great group of people and I feel like I know a lot of you just
from your posting.  I plan to post more in the future and hope to get
to know all of you even more.

Thanks,




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18035
From: acarnali@speedlinetech.com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:15:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Well, It looks like this thread has died and I'm not going to get any
feedback on this story.

I would like to thank both JT and Jai for such a warm welcome.  I've
been monitoring the Heinlein group on and off for a few years now but
for some reason I never got around to posting anything.  This seems
like a great group of people and I feel like I know a lot of you just
from your posting.  I plan to post more in the future and hope to get
to know all of you even more.

Thanks,



Al
(http://www.carnali.com)

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18036
From: acarnali@speedlinetech.com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:16:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Well, It looks like this thread has died and I'm not going to get any
feedback on this story.

I would like to thank both JT and Jai for such a warm welcome.  I've
been monitoring the Heinlein group on and off for a few years now but
for some reason I never got around to posting anything.  This seems
like a great group of people and I feel like I know a lot of you just
from your posting.  I plan to post more in the future and hope to get
to know all of you even more.

Thanks,

Al
(http://www.carnali.com)

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18037
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:26:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

acarnali@speedlinetech.com wrote:

> Well, It looks like this thread has died and I'm not going to get any
> feedback on this story.
>
> I would like to thank both JT and Jai for such a warm welcome.  I've
> been monitoring the Heinlein group on and off for a few years now but
> for some reason I never got around to posting anything.  This seems
> like a great group of people and I feel like I know a lot of you just
> from your posting.  I plan to post more in the future and hope to get
> to know all of you even more.
>
>

Sorry, I've never read it so I can't help out....but welcome to the
group!

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18038
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 15:15:58 -0500
Subject: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The following is a slightly condensed version of a thought experiment 
posed by Daniel Dennett in his book /Darwin's Dangerous Idea/.

Your department has been chosen to administer a munificent prize: a 12-
year fellowship to be awarded to the most promising graduate student in 
your field in the country.  You duly announce the prize and its 
conditions, and, to your dismay, you receive by the deadline 250,000 
legal entries, complete with lengthy dossiers, samples of work, and 
testimonials.  A quick calculation convinces you that living up to your 
obligation to evaluate all the material of all the candidates by the 
deadline for announcing the award - given the costs of administration and 
hiring additional qualified evaluators - will bankrupt the prize fund, so 
that the very act of such evaluation would be wasted.  

What to do?  If only you had anticipated the demand, you could have 
imposed tighter eligibility conditions, but it is too late for that: 
every one of the 250,000 candidates has a right to equal consideration, 
and in agreeing to administer the competition you have undertaken the 
obligation to select the best candidate.  Before going on, please spend a 
little time, as much as you think it takes, to plot your own solution to 
the problem (no fantasies about technological fixes, please).

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18039
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:56:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Ted Sturgeons' Hurricane Trio
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>  I plan to post more in the future and hope to get
>to know all of you even more.

  Hope to see more of you, Al. Welcome to the Forum.


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18040
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:51:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

My solution would be to find a different (more efficient) way to judge who
is the most promising graduate student in my field.
I would ask each graduate program (of which there are 6) to nominate a
single candidate.  Of the six graduate students so identified I would find
as many of the dossiers as we had (I would assume all six--or maybe five if
one of the graduate programs declined to nominate anyone).  The rest of the
competition would continue as planned.

Frank Fujita
Associate Professor and
Graduate Program Director
Department of Psychology
Indiana University, South Bend

Okay, so I redefined "my field" to be sufficiently narrow to answer the
question (Personality Psychology).  Somehow I doubt that there are 250,000
graduate students in psychology.

If the task is to identify *the* most promising graduate student, then I
would start with some simple criteria.  Start with only winners of the NSF
fellowship.  They have already picked the cream of the crop, and our task,
once again becomes manageable.

As long as a simple choice criterion for narrowing the field is chosen
*before* looking through the applications, all candidates have receive equal
consideration, even if that means they have been disqualified before their
application is opened.

"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1485f38b69875240989723@news.sff.net...
> The following is a slightly condensed version of a thought experiment
> posed by Daniel Dennett in his book /Darwin's Dangerous Idea/.
>
> Your department has been chosen to administer a munificent prize: a 12-
> year fellowship to be awarded to the most promising graduate student in
> your field in the country.  You duly announce the prize and its
> conditions, and, to your dismay, you receive by the deadline 250,000
> legal entries, complete with lengthy dossiers, samples of work, and
> testimonials.  A quick calculation convinces you that living up to your
> obligation to evaluate all the material of all the candidates by the
> deadline for announcing the award - given the costs of administration and
> hiring additional qualified evaluators - will bankrupt the prize fund, so
> that the very act of such evaluation would be wasted.
>
> What to do?  If only you had anticipated the demand, you could have
> imposed tighter eligibility conditions, but it is too late for that:
> every one of the 250,000 candidates has a right to equal consideration,
> and in agreeing to administer the competition you have undertaken the
> obligation to select the best candidate.  Before going on, please spend a
> little time, as much as you think it takes, to plot your own solution to
> the problem (no fantasies about technological fixes, please).
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18041
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:27:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A1B1B2F.B6AA9131@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
> Consolidating my replies here...
> 
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
....
> > Because we were talking about various skills that politicians had that
> > might be money-making in other contexts.  What, besides business, do you
> > have in mind?
> 
> Writing books? Making movies? Leading adventure tourism expeditions? Breeding exotic
> fish? Daytrading?

These activities in general make little money for their practitioners.  A 
/very/ small number can make a great deal.  Why would politicians' 
skills (called them what you will) put them in that select company?

> Putting nekkid pictures of your wife on the web?

Now I'm intrigued; I could be missing something.  What's the revenue 
model for this?  ;-)

> Selling Range
> Rovers? Managing professional athletes? Promoting monster truck rallies? Operating a
> skydiving school? Local TV news anchor? Software engineer? Drummer/band-leader?
> Comedy writer? Syndicated radio talk show host (irrelevant doctorate preferred but
> not required <g>)? Installing restaurant dishwashers?

Same as my first comment.
 
> My brother-in-law, who never finished his first year of college, does the last and
> makes >$70k/yr at it...

Your brother-in-law might well be much more generally capable than the 
average politician, for all I know and for however hard it is for you to 
believe.  ;-)

> you have to rise reasonably high in elective politics to
> match that salary

And that is the level I have in mind.  Do you have any data on the degree 
to which, say, state assembly representatives hold outside jobs?  I don't 
(but I suspect it is significant).  Of course, many politicians begin 
their careers with lower-level (and so lower-paying) positions with the 
idea of working their way up - whether they are ultimately successful is 
another story. 

> (even members of Congress only make ~2 times that much).

And "merely" 2X is not significant?  And how just how easy do you think 
it is to make $140K/year in a commercial (skip "business", if you like) 
activity?  Such a salary is far from great wealth, but it is way above 
the average (difficult as that is for many folks in high-tech fields to 
grasp).   

> Seriously,
> not all of the above are great ways to make money, but I bet most of them are
> *better* ways to make money than elective politics, given the same level of personal
> gifts and skills.

And I bet they are not.

> My point is that persuasiveness, integrity, capacity for hard work, intellect,
> charisma, etc., are all pretty broadly applicable attributes...

Sure they are.  But we have two problems.  One is that these excellent 
qualities are not, I think, sufficient for making "big" money.  But I am 
not sure exactly what qualities are sufficient, so I'll leave that one 
aside.  Second - and I guess this is the core of the dispute - why do you 
think that politicians /in general/ have these excellent qualities to the 
same degree as persons in commercial pursuits who /in general/ out earn 
the politicians?
     
....
> I think I made a tactical error in using the term "people skills";

I thought so, too, but I was happy to go with it.  ;-)
....
> Try *leadership* skills, instead.
> That's what that list of skills I enumerated elsewhere adds up to (plus a few other
> things like integrity, dedication, and commitment to hard work), and I assert that
> these are *precisely* the reasons Grove and Welch and their peers at other large
> companies are where they are. Successful top executives are rarely the best engineer
> or scientists or acountants or lawyers in their organizations;

But they are almost always among the most skilled at one of these.

> they are almost always
> the best *leaders*.

We have to be careful.  Maybe we call Grove, Welch, etc., the best 
leaders because of where they end up.  Do you want to claim that you have 
captured the /essence/ of leadership in your enumeration (so that no 
one who fails to have these qualities fails to be good leader)?  I'm just 
curious here.

> The most effective and successful exec I know personally at P&W
> has degrees in English and Biology and a previous background in MIS... yet he directs
> a sector of the business that has nothing to do with any of those pursuits. His
> success is entirely based on his personal characteristics of leadership, intellect,
> straightforwardness, and dedication. He could almost certainly use those same traits
> to win election to any number of offices... but short of the White House, he'd have
> to take a big cut in pay to do so.

Well, perhaps so, although these qualities plus being a billionaire did 
not get H. Ross Perot into the White House.  But the way you have phrased 
it brings us back to Frank's point.  Do you have any reason to believe 
that this exec (or successful execs generally) /wants/ to be in politics 
and is held back by the money?  

> You seem to be suggesting that there's some set of "political skills" so specific to
> holding elective office that people possessing them probably *can't* do better
> (financially) in any other career. I repeat: What would those skills be?

I don't think I can give necessary and sufficient conditions for defining 
"political" skills.  To your credit, you have attempted to do this 
with your "leadership" enumeration, but I'm not sure that you haven't 
been more courageous than correct with it.  In any event, as I said, I 
prefer not to argue over definitions, so I'm trying to use yours, as best 
I understand it.  I initially contrasted "business and technical" skills 
with "political" skills.  (BTW, I did not intend to limit "business" 
skills only to "skills valuable in a large corporate setting".)  Whatever 
the exact definitions, I think it is correct to say that "leadership" 
skills have a non-empty intersection with both "business" skills and 
"political" skills.  But I also think that Grove, Welch, etc., have an 
ability to make good (money-making) business decisions, that goes beyond 
leadership per se.

You, OTOH, seem to be suggesting that it is simply obvious that the 
average portion of "leadership skills" held by a politician would earn 
him more money in a commercial activity.  Perhaps this is true, but not 
for any reason special to the skills of politicians.  After all, there is 
a cap on salaries for elected officials (though not on what they can earn 
in other ways), but no fixed limit on what a commercial activity may net 
you.  So "on average" /anyone/ will do better "commercially" than 
"politically".  But, as I have suggested, politicians have ways (both 
legal and less so) for earning money in addition to their official 
salaries.  It would be very useful if we had income tax returns to work 
from.   

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18042
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:00:20 -0800
Subject: Re: Latest Election Fallout
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Thank you for giving the credit.  I forward all the election jokes to my
brother, the Republican, in Yakima and try to be careful to include
copyright info without including private data.

The "England Revokes Independence!" ones have been my favourites. :-7  This
just tops it.

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
filksinger@earthling.net wrote in message <3a183798.0@news.sff.net>...
|I forgot. The entire thing I meant to post was that, so far as I know, the
|author is:
|
|"Ross Glenn"
|
|Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18043
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:34:45 -0800
Subject: Appropriate Quotes?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I found these when I was fooling around with my Complete Reference Library
CD-ROM after looking up a word in the dictionary.  I thought they fit
election night, Florida, and the current situation in general.

The work is Simpson's Contemporary Quotations.  The person is a 20th Century
newscaster.  The answer and the sources of the quotes appears at the end.

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

_________
The Quotes:

1.  Don't be deluded into believing that the
titular heads of the networks control what
appears on their networks. They all have better
taste.

2.  We cannot make good news out of bad
practice.


3.  The speed of communications is wondrous
to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply
the distribution of information that we know to
be untrue.


4. [A] satellite has no conscience.


5.  The newest computer can merely compound,
at speed, the oldest problem in the relations
between human beings, and in the end the
communicator will be confronted with the old
problem, of what to say and how to say it.


6.  If we were to do the Second Coming of
Christ in color for a full hour, there would be a
considerable number of stations which would
decline to carry it on the grounds that a Western
or a quiz show would be more profitable.


7. Good night, and good luck.


8.  We are in the same tent as the clowns and
the freaks—that's show business.


A

N

S

W

E

R

S


Edward R Murrow (1908-1965,) CBS News
American broadcast journalist noted for his dramatic factual reports from
London during World War II.

Quote 1.  To convention of radio and television news
directors, Chicago, news summaries 15 Oct 58

Quote 2.  Reply as director of US Information Agency
to Senate critics who wanted him to ignore racial
strife in order to project a better image abroad,
recalled on his death, Life 7 May 65

Quotes 3, 4, 5, & 6.  On receiving 1964 Family of Man Award, quoted by
Alexander Kendrick Prime Time Little,
Brown 69

Quote 7.  Sign-off line, quoted by A M Sperber
Murrow Freundlich 86

Quote 8.   Quoted by Bill Moyers CBS TV 10 Sep 86





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18044
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 21:16:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a1c3ff0.0@news.sff.net>, Frank Fujita writes...
....
> Okay, so I redefined "my field" to be sufficiently narrow to answer the
> question (Personality Psychology).  Somehow I doubt that there are 250,000
> graduate students in psychology.

Thanks for playing!

Make it psychology, not Personality Psychology (your department has grown 
weary of over specialization), and let the candidates come from all over 
the world.
 
> If the task is to identify *the* most promising graduate student, then I
> would start with some simple criteria.  Start with only winners of the NSF
> fellowship.  They have already picked the cream of the crop, and our task,
> once again becomes manageable.

World wide?
 
> As long as a simple choice criterion for narrowing the field is chosen
> *before* looking through the applications, all candidates have receive equal
> consideration, even if that means they have been disqualified before their
> application is opened.

Sure, but they also receive equal consideration if you pick six at random 
to evaluate.  Of course, you would have (presumably) much less chance of 
actually picking the best student in the pile with a lottery as the first 
cut.  You are presenting a first cut that provides a manageable number in 
one step, by relying on a pre-existing, highly selective process.  
Suppose, as I tried to suggest above, that that approach won't work, and 
that you have to rely on information (GPA, test scores, etc.) found in 
the applications themselves. 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18045
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:13:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> > Writing books? Making movies? Leading adventure tourism expeditions? Breeding exotic
> > fish? Daytrading?
>
> These activities in general make little money for their practitioners.  A
> /very/ small number can make a great deal.

Ahhh, my point exactly. The same thing is true for politics. I should have included jobs
like actor and professional athlete on the list, too. Most folks who do these things make
little or no money at them... but a few do very well and a tiny number get fabulously
rich. Similarly, in politics most of the folks in volved make little or no money... but
not so similarly, in politics NOBODY gets fabulously rich (at least not based on salary
and not while actually pursuing their careers) and even the very top ranks don't make any
more than a halfway decent mid-range exectuive salary. Taking the House, the Senate, the
President, the most senior cabinet members, and the state governors, there are roughly 600
top-rank political jobs in the whole country. Now, if you compare those folks to the top
600 in almost any other profession, I think you'll agree that the average rate of pay
doesn't really measure up. I mean, from a purely financial perspective, would you rather
be a member of Congress or one of the top 600 best-paid university professors (or dentists
or lawyers or airline pilots or...)?

Or put another way, there are roughly as many top-rank elected officials as there are
major-league ballplayers... but (if my memory serves me right and my cypherin' aint too
far off) *a single team* has a bigger payroll than the entire U.S. Congress.
Notwithstanding Babe Ruth's famous line about "I had a better year," I think my statement
that politics is a lousy way to get rich is a pretty reasonable one.

On the other end of the scale, of course (part-time state reps, for instance), neither the
politician *nor* their "civilian" counterparts are getting rich... which certainly doesn't
refute the notion that politicians aren't getting rich.

Folks who choose acting as a career almost never do so for money; they *know* the odds are
thousands to one against them making Clooney-Scharzenegger-Roberts-Pfeiffer money. They
choose acting because they love acting, or because they have a deep commitment to art, or
because they have huge egos and love to be the focus of attention, or for a variety of
other reasons... but *not* because they expect to get rich. All I'm saying is that it's
much the same, I strongly believe, for folks who choose politics as a career. That's all
I've *ever* really been saying in this thread, and I don't actually believe you disagree
with that point.

> > Putting nekkid pictures of your wife on the web?
>
> Now I'm intrigued; I could be missing something.  What's the revenue
> model for this?  ;-)

I think the revenue model depends on the model, if you know what I mean. Isn't this
related to an exchange you're having with BC elsewhere? <vbg>

> Your brother-in-law might well be much more generally capable than the
> average politician, for all I know and for however hard it is for you to
> believe.  ;-)

I know you're joking, but I suspect the truth behind the joke is that you're just
fundamentally cynical about the people who run for elective office, and that you think
they're power-hungry, evil people. I'm not, and I don't... so I don't hold out too much
hope for us finding common ground here.

> Do you have any data on the degree
> to which, say, state assembly representatives hold outside jobs?

Varies from state to state, I think. In Texas (at least years ago when I was there), the
legislature only met for one session (120 dys, IIRC) every 2 years. I don't recall what,
if any, their official duties where when not in session, but in any case it was hardly a
full-time job. But that doesn't refute my point: Any career that requires you to have a
"day job" in order to make ends meet meets my definition of "a lousy way to get rich."

> Of course, many politicians begin
> their careers with lower-level (and so lower-paying) positions with the
> idea of working their way up - whether they are ultimately successful is
> another story.

Ditto for actors and baseball players... but "ultimately successful" can be a *LOT* more
lucrative in those cases.

> > (even members of Congress only make ~2 times that much).
>
> And "merely" 2X is not significant?  And how just how easy do you think
> it is to make $140K/year in a commercial (skip "business", if you like)
> activity?

I believe (though I'm not absolutely sure because I'm not privvy to anybody's actual
salary other than my own) that every single employee at my company who is classified as an
"executive" makes at least that much. I'm not saying a $140k/yr income is anything to
sneeze at, but even so, it ain't "rich" by today's standards.

> Such a salary is ... way above
> the average (difficult as that is for many folks in high-tech fields to
> grasp).

I bet it's not above the average for the top 600 practicioners of many professions. I bet
the top 600 golf-course groundskeepers average more than that. (That's a pure guess, of
course, but you get my drift.)

> > ...Successful top executives are rarely the best engineer
> > or scientists or acountants or lawyers in their organizations;
>
> But they are almost always among the most skilled at one of these.

No, they're not. At least not in a large company. People whose skills are primarily
technical often fail when they're put in management roles; those who succeed do so because
they have good management skills (=leadership skills, IMHO) *in addition to* thier
technical skills.

> But the way you have phrased
> [the example about the P&W exec] brings us back to Frank's point.  Do you have any
> reason to believe
> that this exec (or successful execs generally) /wants/ to be in politics
> and is held back by the money?

No, quite the contrary: I think if this guy wanted to be in politics money would be no
deterrent, because he's already got plenty (in addition to his success, his wife comes
from a wealthy family). It was *Frank's* contention that top-level people don't go into
politics because the pay isn't competitive; I disagreed.

> (BTW, I did not intend to limit "business"
> skills only to "skills valuable in a large corporate setting".)

I didn't think you did. On the contrary, it seemed to me that your insistence that
"political skills" are somehow irrelevant in a business setting *excluded* large corporate
settings: In a 20 person engineering firm, the CEO probably *is* the best engineer, but in
a 30,000 person diversified high-tech company, the CEO is probably the person who
outmaneuvered/outcompeted the other 25 execs who wanted the job (including the other 3 or
4 who actually had a realistic shot at it)... and is probably NOT the best engineer. It
seems to me (speaking, of course, from my VAST business expertise <g>), that virtually
everything you've said about business in this conversation is *more likely* to be true of
relatively small, entrepreneurial businesses that large companies.

> But I also think that Grove, Welch, etc., have an
> ability to make good (money-making) business decisions, that goes beyond
> leadership per se.

And I say good decision-making is good decision-making. The context and content of the
decisions are different in a business setting versus a (for instance) legislative one, but
the fundamental process of making good decisions (and the personal competencies that
underly that process) remains the same. IMHO, of course.

> ...there is
> a cap on salaries for elected officials (though not on what they can earn
> in other ways), but no fixed limit on what a commercial activity may net
> you.  So "on average" /anyone/ will do better "commercially" than
> "politically".

This is *EXACTLY* my point. It's amazing to me how you manage to continually agree with me
and still *sound like* you think we're having an argument! ;^)

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18046
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:05:01 -0500
Subject: Thanksgiving
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Thank you dear sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

You have made my life much better than it would have been, if you were not
as wonderful as you are.  For the gifts you have shared with me, I am truly
thankful.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18047
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:25:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1486480cb159bd24989728@news.sff.net...
> Thanks for playing!

Do I get a prize?
>
> Make it psychology, not Personality Psychology (your department has grown
> weary of over specialization), and let the candidates come from all over
> the world.
[..]
> World wide?

I thought the original question was about "the most promising graduate
student in your field in the country"  My personal guess is that there are
only about 250,000 graduates students in the county of all specializations.

> Suppose, as I tried to suggest above, that that approach won't work, and
> that you have to rely on information (GPA, test scores, etc.) found in
> the applications themselves.

Well, I've already sorted the 250,000 applications (to find the ones from
the NSF fellowship winners), so now I have to open them.  Collect all of the
GRE scores (think SAT but for college graduates trying to get into graduate
school).  I suppose I should include all four scores (since it will take
negligably more time than any single score).  Each score goes from 200-800
(I believe in increments of 10), so the total score would go from 800-3200.
With 250,000 applications assuming a mean score of 2000 and sd of 400
(another oversimplification) I will have about 1,500 applications with a
perfect 3200 on the tests.  With 1,500 applications that have a perfect 3200
on the test, I bet I'll have at least 100 with a perfect straight A gpa.
So, if there were more than 50 with a perfect GPA I'd just review those
applications.  Otherwise, I'd also review those applications that had one A
minus among all of the other As.

I'm starting to think that I should get Dennett's book.

Frank Fujita




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18048
From: John de Rivaz" <longevityrpt@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:59:10 -0000
Subject: revocation of independance
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This is passing around the internet and may amuse some of you ...

>>>>>>>>>>
Forwarded by Maya Sharma/UK/IBM on 16/11/2000 11:41

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America,

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

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

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules
are introduced with immediate effect:

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

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

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

4.  Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the
good guys. (Not entirely convinced by this one)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation.
<<<<<<<<<

--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt
http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy?



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18049
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 24 Nov 2000 19:54:27 GMT
Subject: Re: revocation of independance
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Since we have already seen this and the American response, I have forwarded
the American response to Mr. Rivaz.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18050
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 24 Nov 2000 21:21:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The first thing I would do is pick some easily identifiable marks of excellence,
such as GPA, standardized test scores, or possessing an award, membership,
or scholarship indicating excellence. Depending upon how many people meet
which criteria, I might select multiple criteria, picking and chosing until
I have a criteria that some 100 people have (or more, if I have plenty of
time, or less if I spent too long on the above). These finalists I would
reveiw individually.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18051
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:35:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon--
     Now wait a minute -- you are confusing US law with overseas law.
Over there,  you can hire whoever you want for whatever reason,
especially if you have taken the precaution of having a couple of
bureaucrats on your payroll.

     Of course, opening a business carries a lot of restrictions.  But I
plan to just spend the money; not earn it.

     I have decided that the estate is likely to be named Jubal.  Or
Harshaw.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18052
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 25 Nov 2000 20:27:01 GMT
Subject: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I haven't done this for a while, but last night, I was inspired.

First, the scale, and some movies I missed.

1 Star - Waste of time
2 Stars - Fair
3 Stars - Worth seeing, but possibly not at full price
4 Stars - Good movie. Definitely worth seeing
5 Stars - Highly recommended. Give it once every three-four years or so.

Some movies may have multiple ratings, depending upon likes/dislikes of
readers. For example, Star Trek: Star Trek: Generations was only 3 Stars,
but 4 Stars for people who wanted to see Kirk die.:) OTOH, the movie that
followed, Star Trek: First Contact, might be a 4 for most people, but a
5 for Star Trek fans.

X-Men
I may be overrating this one. It is hard to say, because I am a comic book
fan, and thus grade such movies either higher or lower than other non-fans
might.

The best comic book movie since the original Batman (by which I mean the
one with Jack Nicholson, not the silly thing based upon the 1960's TV series).
Comic book fans may even say it is better, since it sticks to the genre
conventions better (no firebombing factories full of enemies, no machinegunning
your enemies, etc.) Based on the X-Men comic books (of course), most of
the characterizations were dead on, keeping in mind that the movie characters
weren't intended to be identical to the comic books.

Already out on video. I should have reviewed this one earlier.

Rating: 4 Stars; comic book fans: 5 Stars.

************
Charlie's Angels

The original was hokey, and primarily on TV for the cheesecake. As a result,
a lot of people expected a movie that was pretty much the same, and expected
to be disappointed.

Verdict? Surprisingly good.

Thankfully, it didn't try to take itself seriously at all. Described, accurately,
as a cross between James Bond and Austin Powers, it is a wonderful sendup
of the original television series. Not intended to be played for laughs,
but rather high camp. Even the cheesecake (of which there was plenty, of
the PG variety) usually had a humorous point, and was almost never truly
pointless.

Rating: 4 Stars

************

Unbreakable

A moody, rather dark movie about a man who is the sole survivor of a horrendeous
train crash, who not merely survives, but is found without a scratch in
a portion of the train that is totally destroyed. He is contacted by a mysterious
stranger, who tries to convince him that he is "unbreakable", and has a
strange theory as to why this is true.

I don't want to give away any surprises, not even ones that occur fairly
early in the movie, so I can't say more. Suffice it to say that I haven't
liked a movie more in quite some time.

Rating: 4 1/2 Stars for most people, 5 Stars who are fans of a certain type
of entertainment. I can say no more, except to say that I fit into the 5
Star category.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18053
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 06:53:12 +0900
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

filksinger@earthling.net wrote:

> Charlie's Angels
>
> The original was hokey, and primarily on TV for the cheesecake. As a result,
> a lot of people expected a movie that was pretty much the same, and expected
> to be disappointed.
>
> Verdict? Surprisingly good.
>
> Thankfully, it didn't try to take itself seriously at all. Described, accurately,
> as a cross between James Bond and Austin Powers, it is a wonderful sendup
> of the original television series. Not intended to be played for laughs,
> but rather high camp. Even the cheesecake (of which there was plenty, of
> the PG variety) usually had a humorous point, and was almost never truly
> pointless.

Lucy Liu: "Flip the hair."
Cameron Diaz "What?"
Liu: "Flip your god**** hair."
Diaz flips her hair in majestic slomo, and the man is putty in her hands.

> Rating: 4 Stars

This is pretty much exactly what I said about the movie over on my group, only you
were more succinct than I could manage.  I thought I might be going easy on it, since
I once had a huge crush on Cheryl Ladd. <g>

When's the sequel?

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18054
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:22:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A1FB228.D1D88553@aol.com>, Charles Graft writes...
> Gordon--
>      Now wait a minute -- you are confusing US law with overseas law.
> Over there,  you can hire whoever you want for whatever reason,
> especially if you have taken the precaution of having a couple of
> bureaucrats on your payroll.

But U.S. law is now such that you will have to continue to pay U.S. 
income tax for 10 years even after renouncing your U.S. citizenship!  If 
we have the power to pursue your earnings, it will only be a small matter 
of time before the U.S. will find a way to project its other laws 
overseas.  After all, failing to do so would suggest a cynical motivation 
for current tax practice, and, besides, our laws are good and just laws 
and ought to be in force everywhere.

Not to mention, /your/ fortune will be made on the backs of hard-working, 
middle-class voters, who, after all, /deserve/ an error free voting 
process.  That you would make a fortune from their need is, well, just 
scandalous!

But if my wife gets the job (and you put me on a small retainer, of 
course), I'll keep quiet about the whole mess.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18055
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:17:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<snip>

> Unbreakable
> 
> A moody, rather dark movie about a man who is the sole survivor of a
> horrendeous train crash, who not merely survives, but is found without a
> scratch in a portion of the train that is totally destroyed. He is contacted
> by a mysterious stranger, who tries to convince him that he is
> "unbreakable", and has a strange theory as to why this is true.

> I don't want to give away any surprises, not even ones that occur fairly
> early in the movie, so I can't say more. Suffice it to say that I haven't
> liked a movie more in quite some time.
>
> Rating: 4 1/2 Stars for most people, 5 Stars who are fans of a certain type
> of entertainment. I can say no more, except to say that I fit into the 5
> Star category.

Thanks. You've said plenty. You've cemented into fact a suspicion I've
held for some time -- that I'm totally at odds with Denver's annointed
"critic" (a dude name of Denerstein), and that anything he hates I'll
probably like. His only argument against this film was that it isn't
"The Sixth Sense Redux".

I plan to see "Unbreakable" today, if I can. Thanks, Filksinger.

--
Clay Steiner
claysteiner@SPAMTHIS.prodigy.net (remove the obvious to reply)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He who laughs last, thinks slowest.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18056
From: SynABit@kc.rr.com (Dennis Doms)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:56:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a202095.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net wrote:

>X-Men
>I may be overrating this one. It is hard to say, because I am a comic book
>fan, and thus grade such movies either higher or lower than other non-fans
>might.

I don't think so. The first two Batman movies had flaws (the "Ah, C'MON!"
scenes, like Joker's gun versus the Batplane in the first, and the "collapsing
Batmobile in the second)), and I still thought they were excellent. I don't
know that I've spotted a similar flaw in _X-Men_.

Several of my non-genre friends thought is was excellent as well. I think they
were surprised at the characterizations and maturity of the plotline (versus
their preconception of what a "comic book feature" might look like)..

>Rating: 4 Stars; comic book fans: 5 Stars.
>
>************
>Unbreakable
>
>A moody, rather dark movie about a man who is the sole survivor of a horrendeous
>train crash, who not merely survives, but is found without a scratch in
>a portion of the train that is totally destroyed. He is contacted by a mysterious
>stranger, who tries to convince him that he is "unbreakable", and has a
>strange theory as to why this is true.
>
>I don't want to give away any surprises, not even ones that occur fairly
>early in the movie, so I can't say more. Suffice it to say that I haven't
>liked a movie more in quite some time.
>
>Rating: 4 1/2 Stars for most people, 5 Stars who are fans of a certain type
>of entertainment. I can say no more, except to say that I fit into the 5
>Star category.

The second surprise got me a lot more than the first one. :)

There was a certain "unfulling" feeling of this movie in that (comparing it to
_Sixth Sense_) it seems to have the same plodding, deliberate style. It drains
a lot of the emotion out of you over the course of the movie, so the reactions
become more intellectual than visceral; one might even say "detached". The
final scene also left me in a bit of a quandry as to whether I felt we had
resolved anything (not a condemnation, since that may have been the intent,
but you almost feel as if the intense story would start at that revelation).

>Filksinger


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18057
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:40:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Thanksgiving
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:05:01 -0500, "Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
wrote:

>Thank you dear sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>
>You have made my life much better than it would have been, if you were not
>as wonderful as you are.  For the gifts you have shared with me, I am truly
>thankful.
>
>Frank Fujita
>
What a nice thought, Frank. 

I'm thankful that I'm home after a trip to NY and back.  The good:
the minivan made the trip easier.  The bad: the baby made the trip
about 2 hours longer. ;)

But heck, Danny's all smiles & giggles now.  And his grandparents were
glad to see him.

JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18058
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:22:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Telephone call
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <3A1FB228.D1D88553@aol.com>, Charles Graft writes...
>
> Not to mention, /your/ fortune will be made on the backs of hard-working,
> middle-class voters, who, after all, /deserve/ an error free voting
> process.  That you would make a fortune from their need is, well, just
> scandalous!
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com

     Dammed right.  And I earned every penny by giving them that opportunity.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18059
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:49:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

[Sorry for the long delay in replying; the real world sometimes gets in 
the way of the important stuff.]

In article <3A1CC38D.C00D4DA2@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> The same thing is true for politics. I should have included jobs
> like actor and professional athlete on the list, too. Most folks who do these things make
> little or no money at them... but a few do very well and a tiny number get fabulously
> rich. Similarly, in politics most of the folks in volved make little or no money... but
> not so similarly, in politics NOBODY gets fabulously rich

We are having a certain amount of "adjective drift" here.  I originally 
said that politics was "a much better way to get rich"; I did not say 
"fabulously rich".  The example I used was Bill Clinton's new house - for 
which I think you must be rich - not Bill Gate's - for which "fabulously 
rich" is required.

> (at least not based on salary
> and not while actually pursuing their careers)

But why should we be limited to salary?  I have been pointing to non-
salary elements all along, and that, for some, two careers are pursued 
simultaneously and with synergy.

Now I agreed (in a later post) that on salary alone, political careers do 
not really stand out, but I'm not sure that this was "your point 
exactly".  I thought your point was that politicians had the "right 
stuff" to get rich but chose not to do so.  The discussion is over what 
this "stuff" is.

....
> Or put another way, there are roughly as many top-rank elected officials as there are
> major-league ballplayers... but (if my memory serves me right and my cypherin' aint too
> far off) *a single team* has a bigger payroll than the entire U.S. Congress.
> Notwithstanding Babe Ruth's famous line about "I had a better year," I think my statement
> that politics is a lousy way to get rich is a pretty reasonable one.

Again, the issue, I thought, was not a public versus private salary 
comparison, but whether, given the skills politicians have, politics is a 
better way for them to get rich than business.  We disagree over this as 
well, but it is a different point. 
 
....
> > Your brother-in-law might well be much more generally capable than the
> > average politician, for all I know and for however hard it is for you to
> > believe.  ;-)
> 
> I know you're joking,

Well, you know your brother-in-law and I don't.  ;-)

> but I suspect the truth behind the joke is that you're just
> fundamentally cynical about the people who run for elective office, and that you think
> they're power-hungry, evil people.

I have plenty of cynicism to go around.  People in business can be power 
hungry as well.  But I can usually ignore a business person I don't want 
to do business with.  Politicians willingly adopt a different role, 
one I cannot ignore, and so I hold them to a different standard.

....
> > Do you have any data on the degree
> > to which, say, state assembly representatives hold outside jobs?
> 
> Varies from state to state, I think. In Texas (at least years ago when I was there), the
> legislature only met for one session (120 dys, IIRC) every 2 years. I don't recall what,
> if any, their official duties where when not in session, but in any case it was hardly a
> full-time job. But that doesn't refute my point: Any career that requires you to have a
> "day job" in order to make ends meet meets my definition of "a lousy way to get rich."

The "career" may provide a perfect springboard for the "day job", and the 
combination provide a better way for a politician to get rich than any 
other "day job" alone that he might choose.

....
> > > ...Successful top executives are rarely the best engineer
> > > or scientists or acountants or lawyers in their organizations;
> >
> > But they are almost always among the most skilled at one of these.
> 
> No, they're not. At least not in a large company. People whose skills are primarily
> technical often fail when they're put in management roles; those who succeed do so because
> they have good management skills (=leadership skills, IMHO) *in addition to* thier
> technical skills.

I did not say "primarily technical"; that would imply that they do not 
have very good business (management, leadership, whatever) skills as 
well.  Here is my claim: a top corporate executive who has worked his way 
up as say, an accountant, will be found to be a /very/ good ("among the 
most skilled") accountant.
 
....
> > But I also think that Grove, Welch, etc., have an
> > ability to make good (money-making) business decisions, that goes beyond
> > leadership per se.
> 
> And I say good decision-making is good decision-making. The context and content of the
> decisions are different in a business setting versus a (for instance) legislative one, but
> the fundamental process of making good decisions (and the personal competencies that
> underly that process) remains the same. IMHO, of course.

And IMHO, not.  ;-)  But I do not rule out the possibility of a few 
people who could be very successful at either public or private careers.
 
....
> It's amazing to me how you manage to continually agree with me
> and still *sound like* you think we're having an argument! ;^)

Well, that is a real talent of mine.  But it does me no good in either 
business or politics.  It is really good for USENET posts, though.  ;-)  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18060
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:06:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> [Sorry for the long delay in replying; the real world sometimes gets in
> the way of the important stuff.]

Don't I know it!

I have a fair amount of "real life" going on these days, and don't really want to prolong this
discussion too much longer. I'll only make a couple replies:

> Now I agreed (in a later post) that on salary alone, political careers do
> not really stand out, but I'm not sure that this was "your point
> exactly".  I thought your point was that politicians had the "right
> stuff" to get rich but chose not to do so.

No. My point was (and is and always has been) that people who go into politics are not (IMHO)
primarily motivated to do so by a desire to get rich. I've said a number of other things
peripherally in the course of the discussion, but this ha been my point all along, and I've
tried to make that clear. Note that this assertion is NOT the same as suggesting that everyone
in politics could have been rich if they'd done something else: Some politicians are just
mediocre people who would have had no better than mediocre success in whatever field they
chose. In almost every case, though, I suspect they could have found some field in which
mediocre success would pay better than being a mediocre politician. Even when that's not the
case, though, I stand by my theory that *expectation of wealth* is not the reason most folks go
into politics.

>  > People whose skills are primarily
> > technical often fail when they're put in management roles; those who succeed do so because
> > they have good management skills (=leadership skills, IMHO) *in addition to* their
> > technical skills.
>
> I did not say "primarily technical"; that would imply that they do not
> have very good business (management, leadership, whatever) skills as
> well.  Here is my claim: a top corporate executive who has worked his way
> up as say, an accountant, will be found to be a /very/ good ("among the
> most skilled") accountant.

I think this is a utopian (not to say naive) view, at least WRT large organizations. The most
skilled accountants (note that by "technical" I meant to include skills such as accounting; I
didn't mean "technological") are likely busy doing the bulk of the accounting work while their
somewhat less skilled (but still competent) colleagues who have good people skills are
networking, schmoozing, making presentations, attending seminars, serving as chairman of the
charity drive... in general, making the sort of contacts that move them up the executive
pecking order. People with really excellent technical (note definition above) skills often face
subtle barriers to advancement, because those technical skills are so valuable that the
organization is reluctant to lose them when their possessor moves into the management track...
and this is actually a rational position for an organization to take, assuming they take a
measured approach to it (i.e., don't p!ss too many good people off too much <g>). Business...
at least in the case of the *big* businesses that I'm familiar with... is not quite the
meritocracy you imagine. I'd hazard a guess (and maybe some of the military folks on the board
will chime in) that the same is true in large military organizations, too.

As a (largely irrelevant, but indulge me <g>) personal aside WRT technical skills being a
barrier, all throughout high school I played 3rd part in the trumpet section of my band. I was
good enough to move up to 2nd part -- in fact I successfully challenged my way into the 2nd
section twice -- but while there were other good players on 2nd part, nobody else could hold
the 3rd part worth a d@mn. So the band director asked me to voluntarily stay on 3rd part, for
the sake of making the band better. If this had angered me enough to make me quit band, it
would've been a bad tactical move on his part... but it didn't, so it wasn't. I realize I've
wandered a bit from *my main point* (see above <g>), but my *peripheral* point is that this
same sort of transaction happens a lot, though much less explicitly, to technically skilled
people in large organizations. None of this is meant to suggest that successful execs are
generally underserving -- I know many who are *extremely* talented and deserving individuals;
it's just that I disagree somewhat with your assessment of how they get to be execs in the
first place.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18061
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:34:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:06:24 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> I did not say "primarily technical"; that would imply that they do not
>> have very good business (management, leadership, whatever) skills as
>> well.  Here is my claim: a top corporate executive who has worked his way
>> up as say, an accountant, will be found to be a /very/ good ("among the
>> most skilled") accountant.
>
>I think this is a utopian (not to say naive) view, at least WRT large organizations. The most
>skilled accountants (note that by "technical" I meant to include skills such as accounting; I
>didn't mean "technological") are likely busy doing the bulk of the accounting work while their
>somewhat less skilled (but still competent) colleagues who have good people skills are
>networking, schmoozing, making presentations, attending seminars, serving as chairman of the
>charity drive... in general, making the sort of contacts that move them up the executive
>pecking order. People with really excellent technical (note definition above) skills often face
>subtle barriers to advancement, because those technical skills are so valuable that the
>organization is reluctant to lose them when their possessor moves into the management track...
>and this is actually a rational position for an organization to take, assuming they take a
>measured approach to it (i.e., don't p!ss too many good people off too much <g>). Business...
>at least in the case of the *big* businesses that I'm familiar with... is not quite the
>meritocracy you imagine. I'd hazard a guess (and maybe some of the military folks on the board
>will chime in) that the same is true in large military organizations, too.

(Re the military) yes, I would agree that it is true.  However, there
is a difference in that we don't (or didn't--see below) expect the
technical expert to move up to senior leadership positions.  We expect
good leaders to.  That is why we have officer, warrant officer, and
enlisted ranks.   The enlisted folks are the doers.  If they show
exceptional technical skill, they can become warrant officers, who are
our technical experts.  OTOH, if an enlisted person shows potential
for leadership, at a young enough age, he/she can become an officer,
thru OCS.  Otherwise, they stay at the doer-level, or become a
first-line supervisor as an NCO, where specific technical knowledge is
still necessary.  In any case, the warrant officer and the NCO will
(almost) never be even considered for promotion to the commissioned
officer ranks, from whence come the senior (CEO-level) managers.

Ironically, just before I retired, the Army changed its promotion
criteria for senior officers precisely to deal with the problem of key
leaders NOT having sufficient technical skills or knowledge.

It used to be a person could never expect to reach full colonel or
general officer without successfully commanding a battalion or
brigade, resp, thus demonstrating leadership and managerial skills.
But then they decided that there were a few technical fields that
really needed a leadership with technical knowledge, so they
established a separate promotion track for officers who specialize in
more technical fields.  They are still expected, and trained, to be
good leaders and managers, but are also expected to have spent some
considerable time in these specific technical fields.

An example:  Operations Research/Systems Analysis (ORSA) is a very
technical field that requires a lot of knowledge and experience to
really contribute anything.  Most of the technical experts in the
field are either civilians or commission officers (as opposed to
warrant officers), because of the graduate-level educational
requirements.  But the leaders of ORSA agencies were usually people
who maybe had one ORSA-related assignment as a captain or major, then
spent the rest of their career as commanders and staff officers in,
for example, infantry or armor brigades.  The guy (or gal) who spent
their whole career working ORSA assignments and was very very good at
ORSA, could not get promoted to colonel, and so never got the
high-level jobs.  The dual track system for promotions is supposed to
fix that--I don't know what has happened recently.  But again, this
new system is really limited to a relatively few fields--I suppose
it's not that different than the separate track that has been
maintained for military doctors and lawyers (etc) for ages--and the
"classic" model I describe above still applies to most military
organizations.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18062
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:51:57 -0500
Subject: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints

WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court today struck down as
unconstitutional random roadblocks intended to catch drug criminals. The
6-3 ruling weighed privacy rights against the interests of law
enforcement. The majority found that Indianapolis' use of drug-sniffing
dogs to check all cars pulled over at the roadblocks was an unreasonable
search under the Constitution. The majority said the ruling does not
affect other kinds of police roadblocks such as border checks and
drunken-driving checkpoints.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeahhhh!!!

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18063
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:15:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Voter Disenfranchisement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

....
> No. My point was (and is and always has been) that people who go into
politics are not (IMHO)
> primarily motivated to do so by a desire to get rich. I've said a number
of other things
> peripherally in the course of the discussion, but this ha been my point
all along, and I've
> tried to make that clear.

Well, I guess I'll just have to start reading posts here more carefully...

Naw, that would spoil the fun!  ;-)

....
> > I did not say "primarily technical"; that would imply that they do not
> > have very good business (management, leadership, whatever) skills as
> > well.  Here is my claim: a top corporate executive who has worked his
way
> > up as say, an accountant, will be found to be a /very/ good ("among the
> > most skilled") accountant.
>
> I think this is a utopian (not to say naive) view, at least WRT large
organizations.

Before starting my new career, I worked for 15 years for several companies
in the financial services industry, and as a VP for 12 of those years
(admittedly the VP title is less senior in
financial services firms, than in, say, manufacturing), and I didn't think
my view was naive.  But perhaps my views have become nostalgic.  ;-)

>People with really excellent technical (note definition above) skills often
face
> subtle barriers to advancement, because those technical skills are so
valuable that the
> organization is reluctant to lose them when their possessor moves into the
management track...
> and this is actually a rational position for an organization to take,
assuming they take a
> measured approach to it (i.e., don't p!ss too many good people off too
much <g>).

I would like to see this notion tested in some way - I don't believe it.  I
do believe that people who /only/ have valuable technical skills are urged
to stay where they are.  But people with strong business skills as well
either can't be held back where they are, or they find another place to
work.

>Business...
> at least in the case of the *big* businesses that I'm familiar with... is
not quite the
> meritocracy you imagine. I'd hazard a guess (and maybe some of the
military folks on the board
> will chime in) that the same is true in large military organizations, too.

I don't think that the military is a good analogy.  It is more structured
than the business world.  More importantly, if you are not advancing fast
enough in the U.S. military, taking a better offer from, say, the Russians
is rarely an option.  ;-)

> So the band director asked me to voluntarily stay on 3rd part, for
> the sake of making the band better.

Band members know that the conductor is always right.  ;-)  Your example
illustrates my point.  If you had been a professional musician you could
have changed bands.  Also, I doubt that senior management makes its
promotion
decisions with the same single-minded control that a band director can
achieve.







------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18064
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:25:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Frank Fujita <ffujita@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:3a1dedb4.0@news.sff.net...
> Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1486480cb159bd24989728@news.sff.net...
> > Thanks for playing!
>
> Do I get a prize?

Only if you win.  ;-)

> > Make it psychology, not Personality Psychology (your department has
grown
> > weary of over specialization), and let the candidates come from all over
> > the world.
> [..]
> > World wide?
>
> I thought the original question was about "the most promising graduate
> student in your field in the country"  My personal guess is that there are
> only about 250,000 graduates students in the county of all
specializations.

If you won't accept the givens as /given/, then I get to change them.

> > Suppose, as I tried to suggest above, that that approach won't work, and
> > that you have to rely on information (GPA, test scores, etc.) found in
> > the applications themselves.
>
> Well, I've already sorted the 250,000 applications (to find the ones from
> the NSF fellowship winners), so now I have to open them.  Collect all of
the
> GRE scores (think SAT but for college graduates trying to get into
graduate
> school).

I never had to take a GRE, but I had the misfortune of having to take the
GMAT twice!  (For some reason, 15-year-old scores can't be reused).

>  I suppose I should include all four scores (since it will take
> negligably more time than any single score).  Each score goes from 200-800
> (I believe in increments of 10), so the total score would go from
800-3200.
> With 250,000 applications assuming a mean score of 2000 and sd of 400
> (another oversimplification) I will have about 1,500 applications with a
> perfect 3200 on the tests.  With 1,500 applications that have a perfect
3200
> on the test, I bet I'll have at least 100 with a perfect straight A gpa.
> So, if there were more than 50 with a perfect GPA I'd just review those
> applications.  Otherwise, I'd also review those applications that had one
A
> minus among all of the other As.

And you are going to be able to extract this information by hand and process
it for 250,000 applications?

> I'm starting to think that I should get Dennett's book.

I have always found Dennett to be worth reading.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18065
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:27:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a1edbe9.0@news.sff.net...
> The first thing I would do is pick some easily identifiable marks of
excellence,
> such as GPA, standardized test scores, or possessing an award, membership,
> or scholarship indicating excellence.

And you will collect and process this information by hand for 250,000
applications?




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18066
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:41:24 +0900
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Charles Graft wrote:

> Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints

<snip>

Seeing who dissented on this makes me hope Gore pulls it out.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18067
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:51:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Charles Graft wrote:

> Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints
>
> <article content snipped>
>
> Yeahhhh!!!

Yeahhh, indeed! But did you notice that Rhenquist (writing for the minority, which also
included Scalia and Thomas) said he thought the roadblocks represented "only a minimal
intrusion into privacy" (OWTTE)? This from the chief guardian of our civil liberties! I
wonder what it would take for him to consider it a *significant* intrusion into
privacy???

In other news re the courts and our liberty/privacy, I heard today on NPR that an Alabama
appeals court (the state supreme court, maybe? I don't recall...) has reversed a lower
court and reinstated the state's (criminal) ban on sale or distribution of "sexual
devices." The case involves specifically two companies that sell sex toys at home
parties, but the definition of "sexual devices" adopted by the court apparently includes
a wide variety of vibrators and massage oils. One has to wonder how prosecutors and the
courts will distinguish between proucts sold in sex shops and *the very same products*
sold in pharmacies and health shops with no reference to sexual uses? The court justified
its ruling by saying that [a] the ban serves the state's interest in protecting public
morality and [b] some of the devices might be considered legally obscene. To which I
reply...

[a] How is the "public morality" injured by such an inherently private device as a sex
toy? The particular defendents weren't even operating a pulic place of business: They
were selling their wares in private homes, at Tupperware-style parties. I would support a
ban on the obnoxious public display of such devices (i.e., your sex shop can't have a
Macy's-style display window), and I would *certainly* support a ban on public *use* of
sex toys <g>, but I don't see how the private distribution, sale, and use of them
threatens the public morality. For that matter, I'm not sure concern for the "public
morality" reasonably justifies *any* legal restrictions on sexual behavior, beyond those
needed to prevent specific harm to nonparticipant and/or nonconsenting individuals. FWIW,
BTW, several experts apparently testified that these devices are often *prescribed* as an
essential therapeutic element in couples counseling and sex therapy. That doesn't seem to
have impressed the court much. And...

[b] If some of them are in fact legally obscene (preumably because they're too
representational), they're probably already illegal under state obscenity laws. How in
the blue-eyed world could that possibly justify banning all the others that *aren't*
obscene.

It's not like I have a big collection of sex toys to protect <vbg>, or, for that matter,
like I'm going to live in Alabama any time soon... but this sort of stuff really scares
me sometimes.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18068
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:54:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Great minds think alike!   ;^)

Eli Hestermann wrote:

> Charles Graft wrote:
>
> > Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints
>
> <snip>
>
> Seeing who dissented on this makes me hope Gore pulls it out.
>
> --
> Eli V. Hestermann
> ehestermann@whoi.edu
> "Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18069
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:37:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>What to do?  If only you had anticipated the demand, you could have 
>imposed tighter eligibility conditions, but it is too late for that: 
>every one of the 250,000 candidates has a right to equal consideration, 

  I had to think about this for a while to see if I could come up with
any better options. The way you describe it, I would have no
assistants--or minimally so. 250,000 is almost too many to handle for
one person just to be able to open the envelopes, too many for full
consideration of each. 

So... I'd treat the whole mess as if it were an enormous slush pile.
First I'd eliminate any that just didn't strike my fancy--without
opening them. I'd toss aside any with sloppy handwriting, crooked
stamps, or any silliness like lavender envelopes with smiley face
stickers on it. Criteria would be strick enough to eliminate at least
200,000 entries. 

The remaining 50,000 have the honor of their envelopes being opened.
Still don't take out any paperwork but glance into the envelope to see
if the correct top sheet is facing up. Any that give even the sightest
bad impression get tossed aside. Surviving entries get material pulled
part way out--any typo, bad font choice, bad paperclip choice, or any
other criteria I can come up with gets them tossed aside.

The survivors of the envelope competition get the papers pulled out
and the top sheet glanced over. There must be some essential factors
that would make some be considered better candidates than others do
this until a manageable number are left (say about 1000). 

The remaining 1000 get looked over with an eye to their additional
material--actually reading what's in their entries, but tossing them
at the slightest negative point without reading further. Weed down now
to 100 or less. These are the ones that get the most meticulous
consideration. Get down to 5 finalists with a preferred order on them.

At this point I go back to the discard piles and pick out both random
selections and some that just catch my eye and give them full, serious
consideration. Do this as long as possible to the deadline. 


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18070
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:01:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A2442A4.26A55970@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> Charles Graft wrote:
> 
> > Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Seeing who dissented on this makes me hope Gore pulls it out.

Well, Kennedy was a Reagan appointee, and he did not dissent.

-- 
Gordon "Look for the silver lining" Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18071
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:10:43 +0900
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <3A2442A4.26A55970@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> > Charles Graft wrote:
> >
> > > Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Seeing who dissented on this makes me hope Gore pulls it out.
>
> Well, Kennedy was a Reagan appointee, and he did not dissent.

Neither did Sandra Day O'Connor.  I usually find myself agreeing with
the opinions of these two swing voters.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18072
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:07:58 GMT
Subject: copyright question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This is off-topic but with all the writers someone oughtta know.. (and
it's too late to wake up Jim)
Who owns the copyright on a quote? The original publisher? Certainly
not MS Bookshelf (where I found some quotes I intend to publish)
Is it within fair use to quote statements that are only a few
sentences long? (In this case the publication is a school yearbook,
one time run of only about 250 copies, if that's of note)
Is the age/ amount of time spent deceased significant?
Thanks,
Bob

P.S. If anyone has high-quality images of starscapes (ideally
starscapes where the silhouette of the horizon is visible in the
bottom) they'd be much appreciated...
Thanks,
Bob
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18073
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:11:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

>WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court today struck down as
>unconstitutional random roadblocks intended to catch drug criminals. The
>6-3 ruling weighed privacy rights against the interests of law
>enforcement. The majority found that Indianapolis' use of drug-sniffing
>dogs to check all cars pulled over at the roadblocks was an unreasonable
>search under the Constitution. The majority said the ruling does not
>affect other kinds of police roadblocks such as border checks and
>drunken-driving checkpoints.

If I were one to engage in uncontrolled exhibitions of joy, I would do
so now. However, I am not very good at doing so in ASCII so I'll leave
it at that and go to bed far more content with the state of affairs in
the world than I otherwise would have.

6-3 is not terribly comfortable though....
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18074
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:26:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3a243144.0@news.sff.net...
> If you won't accept the givens as /given/, then I get to change them.

Okay, but is it the point that there *is* no way to properly award the
prize?  Are you (Dennett) looking for creative convergent answers or
creative divergent answers?

On the convergent track, I could take $21,000 of the prize money -- making
it a slightly less valuable prize, and get 100 people to work about 200
hours each spending 30 seconds per application typing in the test scores for
$10/hour.  Somehow, I believe that you will disallow this method, because it
hasn't forced me into the epiphany that you are hoping that I will have.

On the divergent track, I could say to myself, "Self, the most promising
student in psychology will know (or at least have predicted) that there are
way too many applications for us to process through normal channels, and
will have done something that will make his or her application stand out.
At this point, I know of the 10 or so wierd applications (out of the
250,000) that have caught my attention (I can't tell you what
characteristics these applications will have in advance -- *I'm* not the
most promising student in my field to know what will appeal to me --
possibly the application was sent with a singing telegram, or maybe it was
faxed to me before the announcement was made, or the applicant showed up at
my office and offered to help me key in the test scores, or something else.
I will go through those applications looking for an excellent student.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18075
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:53:39 -0500
Subject: Re: copyright question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a24b8ae.19846256@news.sff.net>, Bob Lawson writes...
> This is off-topic but with all the writers someone oughtta know.. (and
> it's too late to wake up Jim)
> Who owns the copyright on a quote? The original publisher? Certainly
> not MS Bookshelf (where I found some quotes I intend to publish)

MS would presumably have the copyright on their presentation and 
organization of the quotes.
 
> Is it within fair use to quote statements that are only a few
> sentences long? (In this case the publication is a school yearbook,
> one time run of only about 250 copies, if that's of note)

Fair use is determined with reference to four criteria:

(1) the purpose and character of the use

If your yearbook is to be sold, that is, I suppose, a "commercial use" - 
which counts against you.  But perhaps you are only charging to recover 
your costs.  OTOH, perhaps it would count as a "educational use", since 
it is a /school/ yearbook.

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work

For example, was it published for commercial purposes?  In this case, 
what is /the/ work?  MS Bookshelve?  How would anyone know you where you 
got the quotes from?  (Unless, say, MS Bookshelve has misquoted in an 
identifiable way, and you copy them.)    

(3) the amount and substantiality of what you use relative to the 
copyrighted work as a whole

This wouldn't seem to be a problem regardless of your source.  A /quote/ 
is typically small in relation to what it is quoted from.

(4) the effect your use has on the value of the copyrighted work

Presumably your effect will be too tiny to measure.

Of course, there is a great deal of case law about copyright, and the 
courts have refused to say exactly how the above criteria are to be 
weighted.  But I think you are completely in the clear.  (Of course, I am 
not a lawyer, and no one should rely upon me for legal advice.)
 
> Is the age/ amount of time spent deceased significant?

What matters is if there is still a copyright in effect.  The rules for 
how long a copyright lasts keep changing, getting revised upward 
(primarily because Disney wants to hang onto Mickey Mouse for as long as 
it can.  ;-) )

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18076
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:45:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a25122b.0@news.sff.net>, Frank Fujita writes...
> "Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3a243144.0@news.sff.net...
> > If you won't accept the givens as /given/, then I get to change them.
> 
> Okay, but is it the point that there *is* no way to properly award the
> prize?

Dennett's examples can often be used to illustrate several points.  I 
posted this thought experiment when I did to make a point about the 
election, which was certainly not on Dennett's mind.

But one point that did concern him (and me) is what does it mean to 
"properly" award a prize under these conditions?

>     Are you (Dennett) looking for creative convergent answers or
> creative divergent answers?

We are looking to see what different answers we get; what characteristics 
they share; and which ones are most "defensible", while recognizing that 
the notion of "defensible" is itself an issue.
 
> On the convergent track, I could take $21,000 of the prize money -- making
> it a slightly less valuable prize, and get 100 people to work about 200
> hours each spending 30 seconds per application typing in the test scores for
> $10/hour.  Somehow, I believe that you will disallow this method, because it
> hasn't forced me into the epiphany that you are hoping that I will have.

No, I'm willing to work with you on this one.  Arguably, $21,000 is not a 
big percentage of a 12 year fellowship.  OTOH, perhaps the grantor has 
specified that /all/ money must go to the prize.  So you might have to 
make it up somewhere from your department's budget.  But let's go with 
your idea.

How long will it take you to find and organize 100 people?  Do you have
100 keyboards that you can monopolize for this project for 21 hours each 
(I know I don't at my university - my colleagues would shoot me).   
Given that the tests scores will be arranged differently in the different 
documents, how confident are you of your 30 second timing?  And, more 
importantly, how confident are you that the people you find for $10/hour, 
especially, say, the last 20 you manage to get, are going to be very 
accurate?  You will undoubtedly have to develop guidelines for your data 
entry people, and have at least a small number of trusted colleagues 
available to answer questions as they came up.  This is more work that 
has to be organized.

Your suggestion takes us into some unknown territory in that, as 
originally specified, the time limit for awarding the prize is not given.  
But this whole data entry process would have to be added on to the time 
you had originally budgeted for you and your reviewers to study the 
documents in detail.  Perhaps there just isn't time.      
 
> On the divergent track, I could say to myself, "Self, the most promising
> student in psychology will know (or at least have predicted) that there are
> way too many applications for us to process through normal channels, and
> will have done something that will make his or her application stand out.
> At this point, I know of the 10 or so wierd applications (out of the
> 250,000) that have caught my attention (I can't tell you what
> characteristics these applications will have in advance -- *I'm* not the
> most promising student in my field to know what will appeal to me --
> possibly the application was sent with a singing telegram, or maybe it was
> faxed to me before the announcement was made, or the applicant showed up at
> my office and offered to help me key in the test scores, or something else.
> I will go through those applications looking for an excellent student.

OK.  So you are willing to use some arbitrary features of the documents 
to narrow the problem before continuing with a content evaluation? 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18077
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:02:26 -0500
Subject: Re: copyright question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Bob Lawson" <bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com> wrote in message
news:3a24b8ae.19846256@news.sff.net...
> This is off-topic but with all the writers someone oughtta know.. (and
> it's too late to wake up Jim)
> Who owns the copyright on a quote?

A quote is part of an original work, which may or may not be copyrighted.
(is that the correct word?) If the original work is old enough, it may be in
the public domain.

> The original publisher?

The original author. Publishers may have a copyright on the look and
presentation of a specific issue of a magazine, etc.

> Certainly not MS Bookshelf (where I found some quotes I intend to publish)
> Is it within fair use to quote statements that are only a few
> sentences long?

It would probably fall under the fair use provisions of copyright law.

> (In this case the publication is a school yearbook,
> one time run of only about 250 copies, if that's of note)
> Is the age/ amount of time spent deceased significant?

It's possible that the copyright has expired.

For a school yearbook, you're probably ok. One suggestion: always give
credit. List the speaker/author of any quotes you use, and if possible, list
the works where they can be found. Nothing annoys me more than seeing a
great quote and not knowing who/where it's from!

> Thanks,
> Bob
>
> P.S. If anyone has high-quality images of starscapes (ideally
> starscapes where the silhouette of the horizon is visible in the
> bottom) they'd be much appreciated...

Don't have anything right off hand, but good luck!


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18078
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:09:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

It's interesting. Deb would throw out all the weird, non-conforming replies,
while Frank would seek out the strange and unusual.

I have no particular response to this question, except to take them all to a
high place, say the highest point over the university theatre's stage, and
drop them. Those that fall outside of a 6 foot circle get trashed. Repeat as
needed.


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18079
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:17:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> No, I'm willing to work with you on this one.  Arguably, $21,000 is not a
> big percentage of a 12 year fellowship.  OTOH, perhaps the grantor has
> specified that /all/ money must go to the prize.  So you might have to
> make it up somewhere from your department's budget.  But let's go with
> your idea.
>
> How long will it take you to find and organize 100 people?

We have student workers who routinely get minimum wage, at $10 hour, I
suspect that we could find 50 students, some of whom would like to work for
more than 20 hours.

> Do you have
> 100 keyboards that you can monopolize for this project for 21 hours each
> (I know I don't at my university - my colleagues would shoot me).

Depends on what time in the semester it is.  At the moment (right before
finals) it would take more political chips than I have at the moment (otoh,
if I was in charge of distributing such a prestigeous prize, I'd probably
have more political chips to use).  Right after final exams, before the
spring semester starts, there would be no problem getting access to up to
100 networked computers.

> Given that the tests scores will be arranged differently in the different
> documents, how confident are you of your 30 second timing?

In any well organized application form the most important screening
materials are easily readable.  Even if I was only expecting 200
applications, I would have had a form that asked for these scores.  That
form should be the second sheet in the application, right behind the cover
letter.  The applications would be numerically stamped, so that the names
wouldn't have to be typed in.  I think to stamp the envelope, open the
envelope, pull out the contents, place the form on top, stamp the form, and
put a rubber band around the whole thing should take about 15-20 seconds.
Since I'm pretty sure that I'll have a sufficient number of "perfect"
scores, I don't think I'd even need to type the scores into a dataset, just
separate the ones that are perfect from the ones that aren't.  Looking back,
I think I was being generous with 30 seconds.

>And, more
> importantly, how confident are you that the people you find for $10/hour,
> especially, say, the last 20 you manage to get, are going to be very
> accurate?

I think I've solved this they don't have to type, just notice "perfect" test
scores.  I could have a second student look through all of the non-perfect
test scores to double check.

> You will undoubtedly have to develop guidelines for your data
> entry people, and have at least a small number of trusted colleagues
> available to answer questions as they came up.  This is more work that
> has to be organized.

> Your suggestion takes us into some unknown territory in that, as
> originally specified, the time limit for awarding the prize is not given.
> But this whole data entry process would have to be added on to the time
> you had originally budgeted for you and your reviewers to study the
> documents in detail.  Perhaps there just isn't time.

That is possible.

> OK.  So you are willing to use some arbitrary features of the documents
> to narrow the problem before continuing with a content evaluation?

Well, in the real world, I probably wouldn't be -- mostly because of a fear
of lawsuits.  Given immunity from lawsuits, I could do that.  In the real
world I would probably announce that we were going to decline awarding any
prize this year, and start next year with different guidelines.  And use the
paper to heat my house in a wood burning stove :)

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18080
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:26:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a2537ed.0@news.sff.net...
> It's interesting. Deb would throw out all the weird, non-conforming
replies,
> while Frank would seek out the strange and unusual.

We are probably seeking "the most promising graduate student" in different
fields.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18081
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:01:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu> wrote in message
news:3a253c2f.0@news.sff.net...
> "William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3a2537ed.0@news.sff.net...
> > It's interesting. Deb would throw out all the weird, non-conforming
> replies,
> > while Frank would seek out the strange and unusual.
>
> We are probably seeking "the most promising graduate student" in different
> fields.
>
I thought the field was given in the original question, Psychology? Or did
one of you folks add that along the way?


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18082
From: Frank Fujita" <ffujita@iusb.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:24:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> I thought the field was given in the original question, Psychology? Or did
> one of you folks add that along the way?

I happen to actually be a (n associate) professor of psychology.  So I
interpreted "your field" to be psychology.  I don't think that it was part
of the original question.

Frank Fujita



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18083
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:41:26 -0400
Subject: Re: copyright question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"William J. Keaton" wrote:

> > The original publisher?
>
> The original author. Publishers may have a copyright on the look and
> presentation of a specific issue of a magazine, etc.

This is not precisely right, I don't think.The publisher almost certainly owns
the copyright on the "look and feel" of the publication, but may also own the
copyright on the contents. The original author automatically owns the copyright
at the time of creation of the work, but may sell some or all rights at the
time of publication. If s/he sells limited rights, s/he probably retains
ownership of the copyright... but depending on the nature of the deal, s/he may
sell "all rights" to the publisher, and that would include copyright. In
addition, I think staff writers (i.e., employees rather than freelancers) often
work under intellectual property clauses/agreements that specify their employer
owns the rights to work they create on the job.

Check out the acknowledgments page in a few books: Sometimes the publisher is
listed as the copyright owner, sometimes the author, and sometimes a
third-party company (presumably either the author's corporation or hir literary
agency).

BTW, like Gordon, I disclaim any legal training or special insight. DON'T take
my word for this stuff.

-Bill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18084
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:08:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I wasn't fully awake when  the Northwest portion of NPR reported on this.
(I wake up to "Morning Edition")  I believe they said that the Washington
State Supreme Court holds sobriety check points illegal.

I find intoxicated operators offensive; regardless of the legality of the
intoxicant, including sleep deprivation.  I find the misallocation law
enforcement resources to stop all vehicles and search for those intoxicated
operators-criminal.

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
Charles Graft wrote in message <3A23E2AD.74B79798@aol.com>...
|Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints
|
|WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court today struck down as
|unconstitutional random roadblocks intended to catch drug criminals. The
|6-3 ruling weighed privacy rights against the interests of law
|enforcement. The majority found that Indianapolis' use of drug-sniffing
|dogs to check all cars pulled over at the roadblocks was an unreasonable
|search under the Constitution. The majority said the ruling does not
|affect other kinds of police roadblocks such as border checks and
|drunken-driving checkpoints.
|
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
|
|Yeahhhh!!!
|
|--
|<<Big Charlie>>
|
|Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.
|
|



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18085
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:32:00 -0500
Subject: Re: copyright question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A257802.77B50B26@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
>
> > > The original publisher?
> >
> > The original author. Publishers may have a copyright on the look and
> > presentation of a specific issue of a magazine, etc.
>
> This is not precisely right, I don't think.The publisher almost certainly
owns
> the copyright on the "look and feel" of the publication, but may also own
the
> copyright on the contents. The original author automatically owns the
copyright
> at the time of creation of the work, but may sell some or all rights at
the
> time of publication. If s/he sells limited rights, s/he probably retains
> ownership of the copyright... but depending on the nature of the deal,
s/he may
> sell "all rights" to the publisher, and that would include copyright.

Ok, I over-simplified. There are North American Serial Rights, Electronic
Rights, etc. Bob's specific purpose would probably fall under the "fair use"
provisions. He's not selling the yearbook for the quotes, but for the
pictures, etc.

To be specific:
17 USCS Sects. 106 - 120
COPYRIGHT ACT 1976, AS AMENDED

Sect. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [17 USCS Sects. 106,
106A], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by
that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the
use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work

--

Quotes in a yearbook would probably be excepted under (1) or (3).

I'm not a lawyer, yadda yadda yadda.


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18086
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:22:56 GMT
Subject: Re: copyright question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I'd simply assumed that as a given but nevertheless, thanks for
pointing that out.
Bob


>For a school yearbook, you're probably ok. One suggestion: always give
>credit. List the speaker/author of any quotes you use, and if possible, list
>the works where they can be found. Nothing annoys me more than seeing a
>great quote and not knowing who/where it's from!

Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18087
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:04:20 -0400
Subject: Re: copyright question
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"William J. Keaton" wrote:

> Ok, I over-simplified. There are North American Serial Rights, Electronic
> Rights, etc.

Whoa. I didn't mean to be giving you a hard time... just adding a little
additional info. Sorry if it seemed too aggressive.

> Bob's specific purpose would probably fall under the "fair use"
> provisions. He's not selling the yearbook for the quotes, but for the
> pictures, etc.

I agree. I was going to post to that effect elsewhere in the thread at the same
time I posted the note I did, but my family commandeered the phone line.

Now, if a yearbook company (e.g., Jostens) wanted to include a quote from
copyrighted material as part of the basic layout package they provide to school
yearbook staffs, *they* might need to pay a rights fee, since that's a pretty
clearly commercial use... but even then, it wouldn't be a concern for the
student editors.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18088
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:50:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

All--

     Actually, we had quite a day in Indiana Tuesday.  To help make up
for the fact that this travesty originated in Indianapolis, the Indiana
appellate court struck down roadblocks for the purpose of enforcing
drunken driving laws.  This is based on the wording of the 4th amendment
to the Indiana Constitution, which to anyone but a lawyer is essentially
identical to that of the Federal 4th amendment.

     Selective interpretation?

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18089
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:33:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A2444FE.613F6660@ix.netcom.com...
....
> Yeahhh, indeed! But did you notice that Rhenquist (writing for the
minority, which also
> included Scalia and Thomas) said he thought the roadblocks represented
"only a minimal
> intrusion into privacy" (OWTTE)? This from the chief guardian of our civil
liberties! I
> wonder what it would take for him to consider it a *significant* intrusion
into
> privacy???

Actually, his title is Chief Jusitice of the Supreme Court.  The Chief
Guardian of our liberties is called the Second Amendment!  ;-)






------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18090
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:59:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a2457d5.284846@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
....
> So... I'd treat the whole mess as if it were an enormous slush pile.
> First I'd eliminate any that just didn't strike my fancy--without
> opening them. I'd toss aside any with sloppy handwriting, crooked
> stamps, or any silliness like lavender envelopes with smiley face
> stickers on it. Criteria would be strick enough to eliminate at least
> 200,000 entries. 
....
> At this point I go back to the discard piles and pick out both random
> selections and some that just catch my eye and give them full, serious
> consideration. Do this as long as possible to the deadline. 

I think your approach is basically the solution that Dennett gives.  
However, this last point is a nice additional feature.   If you found one 
or two at the end this way that were as good as anything else you had 
seen, that would be evidence against whole procedure.  Of course, 
/failing/ to find really good entries still in the discard pile doesn't 
establish that you have ultimately found the best candidate.  Such is 
life.

Here is how Dennett "solves" the problem:

1) chose a small number of easily checked criteria that are at least "not 
unsymtomatic" of excellence and use these to make a first cut.  Dennett 
gives as examples GPA and weight of dossier (eliminate both the too light 
and the too heavy).

2) conduct a lottery on what remains in order to cut the pool down to a 
manageable number of finalists - say 50 or 100.

[Frank and Filksinger were both trying to avoid this step by assuming 
enough processing power to get a manageable number directly from step 
(1).  This is a very understandable reaction, since using (1) is much 
more defensible as a way to pick the best than (2).  But sufficient 
processing power might not be available in the time required.]

3) carefully evaluate the finalists to produce the winner.

Dennett goes on to say:

"There is no doubt that this procedure is very unlikely to find the best 
candidate. Odds are, in fact, that more than a few of the losers, if 
given a day in court, could convince a jury that they were obviously 
superior to the elected winner.  But, you might want to retort, that's 
just tough; you did the best you could...

My example is meant to illustrate...the ubiquitous features of real-time 
decision making.  First, there is the simple physical impossibility of 
"considering all things" in the allotted time...[Finally] there is the 
endless vulnerability to second-guessing and hindsight wisdom about what 
you should have done - but done is done.  You let the result stand, and 
go on to other things.  Life is short."

Although the analogy is hardly perfect, I hope it is clear why the 
situation in Florida brought this example of Dennett's to mind.  I 
predict, however, that Gore supporters will not see any analogy at all.  
;-)  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18091
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:56:29 -0800
Subject: Windows 2000: Highly recommmended
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I just rebuilt my main workstation and decided it was time to upgrade to
Windows 2000. I've run NT4 for several years, and it was lovely and
solid and bulletproof under the hood, but the top layer-- desktop,
support for advanced interface elements like DirectX and USB-- was
horribly outdated. (NT4 is stuck at about the Win95, original release
level on that plane.)

Short take: Windows 2000 is highly, highly recommended. I've never had
an OS install so smoothly (and I've installed everything since Windows
3.0 double- or triple-digit times). All the power and stability of NT,
with a Win 98-plus desktop and interface support.

It worked just fine with all my existing applications, not all of which
are the newest and bestest. The only item that flat would not work was
WinFax Pro 9.0; I picked up 10.0 cheap on eBay. The games all run fine
(Half-Life required a fully updated version, which I already had; Aliens
vs Predator, no problem-- and it wouldn't run under NT4; Battlezone,
also needed the update).

In short, if you hate the unreliability of Win 95/98, or if you're
putting together a new system or upgrade soon, go the extra $50-75 and
use Win2K. Wonderful stuff!

--

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18092
From: acarnali@speedlinetech.com (Al Carnali)
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 20:38:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Highly recommmended
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I agree 100% but would warn that before you upgrade you should make
sure that there are driver available for all of your hardware.  (video
cards, sound cards, etc.)

Windows 2000 is really a step up but unfortunately, a lot of hardware
vendors still do not supply drivers for it.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18093
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 23:00:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Highly recommmended
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 20:38:57 GMT, acarnali@speedlinetech.com (Al
Carnali) wrote:

>I agree 100% but would warn that before you upgrade you should make
>sure that there are driver available for all of your hardware.  (video
>cards, sound cards, etc.)
>
>Windows 2000 is really a step up but unfortunately, a lot of hardware
>vendors still do not supply drivers for it.

I've been running W2KPro for a few months now.  I agree with both
posts--it's worth it, but you need to do your homework FIRST while
everything is still working.  Check out your major devices and
applications.  My biggest headache was my backup.  I had been using
Ghost, and I ended up having to buy an upgrade to that.  Every other
app/device either installed fine or had readily available drivers on a
website.

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18094
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:52:29 -0600
Subject: The Twelve Recounts of Christmas
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Got this one on another group:



On the first recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... a disputed
presidency.

On the second recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... two campaign
spins, and a disputed presidency.

On the third recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... three pregnant
chads, two campaign spins, and a disputed presidency.

On the fourth recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... four contested
ballots, three pregnant chads, two campaign spins, and a disputed
presidency.

On the fifth recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... five ... court
filings! -- Four contested ballots, three pregnant chads, two campaign
spins,
and a disputed presidency.

On the sixth recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... six
disenfranchised voters, five ... court filings! Four contested ballots,
three
pregnant chads, two campaign spins, and a disputed presidency.

On the seventh recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... seven
politicians babbling, six disenfranchised voters, five ... court filings!
Four contested ballots, three pregnant chads, two campaign spins, and a
disputed presidency.

On the eighth recount of Christmas my country gave to me  ... eight
spokesmen
whining, seven politicians babbling, six disenfranchised voters, five ...
court filings! Four contested ballots, three pregnant chads, two campaign
spins, and a disputed presidency.

On the ninth recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... nine reporters
guessing, eight spokesmen whining, seven politicians babbling, six
disenfranchised voters, five ... court filings! Four contested ballots,
three
pregnant chads, two campaign spins, and a disputed presidency.

On the tenth recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... ten legal
rulings, nine reporters guessing, eightspokesmen whining, seven politicians
babbling, six disenfranchised voters, five... court filings!  Four contested
ballots, three pregnant chads, two campaign spins, and a disputed presidency
..

On the eleventh recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... eleven judges
judging, ten legal rulings, nine reporters guessing, eight spokesmen
whining,
seven politicians babbling, six disenfranchised voters, five ... court
filings!  Four contested ballots, three pregnant chads, two campaign spins,
and a disputed presidency !!!

On the twelfth recount of Christmas my country gave to me ... twelve lawyers
lying, eleven judges judging, ten legal rulings, nine reporters guessing,
eight spokesmen whining, seven politicians babbling, six disenfranchised
voters, five ... court filings!  Four contested ballots, three pregnant
chads, two campaign spins ... and ... a disputed presidency !!!



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18095
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:03:29 -0800
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote in message <3a26ab77.0@news.sff.net>...
|Actually, his title is Chief Jusitice of the Supreme Court.  The Chief
|Guardian of our liberties is called the Second Amendment!  ;-)
|

I believe it is Chief Justice of the United States, not just the Supreme
Court.  A quibble but we strive for accuracy here. :-}
--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18096
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:26:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a294163.0@news.sff.net>, Lorrita Morgan writes...
> Gordon Sollars wrote in message <3a26ab77.0@news.sff.net>...
> |Actually, his title is Chief Jusitice of the Supreme Court.  The Chief
> |Guardian of our liberties is called the Second Amendment!  ;-)
> |
> 
> I believe it is Chief Justice of the United States, not just the Supreme
> Court.  A quibble but we strive for accuracy here. :-}

OK, 'long as you don't disagree with the second part, pardnuh!! 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18097
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:00:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a202095.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....

[Caution: contains "Unbreakable" spoilers.]








> Unbreakable
....
> I don't want to give away any surprises, not even ones that occur fairly
> early in the movie, so I can't say more. Suffice it to say that I haven't
> liked a movie more in quite some time.

Well, I didn't ask for my money back, but my reaction was far from yours.  
It was rather slow for one thing, but I can accept that.  Here are some 
of my problems.

The "Sixth Sense" was a fantasy that played fair - you knew that you were 
not in the real world, but real clues to the Big Twist were all there.  
(Compare Asimov's defense of writing SF murder mysteries.)  With 
"Unbreakable", are we in a fantasy world or not?  Suppose Dunn (?) is 
"unbreakable" - apparently he is also "uncutable", almost "unscratchable" 
as well, given the force of a crash that kills everyone in his car.  
Surely this would not have gone unnoticed for a lifetime?  Nor is this 
merely the "opposite" of low bone density.  Why is his ability to lift 
great weights a surprise /to him/?  He had obviously worked extensively 
with weights in the past.  And what injury, exactly, /did/ he fake to 
excuse the ending of his football career?   Obviously not one that keep 
him from lifting weights in the basement, or that his wife - a physical 
therapist, mind you!! - would ever suspect was faked.

The lines of explanation flashed at the end were especially jarring.  If 
we are in a comic book world, we would expect this to be just the 
background to further confrontation between hero and villain - surely 
some way could have been found to suggest this?  Instead, "Mr. Glass" is 
put away in an ordinary, real-world fashion by calling the police.  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18098
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 03:11:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
> Here is how Dennett "solves" the problem:
>
> 1) chose a small number of easily checked criteria that are at least "not
> unsymtomatic" of excellence and use these to make a first cut.  Dennett
> gives as examples GPA and weight of dossier (eliminate both the too light
> and the too heavy).

But this still doesn't relieve you of the problem of evaluating all of the
thousands of entries. I forget, did the original rules stipulate a standard
format for the applications?

Plus you have to weigh all the entries, someone has to decide what
constitutes too heavy or too light. (and don't foget the Democractic and
Republican observers, to make sure each ballot is properly weighed, not
hanging off the scale, pregnant envelopes, dimpled postmarks, etc. But I
digress.)

>
> 2) conduct a lottery on what remains in order to cut the pool down to a
> manageable number of finalists - say 50 or 100.

And thus toss out the most truly deserving winner through the element of
chance. Wasn't part of the original question to do this by evaluating the
applications on merit?

Heck, what if I were one of those "disenfranchised applicants"? What if I
used heavier paper that threw me out at step one?

But I guess Dennett's own comments answer my comments.

>
> My example is meant to illustrate...the ubiquitous features of real-time
> decision making.  First, there is the simple physical impossibility of
> "considering all things" in the allotted time...[Finally] there is the
> endless vulnerability to second-guessing and hindsight wisdom about what
> you should have done - but done is done.  You let the result stand, and
> go on to other things.  Life is short."
>
> Although the analogy is hardly perfect, I hope it is clear why the
> situation in Florida brought this example of Dennett's to mind.  I
> predict, however, that Gore supporters will not see any analogy at all.

Of course, if we all had the Graft Voting Machine (yes, I know there's a
better name, I just like the juxtaposition there!) we wouldn't be in this
mess!

I'm not happy with the analogy either. There is only one criteria in
Florida, what hole was punched? The rest is just interpretation. Three weeks
and counting worth of interpretation.

Now here's a good one: During Saturday's latest court hearing, I heard
someone testify that a buildup of chads could make it hard to completely
punch out a ballot. And the voting machines had been last cleaned after the
'98 election. This strikes me as sheer stupidity and derilection of duty.


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18099
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 01:33:40 -0800
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14931f05b1aff349989731@news.sff.net...
> In article <3a202095.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net
writes...
> ...
>
> [Caution: contains "Unbreakable" spoilers.]
<snip>
>
> Well, I didn't ask for my money back, but my reaction was far from
yours.
> It was rather slow for one thing, but I can accept that.  Here are
some
> of my problems.
>
> The "Sixth Sense" was a fantasy that played fair - you knew that you
were
> not in the real world, but real clues to the Big Twist were all
there.
> (Compare Asimov's defense of writing SF murder mysteries.)  With
> "Unbreakable", are we in a fantasy world or not?  Suppose Dunn (?)
is
> "unbreakable" - apparently he is also "uncutable", almost
"unscratchable"
> as well, given the force of a crash that kills everyone in his car.
> Surely this would not have gone unnoticed for a lifetime?

Maybe, maybe not. After all, have you ever been in an accident where
people would have been truly surpised that you were uninjured? It
seems a little odd, true, but there are only three groups of people
who I think would have almost certainly noticed that he always escaped
injury. His parents, his wife, and himself.

His parents wouldn't have noticed, most likely. Why? Because they
_knew_, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he _wasn't_ "unbreakable"
and _did_ get sick. He nearly drowned, had pneumonia, and nearly
died.. No matter how many times it might be surprising that he wasn't
hurt, they _had to_ see it as "just luck". No idea he was unbreakable
would have been possible; he was _very_ "breakable", and they knew it
very intimately.

His wife? Again, he knew her for a year or two, and suddenly he was
injured so badly he gave up his college scholarships and dreams of
being a football hero. She might notice he was rarely hurt, but she
wouldn't believe he was "unbreakable". As with his parents, she would
always remember that he most definitely _could_ be hurt.

As for himself, he has gone through his entire life never being cut.
He has been hit, stabbed, etc, by a great many things that should have
hurt him but didn't. Why didn't he notice?

Well, people often get hit, stabbed, etc., and come out completely
uninjured. They just absorbed it just right, or it wasn't quite hard
enough to hurt. They also often get up and act uninjured and "tough it
out", appearing fine. He would have seen this and noticed it, at least
subconsiously.

Since he has never _been_ injured, he would just routinely assume that
he just wasn't hit, stabbed, etc. quite hard enough. He might not
notice because people frequently have major blind spots when it comes
to ways in which they are not normal, _if_ they have always been that
way. What is typical, routine, and has happened throughout your life
is _always_ normal, to you.

We notice injury because we feel pain. OTOH, he has nothing to call
attention to his lack of injury. Most would-be cuts, bruises, and
scrapes he would never even suspect should have injured him, and to
him that would be "normal". He could go his whole life and never be
hit, cut, etc in such a way that his mind couldn't just say, "Gee,
that was lucky". People create blind spots all the time.

>  Nor is this
> merely the "opposite" of low bone density.

Of course not. "Mr. Glass" said as much. He wasn't looking for the
"opposite" of low bone density. He said it himself; he felt there had
to be a _reason_ for what happened to him. He found it in the conflict
between good and evil as portrayed by comic books. He fit one
archetype (the brilliant but physically inferior villian), and set out
to find his opposite archetype (the Beowulf, Lancelot, or Hercules,
i.e., the "superhero"). Not a high bone density guy, but a hero beyond
ordinary men, so he could believe he himself was, not abnormal, a
"freak", but beyond normal.

>  Why is his ability to lift
> great weights a surprise /to him/?  He had obviously worked
extensively
> with weights in the past.

True, and this is one of the weakest points. I've seen a lot worse in
movies highly loved (i.e. "Independence Day"), however, and it isn't
that unbelievable.

The words of a trusted coach ("Good grief, boy, you trying to take
yourself out of the game before we begin? Don't try to lift that,
you'll hurt yourself and you can't do it. Hell, even I couldn't lift
that.") and an expectation of what is possible can limit people no
end. People who believed they couldn't do X (women lifting weights are
often guilty of this) often can't, until someone lies to them about
it.

I saw this myself in weight class in college on a leg press. She
obviously could press more than 100lbs with her legs, she weighed more
than that, and could do deep knee bends. But she could barely budge
80, and couldn't get full leg extension at that. I told her 110 lbs
was 80, let her try, dropped it 10, and told her it was 70, and she
lifted that clean.

You might also remember that the weight Bruce Willis lifted was rather
high for _him_, but is about 1/2 the world record for a bench press.

>  And what injury, exactly, /did/ he fake to
> excuse the ending of his football career?

Soft tissue lower back or neck. Such an injury can be very painful
when pushed out of alignment, but painless at other times, and
impossible to spot (I know, I have one). Most of the time you don't
even notice, but twist wrong or get hit wrong, and _BAM_, you can't
get out of bed to reach the toilet.

However, if you are lucky, and do the right exersizes to give your
lower back stability, and you might heal.

>  Obviously not one that keep
> him from lifting weights in the basement,

He was doing a bench press, after all. Even if he hadn't healed after
all these years, that would hardly hurt his back.

> or that his wife - a physical
> therapist, mind you!! - would ever suspect was faked.

She wasn't a physical therapist when he was injured. That was years
later. At the time, she was a young woman who had severe injuries of
her own, which would have prevented her from watching him that closely
or paying close attention to how he moved.

He only had to complain about pain to the doctors; such an injury is
fairly easy to fake, and his lost career would lend credence. As an
extremely strong "unbreakable" man he would have had college
scholarships and possibly pro football ahead of him, and the movie
even said this was true. If he announced he couldn't play, he would be
believed.

Every so once in a while, he complains about his back. A couple years
later, he stops complaining, but just doesn't return to football. He's
"moved on".

> The lines of explanation flashed at the end were especially jarring.
If
> we are in a comic book world, we would expect this to be just the
> background to further confrontation between hero and villain -
surely
> some way could have been found to suggest this?  Instead, "Mr.
Glass" is
> put away in an ordinary, real-world fashion by calling the police.

This _isn't_ a "comic book world". "Mr. Glass" warned David and the
audience of this fact. He said outright, "It won't be like the comic
books." Why would you expect it to be? That was part of the point he
was making; the comic books are an extreme exaggeration.

Also, just because "Mr. Glass" was right about David doesn't mean he
isn't completely round the bend about himself. In their world, there
are occasional heroes like Gilgamesh, Hercules, Samson, Lancelot, and
Beowulf. "Mr. Glass" went looking for them, and he found them. This
doesn't mean his other theories (including any that say he is also
some sort of archetype) aren't completely loonytunes.

Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18100
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 14:25:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> In article <3a294163.0@news.sff.net>, Lorrita Morgan writes...
> > Gordon Sollars wrote in message <3a26ab77.0@news.sff.net>...
> > |Actually, his title is Chief Jusitice of the Supreme Court.  The Chief
> > |Guardian of our liberties is called the Second Amendment!  ;-)
> > |
> >
> > I believe it is Chief Justice of the United States, not just the Supreme
> > Court.  A quibble but we strive for accuracy here. :-}
>
> OK, 'long as you don't disagree with the second part, pardnuh!!

Ahh... "pardnuh" finally clued me in to the precise nature of satire at work
here. When you first posted, I wondered why you didn't think other parts of
the Constitution (esp. the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) had anything
to do with civil liberties. Is "Chief Guardian of our liberties..." an NRA
trope that I'm unfamiliar with?

In any case, *MY* quibble, since we're quibbling <G>, is that in common
usage, "guardian" typically denotes a person, or at least something (e.g., a
statue) that *stands for* a person.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18101
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:35:31 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A2A9015.726EF3EE@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> Ahh... "pardnuh" finally clued me in to the precise nature of satire at work
> here.

> When you first posted, I wondered why you didn't think other parts of
> the Constitution (esp. the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) had anything
> to do with civil liberties.

Oh, sure, those amendments are fine, as far as they go.  But in the 
crunch, only the Second really matters.  God helps them that helps 
themselves! 

> Is "Chief Guardian of our liberties..." an NRA
> trope that I'm unfamiliar with?

Not that I know of - but I wouldn't be surprised.  For a guy who doesn't 
even own a firearm, I do a remarkable job of channeling those folks.  But 
I think I may have found a button with your number on it, Bill.  ;-)  
 
> In any case, *MY* quibble, since we're quibbling <G>, is that in common
> usage, "guardian" typically denotes a person, or at least something (e.g., a
> statue) that *stands for* a person.

Poetic license.  Metaphor is essential to human life.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18102
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:35:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a2a13d2.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...



> > [Caution: contains "Unbreakable" spoilers.]



A truly /heroic/ defense, Filk!  But I still don't by it.

> Maybe, maybe not. After all, have you ever been in an accident where
> people would have been truly surpised that you were uninjured?

As a matter of fact, no, but it doesn't matter as I'm willing to be much 
more generous than that.

....
> His parents wouldn't have noticed, most likely. Why? Because they
> _knew_, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he _wasn't_ "unbreakable"

But I was focusing on cuts, since I thought it was reasonable to assume 
in such a violent accident that cuts, scrapes, and scratches would be 
ubiquitous.  (Did Willis have a small scrape on his forehead?  I can't 
remember.)  I went through my entire childhood without a broken bone, and 
this caused no surprise.  But never to have been cut?  I don't buy it.       

....
> As for himself, he has gone through his entire life never being cut.
> He has been hit, stabbed, etc, by a great many things that should have
> hurt him but didn't. Why didn't he notice?
> 
> Well, people often get hit, stabbed, etc., and come out completely
> uninjured.

They do?  Stabbed?
....
> >  Nor is this
> > merely the "opposite" of low bone density.
> 
> Of course not. "Mr. Glass" said as much.

OK, one for you.
....
> >  Why is his ability to lift
> > great weights a surprise /to him/?  He had obviously worked
> extensively
> > with weights in the past.
> 
> True, and this is one of the weakest points. I've seen a lot worse in
> movies highly loved (i.e. "Independence Day"), however, and it isn't
> that unbelievable.

Well, I wasn't all that happy with Independence Day, either.  ;-)
 
> The words of a trusted coach ("Good grief, boy, you trying to take
> yourself out of the game before we begin? Don't try to lift that,
> you'll hurt yourself and you can't do it. Hell, even I couldn't lift
> that.")

Sorry, Filk, I don't buy this with respect to a champion football player.  
He would definitely want to know how much he could lift, and he could 
work up to it without triggering a coach's concern.  If you can lift X 
lbs, trying for X+15 is not that shocking.

....
> I saw this myself in weight class in college on a leg press. She
> obviously could press more than 100lbs with her legs, she weighed more
> than that, and could do deep knee bends.

I strongly suspect that she was not a serious athlete or even a very 
competitive person.

> You might also remember that the weight Bruce Willis lifted was rather
> high for _him_, but is about 1/2 the world record for a bench press.

But this just makes the whole scene inexplicable.  It establishes that he 
is not "world-class" strong, but much stronger than he thought.  Yet he 
had a set of weights and was a former champion football player who would 
have tested his strength many times before.  Here is the problem: his 
relatively great strength needs to be established for the plot, but the 
scene is inconsistent with what must have been his past. 
 
> >  And what injury, exactly, /did/ he fake to
> > excuse the ending of his football career?
> 
> Soft tissue lower back or neck. Such an injury can be very painful
> when pushed out of alignment, but painless at other times, and
> impossible to spot (I know, I have one).

And did you know of it when you were, say, 18 years old, and know that 
this particular injury was easy to fake well enough to fool a doctor?  
Perhaps you want to argue that he only said he was "just hurt" at first, 
and then did some research?

....
> > The lines of explanation flashed at the end were especially jarring.
> If
> > we are in a comic book world, we would expect this to be just the
> > background to further confrontation between hero and villain -
> surely
> > some way could have been found to suggest this?  Instead, "Mr.
> Glass" is
> > put away in an ordinary, real-world fashion by calling the police.
> 
> This _isn't_ a "comic book world".

Fine.  My question is "what kind of world is it?"  In a ghost story, you 
expect ghosts.  In an SF story, you expect, e.g., time travel.  But a 
good story picks a "logic", however unrealistic it might be, and sticks 
with it.

This movie starts with a display of facts about the comics genre that has 
the feel of a set up for a perfectly realistic movie about comic books.  
It has a character with an unusual, but explicable disease.  Then it adds 
a guy who is not just very strong, with dense bones, but who can "see" 
the wrongs that others have committed when they touch him.  (And, btw, 
this "seeing" ability seems to simply pop into the picture out of 
nowhere).  What are the bounds?  What is permissible?

> "Mr. Glass" warned David and the
> audience of this fact. He said outright, "It won't be like the comic
> books." Why would you expect it to be? That was part of the point he
> was making; the comic books are an extreme exaggeration.

Sure - this was what I said to my wife as we left the theater.  It was 
meant to be a world somewhere midway between the "real" world and a world 
of comic-book super heroes.  My problem is that it was a muddled 
presentation of such a world, as opposed to a clear presentation of a 
halfway world.
 
> Also, just because "Mr. Glass" was right about David doesn't mean he
> isn't completely round the bend about himself.

I don't have a problem with an "insane" villain.  Those I expect in 
comics /and/ real life.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18103
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:13:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a2a0003.0@news.sff.net>, William J. Keaton writes...
> 
> "Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
> > Here is how Dennett "solves" the problem:
> >
> > 1) chose a small number of easily checked criteria that are at least "not
> > unsymtomatic" of excellence and use these to make a first cut.  Dennett
> > gives as examples GPA and weight of dossier (eliminate both the too light
> > and the too heavy).
> 
> But this still doesn't relieve you of the problem of evaluating all of the
> thousands of entries. I forget, did the original rules stipulate a standard
> format for the applications?

Not explicitly.  The idea is to have an "evaluation" at this stage that 
can be done /very/ quickly, so that it can be applied to all 250,000.
 
> Plus you have to weigh all the entries, someone has to decide what
> constitutes too heavy or too light.

OK, you do it by sight (thickness), not an actual weighing.

Frank might want to argue that there is a small set of merit criteria 
that would not take any longer to check than Dennett's GPA and "weight",  
that would actually cut the pile down to step (3) proportions.  That 
would indeed be a "cook" of the problem.  So we make it, say, 500,000 
applications, or whatever it takes so that a cursory examination still 
leaves too many applications for individual evaluation.    

....
> > Although the analogy is hardly perfect, I hope it is clear why the
> > situation in Florida brought this example of Dennett's to mind.  I
> > predict, however, that Gore supporters will not see any analogy at all.
> 
> Of course, if we all had the Graft Voting Machine (yes, I know there's a
> better name, I just like the juxtaposition there!) we wouldn't be in this
> mess!

I think it is an excellent name, and I hope he insists on it!

With all due respect to BC's genius (we know he has at least a "spark" of 
it - he has the documentation to prove it!), I predict that there is an 
event somewhere out there in "election space" that will defeat any 
system.
 
> I'm not happy with the analogy either. There is only one criteria in
> Florida, what hole was punched? The rest is just interpretation. Three weeks
> and counting worth of interpretation.

I disagree.  The issue is not "what hole was punched?", but rather "did a 
voter vote, and, if so, for whom?".  Whether a hole was punched may be 
the best evidence we have to answer my question.  And it might be the 
only evidence that can be checked in a reasonable time.  That was the 
real point of my injecting the Dennett example.  It is a sad fact that we 
may never know the true winner of the vote, just as we might not pick the 
applicant most deserving of the prize.

I strongly suspect that many Bush partisans want to claim that many folks 
"just didn't vote" because no hole was (completely) punched.  To the 
extent that they are fair-minded folks, it is troubling for them to think 
that some people are being disenfranchised.  OTOH, I strongly suspect 
that many Gore partisans want to claim that "everything" be done to both 
determine the voters's true votes and make "absolutely" sure that no vote 
is uncounted.  Of course, they will say that words like "everything" and 
"absolutely" are caricatures of their real position.  However, the test 
is how much effort they would have specified ought to go into vote 
counting and if they showed any dissatisfaction with the level of effort 
proposed /before/ the event. 

> Now here's a good one: During Saturday's latest court hearing, I heard
> someone testify that a buildup of chads could make it hard to completely
> punch out a ballot. And the voting machines had been last cleaned after the
> '98 election. 

The problem was a lack of "chadless" ballot cards.  ;-)  Old timers (like 
me) remember the great innovation of "chadless" paper tape for teletype 
machines.
  
> This strikes me as sheer stupidity and derilection of duty.

And yet we proclaim our faith in democracy.  I'll bet those with the duty 
to clean were as smart as the average voter.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18104
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:06:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> > In any case, *MY* quibble, since we're quibbling <G>, is that in common
> > usage, "guardian" typically denotes a person, or at least something (e.g., a
> > statue) that *stands for* a person.
>
> Poetic license.  Metaphor is essential to human life.

But of course! I didn't mean to be revoking your poetic license... I had only
been concerned when you first posted that you meant to be revoking mine!

Funny how nobody here seemed to want to discuss Alabamans' (Alabamanians?) right
to keep and bare sex toys....  ;^)

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18105
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 3 Dec 2000 22:34:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:35:07 -0500

In article , Filksinger writes...

> > [Caution: contains "Unbreakable" spoilers.]



A truly /heroic/ defense, Filk!  But I still don't by it.
-----

Don't blame you. Just pointing out that it isn't quite as farfetched as
that. I don't recall the last speculative fiction movie, or action movie
either, where I didn't have to suspend my disbelief somewhat.

-----

> His parents wouldn't have noticed, most likely. Why? Because they
> _knew_, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he _wasn't_ "unbreakable"

But I was focusing on cuts, since I thought it was reasonable to assume

in such a violent accident that cuts, scrapes, and scratches would be 
ubiquitous.  (Did Willis have a small scrape on his forehead?  I can't 
remember.)  I went through my entire childhood without a broken bone, and

this caused no surprise.  But never to have been cut?  I don't buy it. 
     
-----

I can. Personally, if my kids never got cut, I don't think I'd have realized
it. Only if asked would I have noticed, and even then I doubt I would easily
accept that they hadn't ever been cut. Instead, I would assume they only
had minor cuts and that I had forgotten or they hadn't bothered to show
me.

If he had asked his parents, then yes, I could see them remembering then,
but he didn't. Personally, I think that, having nearly lost him when he
was about 6, their only reaction to possible injury from that point on would
be, "Thank God you weren't hurt." They would probably avoid all thought
about any accident, once they were sure he was fine. I'd expect a nearly
phobic reaction to thinking about possible injury.

We also don't know too much about the nature of David's invulnerability.
While the doctors declared him uninjured, there was an implication that
he didn't remember the impact clearly, and a stronger one that he didn't
recall the aftermath. Maybe he can be hurt, a little bit, but heals almost
instantly, so that by the time the doctors checked him, they found nothing.

Thus, his parents would have noticed that he got little scrapes, which both
he and they would immediately forget about, and never really notice or be
bothered that nothing serious ever happened. They would fade almost instantly,
but, in general, I think most parents will forget about small cuts once
the kids stopo complaining and take of the bandaids. In David's case, nobody
happened to notice he removed them within 15 minutes.
-----
....
> As for himself, he has gone through his entire life never being cut.
> He has been hit, stabbed, etc, by a great many things that should have
> hurt him but didn't. Why didn't he notice?
> 
> Well, people often get hit, stabbed, etc., and come out completely
> uninjured.

They do?  Stabbed?
-----
Stabbed to the degree that normal people get stabbed in their lifetimes.
I once knelt on an Exacto knife blade my brother had stolen from me and
hid in his bed about 3 years earlier. Really fun experience, a needle-pointed
blade stabbing into your knee, let me tell you. People not infrequently
stick themselves with sharp objects, or at least I do. But it is not uncommon
for them to "not quite" get cut. In probably all cases, if I hadn't gotten
cut, I would have just thought, "Oh, good" and forgotten about it.

If you gave me invulnerability tomorrow, but didn't take away my present
pains and injuries, I wouldn't bet on my _ever_ noticing what had happened,
so long as I still aged.

-----

> >  Why is his ability to lift
> > great weights a surprise /to him/?  He had obviously worked
> extensively
> > with weights in the past.
> 
> True, and this is one of the weakest points. I've seen a lot worse in
> movies highly loved (i.e. "Independence Day"), however, and it isn't
> that unbelievable.

Well, I wasn't all that happy with Independence Day, either.  ;-)
-----

I was actually shocked by the univeral kudos the HF posters had heaped on
this movie before I threw in my two cents. I liked it, but, c'mon, it had
holes I could fly the mothership through. And, no, I don't mean the computer
virus; I can actually think of a rationale for that one.

-----
> The words of a trusted coach ("Good grief, boy, you trying to take
> yourself out of the game before we begin? Don't try to lift that,
> you'll hurt yourself and you can't do it. Hell, even I couldn't lift
> that.")

Sorry, Filk, I don't buy this with respect to a champion football player.
 
He would definitely want to know how much he could lift, and he could 
work up to it without triggering a coach's concern.  If you can lift X 
lbs, trying for X+15 is not that shocking.
-----

You misunderstand. A reaction that frightened him when he was about 10,
for example, could have made him shy away from using his full strength from
then on. Since he could probably still lift more than anyone else on the
team, he would simply assume that the effort he was putting into it was
just as much as they were, and push no further.

This isn't as unlikely as it sounds. Many people who never get a serious
challenge (due to exceptional ability) never learn how to put out real effort.
He could have been a serious underacheiver for all we know, since nothing
he was doing was his true calling. In fact, we _know_ he was a serious underachiever;
it was fairly clear that he had a higher calling to protect the innocent,
but instead of becoming a cop, he becomes a security guard.

I'm not saying this is likely. But the annals of psychology are full of
stranger cases. Give someone a post-hypnotic suggestion, like "Open the
window when I say, 'Sasquatch'", and then watch people try to explain why
they are opening a window in winter after they were only a moment ago agreeing
with you that the room was cold. They _refuse_ to believe that it was anything
but their own decision, and the rationalizations that they can go through
sometimes go beyond funny to frightening.

-----
....
> I saw this myself in weight class in college on a leg press. She
> obviously could press more than 100lbs with her legs, she weighed more
> than that, and could do deep knee bends.

I strongly suspect that she was not a serious athlete or even a very 
competitive person.
-----

No, she wasn't. But we don't know that David was, either. Even being not
serious, he would have been impressive.

-----
> You might also remember that the weight Bruce Willis lifted was rather
> high for _him_, but is about 1/2 the world record for a bench press.

But this just makes the whole scene inexplicable.  It establishes that he

is not "world-class" strong, but much stronger than he thought.  Yet he

had a set of weights and was a former champion football player who would

have tested his strength many times before.  Here is the problem: his 
relatively great strength needs to be established for the plot, but the

scene is inconsistent with what must have been his past. 
-----

Agreed, it was shaky. Just not quite unacceptable to me.

You might also remember that he may not have lifted when in high school
(some schools don't have the option, I've heard), and, since he faked that
injury 10 years earlier, he might have only started lifting weights last
week.

----- 
> >  And what injury, exactly, /did/ he fake to
> > excuse the ending of his football career?
> 
> Soft tissue lower back or neck. Such an injury can be very painful
> when pushed out of alignment, but painless at other times, and
> impossible to spot (I know, I have one).

And did you know of it when you were, say, 18 years old, and know that 
this particular injury was easy to fake well enough to fool a doctor?  
-----

Yes, I did. And while I might be atypical, he was a football player, and
may have learned a great deal about injuries already. All it would take
would be a chance comment about insurance frauds making such claims, he
tries it, and "surprise!", it works.

-----

 
> This _isn't_ a "comic book world".

Fine.  My question is "what kind of world is it?"  In a ghost story, you

expect ghosts.  In an SF story, you expect, e.g., time travel.  But a 
good story picks a "logic", however unrealistic it might be, and sticks

with it.
-----

Ah, well, that's simple. It is a movie about being blind to the incredible
that has been directly in front of your face your whole life, and how you
react when someone shows it clearly to you for the first time.:)

-----
This movie starts with a display of facts about the comics genre that has

the feel of a set up for a perfectly realistic movie about comic books.
 
It has a character with an unusual, but explicable disease.  Then it adds

a guy who is not just very strong, with dense bones, but who can "see" 
the wrongs that others have committed when they touch him.  (And, btw, 
this "seeing" ability seems to simply pop into the picture out of 
nowhere).  What are the bounds?  What is permissible?
-----

Supposedly, this is, on the surface, identical to the real world, and we
have only 1 or two data points, David, who is clearly anomalous, and "Mr.
Glass", who is within normal parameters, as best we can tell, but who I
will grant "super" status because he was able to determine the existence
of David and the incredible fact that he was able to find David by creating
only three disasters. All three of those disasters totalled less than 600
people, yet David-like beings must be _much_ rarer than that, or we would
have already known they were real.

If this were the real world, would you actually expect to have those answers,
given only those two data points? Frankly, I would probably have been disappointed
in more, since such knowledge would have almost had to have come from some
"higher power" or something, and would have felt contrived to me.

-----
> "Mr. Glass" warned David and the
> audience of this fact. He said outright, "It won't be like the comic
> books." Why would you expect it to be? That was part of the point he
> was making; the comic books are an extreme exaggeration.

Sure - this was what I said to my wife as we left the theater.  It was 
meant to be a world somewhere midway between the "real" world and a world

of comic-book super heroes.  My problem is that it was a muddled 
presentation of such a world, as opposed to a clear presentation of a 
halfway world.
-----

I think the vagueness of this world is both realistic and intentional.

Suppose tomorrow you found and touched a glowing green meteorite, and gained
strange powers. Would you know what this meant, what the limits were, or
even that your flight wouldn't suddenly fade three months from now at 5,000
feet? What would it mean if there were "near-superheroes" in the world today?
Damned if I know.

-----
> Also, just because "Mr. Glass" was right about David doesn't mean he
> isn't completely round the bend about himself.

I don't have a problem with an "insane" villain.  Those I expect in 
comics /and/ real life.
-----

But my point is is that just because David exists does not mean that comic
books have _any relevance at all_. We don't know that they live in a comic
book world in _any_ sense, just that in their world there exist physically
exceptional people. In fact, the only evidence that we have that the comic
books have even a tiny relevance comes in two forms; David has a superpower
to "Know the evil men do", and David feels unfulfilled until he saves those
children.

All the other "evidence" could be the product of a deranged mind. "Mr. Glass"
says that David is vulnerable to water because all superheroes have a weakness,
but the last I checked, all _humans_ have that weakness, too. All this proves
is that David is not universally protected. Mr. Glass theorizes that comic
books tap into some sort of hidden reality about their world, but maybe
all they do is copy and exaggerate earlier works, some of which were about
real heroes of exceptional ability.

In short, we don't actually know that comic books have anything to do with
David, except in that they influenced his insane friend/nemisis. Maybe we
aren't supposed to know.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18106
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 23:26:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:06:00 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Funny how nobody here seemed to want to discuss Alabamans' (Alabamanians?) right
>to keep and bare sex toys....  ;^)
>
>-JovBill

Freudian slip, there, Bill--or were you intentionally being punny?
<G,D,&R>

JT

(I'm too busy to do much more than keep up here...it's amazing how
much *longer* it takes to do everything with a baby in the house.  Now
I know why bytor never posts anymore ;)




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18107
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:05:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a2aca6d.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....
> You misunderstand. A reaction that frightened him when he was about 10,
> for example, could have made him shy away from using his full strength from
> then on. Since he could probably still lift more than anyone else on the
> team, he would simply assume that the effort he was putting into it was
> just as much as they were, and push no further.
> 
> This isn't as unlikely as it sounds.

I'm glad you realize that it does /sound/ unlikely.  And that is because 
it /is/ unlikely.  It just doesn't fit well with any very athletic person 
I have known.  My point is that if a fictional world is going to jell, 
you have to be careful with stuff like this.  The guy is a football hero.  
I expect him have typical football-player reactions, even as I discover 
that there is something unusual about him or his world.  If he is 
supposed to be an atypical football hero /and/ a "superhero", then some 
additional, carefully done scenes are needed to keep me on board.     

> Many people who never get a serious
> challenge (due to exceptional ability) never learn how to put out real effort.
> He could have been a serious underacheiver for all we know, since nothing
> he was doing was his true calling. In fact, we _know_ he was a serious underachiever;

But we have /no/ reason to think he was a serious underachiever wrt his 
football career, and knowing one's strength is important for that.
 
....
> No, she wasn't. But we don't know that David was, either. Even being not
> serious, he would have been impressive.

There is no evidence that he was not serious about football.  Even now, 
he is a security guard at a football stadium!!

....
> Supposedly, this is, on the surface, identical to the real world, and we
> have only 1 or two data points, David, who is clearly anomalous, and "Mr.
> Glass", who is within normal parameters, as best we can tell, but who I
> will grant "super" status because he was able to determine the existence
> of David and the incredible fact that he was able to find David by creating
> only three disasters. All three of those disasters totalled less than 600
> people, yet David-like beings must be _much_ rarer than that, or we would
> have already known they were real.

This is the sort of thing that I am willing to let go in order for the 
story to be told.  As long as everything else clicks.  There is no 
development of the idea that Mr. Glass has a special power to sniff out 
David's existence.  Glass got incredibly lucky, but that was /necessary/ 
for the story, so I'm OK with it.
 
> If this were the real world, would you actually expect to have those answers,
> given only those two data points? Frankly, I would probably have been disappointed
> in more, since such knowledge would have almost had to have come from some
> "higher power" or something, and would have felt contrived to me.

I am not looking for answers or objecting to not having them provided; I 
am objecting to elements that jar me from the frame of mind needed to 
embrace the story. 
....
> But my point is is that just because David exists does not mean that comic
> books have _any relevance at all_.

Then why all the comic book stuff, from the opening screen text onward?  
I don't mind a director (or author) leading me down a garden path; I 
object to being pulled in different directions by what I take to be his 
inability to create a world that leads me anywhere. 

> We don't know that they live in a comic
> book world in _any_ sense, just that in their world there exist physically
> exceptional people. In fact, the only evidence that we have that the comic
> books have even a tiny relevance comes in two forms; David has a superpower
> to "Know the evil men do", and David feels unfulfilled until he saves those
> children.

Actually the last is not "comic book" at all.  I would expect even a 
depressed person to get a sense of fulfillment from saving them under the 
circumstances.  But the "evil-knowing" power takes us out of a world that 
simply has a very strong, lucky guy in it.  After all, maybe David is not 
really unbreakable, but was just extremely lucky in the wreck.  And a man 
who can bench press 350 lbs probably can choke out even a bigger, 
stronger (/if/ the murderer was stronger) guy from behind nine times out 
of ten.  Without the special power, we could have had a story in which a 
mass murderer pushes a depressed guy who gave up his life's passion for 
his marriage to do something heroic.  Is the guy a /real/ superhero or is 
it coincidence?  This leads us to ask "what /is/ a real superhero?", and 
to the warm thought that maybe good people are superheroes (and that good 
can come from great tragedy, etc.).

We don't need the special power to tell that (better, IMHO) story; David 
could have discovered the murder in the house in some prosaic way.  
Instead we have a fantasy power conjoined with a lot of stuff about comic 
books.  So I think we have every reason to think we are in a comic book 
world.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18108
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:19:56 -0600
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A2AC3BF.3712DA3A@ix.netcom.com...
> Funny how nobody here seemed to want to discuss Alabamans' (Alabamanians?)
right
> to keep and bare sex toys....  ;^)

Why?  You want to talk about it.  I'm sitting here thinking "Thank goodness,
I'm in the town *across* the border."  <sigh>  The things that get
legislated....  I understand Alabama finally got around to repealing the law
against interracial marriages.  Here in Florida it made the news a few years
ago when a man was arrested for having... how shall I put it?
....unconventional sex with his wife.  A neighbor saw it somehow and reported
him to the police.  Police arrested him for it.  Shouldn't all of those be
covered under our right to privacy?  Apparently not.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18109
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:26:47 -0600
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1494739412b62b4c989734@news.sff.net...
> And yet we proclaim our faith in democracy.  I'll bet those with the duty
> to clean were as smart as the average voter.

Ouch.  And yet did anyone else besides me read about the Canadian vote?  I
was impressed.  Centrally designed ballots.  One uniform system across the
country.  Ninety percent of the polls close at the same time.  Paper ballots
with all ballots being hand counted.  All the hand counts were complete
within a few hours of poll closing.  Haven't heard about a lot of problems
with the election process.  Yes, you can argue it's because they didn't
*need* to look that closely.  Still, my gut feeling is if the election there
had been examined closely it would have showed a much smaller error rate
than our election.  I know Canada has a smaller population than the US,
still they show it can be done on a large scale.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18110
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Dec 2000 01:27:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

From: Margaret Albrecht

Why?  You want to talk about it.  I'm sitting here thinking "Thank goodness,
I'm in the town *across* the border."  
-----

I'm tempted to speculate on the reasons for this relief, but I'm a good
enough gentleman that I will only mention that I could.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18111
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Dec 2000 01:31:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

From: Margaret Albrecht

  The things that get
legislated....  I understand Alabama finally got around to repealing the
law
against interracial marriages.
-----

Ugh. As a man in a most definitely interracial marriage, the idea that it
was still illegal in the past 30 years makes me uncomfortable. I don't like
the idea that there are parts of this country where I would be afraid to
kiss my wife in public.

-----
Here in Florida it made the news a few years
ago when a man was arrested for having... how shall I put it?
....unconventional sex with his wife.  A neighbor saw it somehow and reported
him to the police.  Police arrested him for it.  Shouldn't all of those
be
covered under our right to privacy?  Apparently not.
-----

Unfortunately, there is no truly official "Right to Privacy". It isn't in
the Constitution, and isn't likely to be so long as a significant portion
of our population wants to control who has sex, how they do it, and what
substances we can put in our bodies.

BTW, did the arrest you refer to take place in Alabama, or Florida? I am
uncertain from the post above.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18112
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:56:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a2af3ea.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....
> Unfortunately, there is no truly official "Right to Privacy". It isn't in
> the Constitution, and isn't likely to be so long as a significant portion

It's in the penumbra!!

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18113
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Dec 2000 02:00:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article , filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....
> You misunderstand. A reaction that frightened him when he was about 10,
> for example, could have made him shy away from using his full strength
from
> then on. Since he could probably still lift more than anyone else on the
> team, he would simply assume that the effort he was putting into it was
> just as much as they were, and push no further.
> 
> This isn't as unlikely as it sounds.

I'm glad you realize that it does /sound/ unlikely.  And that is because

it /is/ unlikely.  It just doesn't fit well with any very athletic person

I have known.  My point is that if a fictional world is going to jell, 
you have to be careful with stuff like this.  The guy is a football hero.
 
I expect him have typical football-player reactions, even as I discover

that there is something unusual about him or his world.  If he is 
supposed to be an atypical football hero /and/ a "superhero", then some

additional, carefully done scenes are needed to keep me on board.     
-----

Agreed. I just didn't find myself suspending disbelief more on this movie
than on most that aren't just the "pictures of life" type.

-----
> Many people who never get a serious
> challenge (due to exceptional ability) never learn how to put out real
effort.
> He could have been a serious underacheiver for all we know, since nothing
> he was doing was his true calling. In fact, we _know_ he was a serious
underachiever;

But we have /no/ reason to think he was a serious underachiever wrt his

football career, and knowing one's strength is important for that.
------

Hard to say. I saw signs that he didn't really care about playing, and signs
he did. He seemed ambivalent about it.
------ 
....
> No, she wasn't. But we don't know that David was, either. Even being not
> serious, he would have been impressive.

There is no evidence that he was not serious about football.  Even now,

he is a security guard at a football stadium!!
-----

As I said, I found evidence for both.

-----


I am not looking for answers or objecting to not having them provided; I

am objecting to elements that jar me from the frame of mind needed to 
embrace the story. 
-----

Fair enough. And to be honest, these things bothered me a bit, too, and
I even remember commenting about some of them to my wife. However, it didn't
jar me nearly as much as things like the idiot fighter plane attack on the
big disks in Independence Day, and even that I was willing to overlook for
the sake of the movie.

-----
....
> But my point is is that just because David exists does not mean that comic
> books have _any relevance at all_.

Then why all the comic book stuff, from the opening screen text onward?
 
I don't mind a director (or author) leading me down a garden path; I 
object to being pulled in different directions by what I take to be his

inability to create a world that leads me anywhere. 
-----

I shouldn't have mentioned that. Clearly, while "Mr. Glass" may or may not
have been an archetype for a supervillain, David _was_ a superhero.

-----
> We don't know that they live in a comic
> book world in _any_ sense, just that in their world there exist physically
> exceptional people. In fact, the only evidence that we have that the comic
> books have even a tiny relevance comes in two forms; David has a superpower
> to "Know the evil men do", and David feels unfulfilled until he saves
those
> children.

Actually the last is not "comic book" at all.  I would expect even a 
depressed person to get a sense of fulfillment from saving them under the

circumstances.
-----

You misunderstand. It was hinted that he hadn't woken up sad for the first
time in years that day was because he had found his purpose. Granted, it
could just have been feeling good about himself pulling his mind out of
depression, but that wasn't what was implied.

It was the idea that he had a "purpose" that was "comic book".

-----
But the "evil-knowing" power takes us out of a world that 
simply has a very strong, lucky guy in it.  After all, maybe David is not

really unbreakable, but was just extremely lucky in the wreck.  And a man

who can bench press 350 lbs probably can choke out even a bigger, 
stronger (/if/ the murderer was stronger) guy from behind nine times out

of ten.  Without the special power, we could have had a story in which a

mass murderer pushes a depressed guy who gave up his life's passion for

his marriage to do something heroic.  Is the guy a /real/ superhero or is

it coincidence?  This leads us to ask "what /is/ a real superhero?", and

to the warm thought that maybe good people are superheroes (and that good

can come from great tragedy, etc.).

We don't need the special power to tell that (better, IMHO) story; David

could have discovered the murder in the house in some prosaic way.  
Instead we have a fantasy power conjoined with a lot of stuff about comic

books.  So I think we have every reason to think we are in a comic book

world.
-----

Well, we aren't in a true comic book world. They say that outright. We are
in a world with a handful of comic book elements, but otherwise grittily
real. What we have is a man who is at the core of one of these comic book
elements coming to terms with it, only to discover that the world is a bit
_too much_ like a comic book.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18114
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 21:31:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a2afad6.2@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....
> However, it didn't
> jar me nearly as much as things like the idiot fighter plane attack on the
> big disks in Independence Day, and even that I was willing to overlook for

Now, what was wrong with that?  ;-)


-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18115
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 21:22:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a2af2f9.0@news.sff.net...
> From: Margaret Albrecht
>
>>> Why?  You want to talk about it.  I'm sitting here thinking "Thank
goodness,
> >>I'm in the town *across* the border."
> -----
>
> I'm tempted to speculate on the reasons for this relief, but I'm a good
> enough gentleman that I will only mention that I could.

LOL, Filksinger.  Well, among other reasons it's because I'm sure I have
some articles which are illegal in Alabama.  Plus I might want to buy a few
more.  At least, here in Florida, I can still buy them.  By the way, as
anyone figured out I'm not exactly shy?
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18116
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 21:28:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a2af3ea.0@news.sff.net...
> Ugh. As a man in a most definitely interracial marriage, the idea that it
> was still illegal in the past 30 years makes me uncomfortable. I don't
like
> the idea that there are parts of this country where I would be afraid to
> kiss my wife in public.
Tell me about it.  According to the state of Mississippi my parents'
marriage wasn't legal when we moved there.  That would make me a bastard --
not that it ever bothered me.  I think Mississippi took that law off the
books sometime in the 1980s.

> Unfortunately, there is no truly official "Right to Privacy". It isn't in
> the Constitution, and isn't likely to be so long as a significant portion
> of our population wants to control who has sex, how they do it, and what
> substances we can put in our bodies.
Okay, Filksinger, LOL with the "what substances we can put in our bodies" in
conjunction with the Alabama law we were discussing.

> BTW, did the arrest you refer to take place in Alabama, or Florida? I am
> uncertain from the post above.
Florida.  I think it was in Central Florida somewhere.  I don't know if the
DA actually pressed charges on the case.

Margaret




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18117
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 04:51:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Sun, 3 Dec 2000 03:11:32 -0500, "William J. Keaton"
<wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Now here's a good one: During Saturday's latest court hearing, I heard
>someone testify that a buildup of chads could make it hard to completely
>punch out a ballot. And the voting machines had been last cleaned after the
>'98 election. This strikes me as sheer stupidity and derilection of duty.

They said on MSNBC today that the voting machines in Miami-Dade county
hadn't been cleaned in EIGHT years.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18118
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:09:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a2b0e13.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a2af3ea.0@news.sff.net...
> > Ugh. As a man in a most definitely interracial marriage, the idea that it
> > was still illegal in the past 30 years makes me uncomfortable. I don't
> like
> > the idea that there are parts of this country where I would be afraid to
> > kiss my wife in public.
> Tell me about it.  According to the state of Mississippi my parents'
> marriage wasn't legal when we moved there.  That would make me a bastard --

Is that the only reason?  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18119
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:50:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


"Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3a2aefda.1@news.sff.net...
> Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3A2AC3BF.3712DA3A@ix.netcom.com...
> > Funny how nobody here seemed to want to discuss Alabamans'
(Alabamanians?)
> right
> > to keep and bare sex toys....  ;^)
>
> Why?  You want to talk about it.  I'm sitting here thinking "Thank
goodness,
> I'm in the town *across* the border."

Hmmm, someone who lives in Florida is happy about it? I figured many of you
folks would be in denial these days.


--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18120
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Dec 2000 16:05:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Filksinger's Movie Reviews
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:
In article , filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....
> However, it didn't
> jar me nearly as much as things like the idiot fighter plane attack on
the
> big disks in Independence Day, and even that I was willing to overlook
for

Now, what was wrong with that?  ;-)

-----

You have a point. So what if the ship was 15 miles across, and could have
been shelled from offshore without any real chance of a miss? Who cares
if the attack couldn't have brought down the ship if it was made out of
cardboard, due to lack of firepower? So what if they should have been flying
bombers over it, dropping everything they had on its surface? There must
have been a good reason, right?

I'd better stop. If I think about it too much, it retroactively ruins the
movie for me.

I still like my solution for the computer virus sillyness, though. It helps
me feel better, not because it makes sense, but because my answer makes
sense. Mostly.:)

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18121
From: anonymous@sff.net (Anonymous Visitor)
Date: 4 Dec 2000 16:07:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

From: Margaret Albrecht

LOL, Filksinger.  Well, among other reasons it's because I'm sure I have
some articles which are illegal in Alabama.  Plus I might want to buy a
few
more.  At least, here in Florida, I can still buy them.  By the way, as
anyone figured out I'm not exactly shy?
Margaret
-----

Really? I hadn't noticed.:)

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18122
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Dec 2000 16:15:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

From: Margaret Albrecht

 wrote in message news:3a2af3ea.0@news.sff.net...

Tell me about it.  According to the state of Mississippi my parents'
marriage wasn't legal when we moved there.  That would make me a bastard
--
not that it ever bothered me.  I think Mississippi took that law off the
books sometime in the 1980s.
-----

Whenever someone tells me how recently they removed these laws, it gives
me the heebie-jeebies.

-----

Okay, Filksinger, LOL with the "what substances we can put in our bodies"
in
conjunction with the Alabama law we were discussing.
-----

Actually, I edited that line by adding "substances" specifically to avoid
that comparison. Obviously, I didn't do a good enough job.

Ah, well.

-----

> BTW, did the arrest you refer to take place in Alabama, or Florida? I
am
> uncertain from the post above.
Florida.  I think it was in Central Florida somewhere.  I don't know if
the
DA actually pressed charges on the case.
-----

Hmm. I may know the case you mean, as it made the news here. I hadn't realized
that _how_ they were having sex was an issue, only that it could be seen
(if someone tried hard enough to peek in).

I had heard that the charges were followed through on, but that was only
rumor. I mostly was just glad I wasn't in Florida when I thought about the
case.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18123
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 4 Dec 2000 16:19:45 GMT
Subject: Open Letter from Santa
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I don't know who originally wrote this. Maybe Santa.

**********

Hello out there all people of the world.  This is Santa and I just wanted
to let you know that Christmas may be a little late this year.

See, after checking all the boxes and tallying them up, I found some problems
with the results. The first counts showed:

   428,534,120 Good
   428,523,119 Bad

The second tally showed:

   428,534,118 Good
   428,523,121 Bad

So you see, I can't, in good faith, go out and deliver presents while knowing
I might have made a mistake. Maybe Little Johnny was good for once, then
again, maybe not.  So, I have enlisted the help of all my elves and the
Mrs. to help do a recount. We hope to have this finished up by 5pmon the
24th of December, but there is a possibility that it might take longer.
You see the tally cards were not quite clear to me, although I made them
myself, I forgot what they meant.

You know, "Good"...and "Bad"???  And the check marks I used were not all
the same, some went left, some went right, some were just a mark, some went
through both boxes, and some didn't even have much of a mark on them. I
leave it up to my re-counters to decide what I meant. So if you wake up
on Christmas morning, and there are no presents under your tree, at least
you can tell the kids this story.

Thank you for your patience and understanding in these troubling times.

Santa

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18124
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:43:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



JT wrote:

> >...to keep and bare sex toys....  ;^)
> >
> >-JovBill
>
> Freudian slip, there, Bill--or were you intentionally being punny?

The latter, thank you very much! <hmmph!!>


Oh, well... at least somebody noticed.  ;^)

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18125
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:46:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> I'm sure I have
> some articles which are illegal in Alabama.  Plus I might want to buy a few
> more.  At least, here in Florida, I can still buy them.

In *some* parts of Florida, you could walk down the street *using* them and
not attract a second look, much less a cop. Of course, those parts of Florida
are closer to Havana than Alabama. ;^)

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18126
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:50:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:

> It's in the penumbra!!

Yew watch yer mouth, college boy! This here's a family newsgroup. If you wanta
be usin' words like that, you best be movin' along.

-JovBill

PS: We don't 'low no homo sapiens here, neither!


<GD&RLH>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18127
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:20:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 17:43:39 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>
>JT wrote:
>
>> >...to keep and bare sex toys....  ;^)
>> >
>> >-JovBill
>>
>> Freudian slip, there, Bill--or were you intentionally being punny?
>
>The latter, thank you very much! <hmmph!!>
>
>
>Oh, well... at least somebody noticed.  ;^)
>
>-JovBill

Arrrgh.  So it's the day AFTER I write the note that I notice the
emoticon. Sigh.  Like you said, at least you knew I read *part* of
your post. <G>

JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18128
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:30:33 -0600
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1494e0e347f04fd1989738@news.sff.net...
> In article <3a2b0e13.0@news.sff.net>, Margaret Albrecht writes...
> > Tell me about it.  According to the state of Mississippi my parents'
> > marriage wasn't legal when we moved there.  That would make me a
bastard --
>
> Is that the only reason?  ;-)

Gordon,
LOL.  Depends on who you ask.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18129
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:33:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

William J. Keaton <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a2b3e79.0@news.sff.net...
> Hmmm, someone who lives in Florida is happy about it? I figured many of
you
> folks would be in denial these days.

:^)  As I said on my recent trip to Ohio.  "I'm not from anywhere near Palm
Beach or any of those other counties that are in the news."  It's funny how
every time I told someone I was from Florida a comment about the election
usually followed.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18130
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 06:11:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>PS: We don't 'low no homo sapiens here, neither!

  LOL. The "Friends" rerun tonight had one of my favorite Joey
moments. Joey says, "If homo sapiens really were _homo_ sapiens... is
that why they're extinct?"  Ross, pained, says, "Joey, homo sapiens
are _people_."  "Hey! I'm not judgin' "


Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18131
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 19:00:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Judging the Competition
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"William J. Keaton" wrote:

>
> Of course, if we all had the Graft Voting Machine (yes, I know there's a
> better name, I just like the juxtaposition there!) we wouldn't be in this
> mess!

     It was developed under the name of Minerva Voting Products!  There is more
than adequate Graft in the election counts as it is.  And it would not even be
possible to hand count the ballots.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18132
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:09:07 -0800
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On the issue of being a bastard or Illegitimate, I would like to refer you
all to the film "Broken Blossoms."  In some, if not all states, legitimacy
used to be recorded on the birth certificate.  "Broken Blossoms" is about a
woman who fought to have that changed and did other things to change how
orphans and wards of the state are treated.

There are too many Pharisees out there who think that the LAW will save the
moral fiber of the people.  If law was morality...

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
filksinger@earthling.net wrote in message <3a2bc325.0@news.sff.net>...
|From: Margaret Albrecht
|
| wrote in message news:3a2af3ea.0@news.sff.net...
|
|Tell me about it.  According to the state of Mississippi my parents'
|marriage wasn't legal when we moved there.  That would make me a bastard
|--
|not that it ever bothered me.  I think Mississippi took that law off the
|books sometime in the 1980s.
|-----
|
|Whenever someone tells me how recently they removed these laws, it gives
|me the heebie-jeebies.
|
|-----
|
|Okay, Filksinger, LOL with the "what substances we can put in our bodies"
|in
|conjunction with the Alabama law we were discussing.
|-----
|
|Actually, I edited that line by adding "substances" specifically to avoid
|that comparison. Obviously, I didn't do a good enough job.
|
|Ah, well.
|
|-----
|
|> BTW, did the arrest you refer to take place in Alabama, or Florida? I
|am
|> uncertain from the post above.
|Florida.  I think it was in Central Florida somewhere.  I don't know if
|the
|DA actually pressed charges on the case.
|-----
|
|Hmm. I may know the case you mean, as it made the news here. I hadn't
realized
|that _how_ they were having sex was an issue, only that it could be seen
|(if someone tried hard enough to peek in).
|
|I had heard that the charges were followed through on, but that was only
|rumor. I mostly was just glad I wasn't in Florida when I thought about the
|case.
|
|Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18133
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 11:48:00 -0500
Subject: Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This is a test.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18134
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:06:43 -0800
Subject: Re: Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> This is a test.

Didn't work. They never do.

-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18135
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:47:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Test
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A312333.7CE14EC2@rcsis.com>, James Gifford writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> > This is a test.
> 
> Didn't work. They never do.
> 
> 
Actually, it worked better than I had planned.  I didn't know if the 
server was down or if everyone was just being quiet.

I should have known that you wouldn't be.  ;-)

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18136
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 9 Dec 2000 00:41:18 GMT
Subject: A Lovecraft Christmas
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

A Lovecraft Christmas By Pete Sears

Journal Entry: Dec 2

I have returned home after a long time away. Time seems not to have touched
Arkham very much. Oh you'll see the occasional cell phone on the street
but the old-timers who sit around at the hardware store seem to be the same
one that sat there in my youth. I've spent so much time in diverse corners
of the world seeking the strange and unusual that even my childhood home
seems quaint and curious in the same way that Yoruba tribesmen do. I find
myself having to bite my tongue whenever I get the urge to ask the natives
to explain their customs.  New England reticence is something I’m having
to relearn.

For example, I’m staying at the old ancestral home and it's quiet enough
to enable me to study. It's also remote enough to allow me to cast a spell
or two in the back yard without being observed. But every time I venture
into town I am struck by small changes there. Townsfolk, whom I suppose
are trying to be friendly, keep asking me if I’m "Getting ready for the
Holidays."   I’m not aware of any particular holidays.  Perhaps there's
some sort festival in the offing. I shall ask.

Journal Entry: Dec 4

It would seem that there is some sort of winter festival. When I inquired
I was looked at strangely and avoided but finally I did get a straight answer.
I've also noted some strange behavior in town. People seem to be smiling...a
lot. They seem to be extremely busy and carrying a lot of suspicious parcels.

Journal Entry: Dec 13

I've observed a strange ritual. Last night, two husky men came onto the
back of my property and cut down a pine tree. Taking up my shotgun to deal
with the trespassers, I watched as they dragged the tree back to their car.
Was that all they had come for?  Had they broken the law merely to steal
a tree? Fascinated and horrified, I followed them back to their home.  
They took the tree off their car and took it into their house. Watching
from the bushes, I observed the tree thieves as they began to cover their
ill-gotten foliage with strange blinking lights and odd icons of some sort.
Is this some sort of odd cult activity?  Perhaps some bizarre fertility
ritual. (Shub?!?)  Is the tree supposed to be an Altar? Sacrifice? Antenna?
More study is required.

Journal Entry: Dec 16

This cult is far more widespread than I suspected was possible. Much of
the town appears to have been affected. I am considering summoning help.
 Many of the townsfolk seem to be smiling that same insipid smile.  I am
beginning to worry. I was walking through town assembling some notes about
this phenomenon when I went into a department store for more paper. A large
man in a red suit and a bushy white beard stared at me and rang a small
bell. He seemed to want me to make some offering to a small bucket on a
tripod and gave me a hard look when I didn't. I asked the manager if there
was a back way out of the store.

Journal Entry: Dec 17

Had a bad turn today. Found that the maid had erected one of those tree
altars in the living room. Was terrified beyond comprehension by the thing.
Frankly she was completely nonplussed at my reaction.  "But it's traditional."
she said.  I was forced to dismiss her.

Journal Entry: Dec 19

My private library has proven useless for this "Winter Festival". I must
brave going into town again and attempting research in the public library.
I fear time is growing short somehow...and this is compounded by the snow
which is coming down very hard now. I fear I will be snowed in if this keeps
up.

Journal Entry: Dec 20

I am filled with horror. Venturing into town to use the library, I encountered
the man in the red suit again. He was speaking very intently to a very small
child who was rapt in attention at his words. I hurried along before he
could notice me.  I arrived at the Library and presented myself as an anthropologist
studying the basis of this local "Winter Festival"  I was looked at quizzically,
but directed well by the young lady at the desk.

Apparently this cult is very old and it's practices are particularly gruesome.
It apparently started with the Celts (who died out by the way)   It's now
masquerading as the festival of the birth of some Christian martyr, but
it's practices are very suspicious. I’m having to read between the lines
of course, but I’m seeing a terrifying pattern here. There's apparently
some flying creature with claws. (The translation here may be flawed)  
It goes forth once per year to reward the faithful and punish the transgressors.
 It particularly likes "sweets" ( which I take to mean sweetbreads...Horrible!)
and will consume these offerings if they are left for him.  Apparently no
home is proof against this horrific beast who is able to invade through
the smallest fireplace (Significance? Hastur relationship?)   The faithful
are also enjoined to put up stockings up on the mantel and they will be
"filled."   I can only assume with the severed legs of the "bad little children".
  There is also some sort of connection to a "Snowman"  (Ithaqua?  It must
be!)  This finally explains the bizarre patterns in the snow and odd snow
sculptures all over town.

As I walked home, trying to make some sense of this horrific puzzle. I saw
the man in red again. He seems to be everywhere. Is he following me?

Journal Entry: Dec 21

I had bad dreams last night. The Man in Red had invaded my home with a very
large sack. To what end I don't know. I woke up screaming when he turned
and I recognized his face.  This was not the only strange thing that I encountered.
 As the snow dashed my hopes of leaving town before this hideous ritual
could take place. I began to knock around the house.  I discovered that
the refrigerator has become home to strange foodstuffs. I found a pitcher
of some odd smelling spicy fluid which looked like milk gone bad. I also
found an odd cake like substance with unidentifiable red and green THINGS
in it. I was forced to dismiss the cook. These cultists are everywhere but
at least I have the house to myself.

Journal Entry: Dec 22

Had the dream again. Will this nightmare ever cease?    I also had visions
of...something dancing in my head.  I can feel a horrific change coming
over me. It's slow and pernicious but I’m beginning to feel it's effects.
  I saw myself in the mirror today and I didn't recognize myself. I had
that SMILE on my face...No it's not even a smile, it's more of a rictus.
 It took some effort to wipe it from my face. I found myself in front of
the fridge looking at the fluid and the evil looking cake.... wondering
what they tasted like. I fear for my immortal soul.

Journal Entry: Dec 23

Last night as I was trying to calm myself by the fire. (which I keep burning
all the time now.) I  heard the high piping voices of the cultists outside
my door. They were singing to me...In Latin! Something about "Come all ye
faithful", or some such. I was filled with such fear that I was forced to
retreat to the basement where I sat and trembled until they finally went
away. I wanted to go to them....I wanted... No. Best not to think about
that now.

Journal Entry: Dec 24

This may be my last entry. I have dealt with some horrifying things in my
life but this is far too much to handle alone. I am forced to take drastic
measures. I have taken a few household chemicals and rigged a primitive
detonator, which I can trigger from the garage. It should kill anything
in the house...At least that is my hope. I can feel the "Christmas Spirit"
trying to take over my body and I want no part of it.   I'll either kill
the Flying Klaws or I'll freeze to death out here. Lose the house or lose
my life. It's a small price to pay to end this pernicious menace.

 Pete Sears (Otherwise known as Reverend X.S.Kinesys) The Templeton Institute
of Advanced Human Dynamics http://home1.gte.net/revk/index.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18137
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:05:45 -0600
Subject: Re: A Lovecraft Christmas
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a317fae.0@news.sff.net...
> A Lovecraft Christmas By Pete Sears

Oooh, cool one.  I have the urge to dig out those old Lovecraft books.
Haven't read them since I don't know when.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18138
From: eljohn2@home.spamthis.com (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 16:42:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Open Letter from Santa
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Filksinger:   The Florida State Supreme's are at it again.  Where do
you think that they would fall on Santa's "Naughty or Nice" list?

Ed J    ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18139
From: anonymous@sff.net (Anonymous Visitor)
Date: 9 Dec 2000 17:47:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Open Letter from Santa
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

From: Ed J
Filksinger:   The Florida State Supreme's are at it again.  Where do
you think that they would fall on Santa's "Naughty or Nice" list?

Ed J    ;-)
-----

Don't know. I have  pointedly avoided any serious comment on those things
on this list.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18140
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:41:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Open Letter from Santa
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

According to today's (Saturday's) U. S. Supreme Court ruling, the
Florida Supreme Court made the "naughty" list.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18141
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:26:04 -0800
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum




Lorrita Morgan wrote in message <3a2daed4.0@news.sff.net>...
|On the issue of being a bastard or Illegitimate, I would like to refer you
|all to the film "Broken Blossoms."  <snippity do dah>
Wrong! the movie is "Blossoms in the Dust."

I had a brain glitch due to stress, computer failure at work, and general
end of the year chaos.  I'm beginning to think that even one half day a week
is too much of a work load.  Four hours a week is a big deal to me, after
not working at all since '93.

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18142
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:16:39 GMT
Subject: TANSTAAFL
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Well, once again the Heinlein Forum's "group contribution" to SFF Net
is due.  Basic membership, which includes the webpage space, is now
$99.50, which for convenience's sake on my part is rounded to $100.00
(US).

I am once again accepting contributions, minimum amount of $5 and in
multiples of that if you are inclined to contribute more.

Please email me privately at JT@ sff.net (DON'T just reply to this
message unless you remember to get rid of my spamblocker).

Private emails take precedence over posts here if I get more pledges
than the cost of the membership.

When I get your email, I will email you back with my mailing address.
For those of you who contributed last year, it has not changed.

Sponsorship of the HF gets you a mention on the HF's "Patrons of Free
Speech" page with whatever personal or business links you'd like to
publicize.

Thanks to everyone who helps keep our little corner of the 'net going,
through financial help and/or interesting discussion!

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18143
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:18:18 GMT
Subject: Re: TANSTAAFL
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:16:39 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>Sponsorship of the HF gets you a mention on the HF's "Patrons of Free
>Speech" page with whatever personal or business links you'd like to
>publicize.
>
Forgot to mention that the HF's site is at:
http://www.sff.net/people/HF/ !

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18144
From: Karen Stewart" <selest1ok@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:16:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

>> ...But ... Rhenquist (writing for the minority, which also included
Scalia and
>> Thomas) said he thought the roadblocks represented "only a minimal
intrusion
>> into privacy"

  Is there any such thing as "only a minimal intrusion into privacy"? Isn't
that something like being only a little bit pregnant? I find very disturbing
the notion that ANY intrusion into privacy can be taken so blithely by a
Justice of the Court, Chief or Associate... this bodes ill for our liberty
even if there is no significant change in the makeup of the High Court...
  You folk seem to be pretty sharp on liberty issues here -- I'm surprised
no one has stepped on that one...


Blessed Be! {S&SW!}

Darkmoon of Ragnarok



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18145
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 11 Dec 2000 15:54:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Karen Stewart wrote:
>> ...But ... Rhenquist (writing for the minority, which also included
> Scalia and
> >> Thomas) said he thought the roadblocks represented "only a minimal
> intrusion
> >> into privacy"
> 
>   Is there any such thing as "only a minimal intrusion into privacy"?
Isn't
> that something like being only a little bit pregnant?

While I am heavily into supporting privacy, I'd have to say no.

With pregnancy, it is all or nothing. With privacy, it is not. Otherwise,
simply knowing where I do my grocery shopping would also tell you where,
when, with whom, and how I like to have my sex. Obviously, an invasion of
privacy is _not_ all or nothing.

> I find very disturbing
> the notion that ANY intrusion into privacy can be taken so blithely by
a
> Justice of the Court, Chief or Associate... this bodes ill for our liberty
> even if there is no significant change in the makeup of the High Court...

There are _always_ things that step on the fringes of our rights. Some of
them are even considered acceptable by many libertarians. "Free Speech"
vs. "Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" is a good example. Given the behavior
of the Court over the past 200 years, I cannot be shocked that a Supreme
Court justice would make such a ruling.

>   You folk seem to be pretty sharp on liberty issues here -- I'm surprised
> no one has stepped on that one...

When the Supreme Court rules on issues involving our liberty, and rules
in the favor of liberty, there is virtually _always_ a disturbing opinion
held by the minority. This is something to be treated with caution, but
it doesn't garner much individual attention. It isn't shocking anymore.
Just another part of a worrisome trend.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18146
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:31:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a34f8a5.0@news.sff.net...
....
> With pregnancy, it is all or nothing. With privacy, it is not. Otherwise,
> simply knowing where I do my grocery shopping would also tell you where,
> when, with whom, and how I like to have my sex. Obviously, an invasion of
> privacy is _not_ all or nothing.

Well, I like to get as much done at the grocery store as I can, so I would
prefer a strong concept of privacy.  ;-)

--
Gordon G. Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18147
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:38:50 -0600
Subject: Interesting Article on the Election Process
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I thought this was an interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/latimes.votecount/index.ht
ml



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18148
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:52:55 GMT
Subject: Re: TANSTAAFL
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:18:18 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 02:16:39 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>>Sponsorship of the HF gets you a mention on the HF's "Patrons of Free
>>Speech" page with whatever personal or business links you'd like to
>>publicize.
>>
>Forgot to mention that the HF's site is at:
>http://www.sff.net/people/HF/ !
>
A few people have already pledged substantial amounts of the cost.  If
I accept those offers in total, there's only $15 left to be covered.
If more people indicate they would like to be a part of the HF
Patronage I will "reduce" the amount of the 'substantial' pledges.  

I'll leave it open for a few more days...those of you who've already
emailed me, I'll do emails in reply  with my address once I "close"
the pledge period. <G>  (Aren't I nicer than PBS? ;)

Thanks for everyone's help & support.

JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18149
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:09:14 GMT
Subject: Re: TANSTAAFL
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:52:55 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

>I'll leave it open for a few more days...those of you who've already
>emailed me, I'll do emails in reply  with my address once I "close"
>the pledge period. <G>  (Aren't I nicer than PBS? ;)
>

The HF's membership is now covered.  Those of you who have pledged
will get an email soon, probably tomorrow.  I just don't have the time
tonight...Christmas shopping burnout. ;)

Thanks to all!

JT



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18150
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:20:50 -0500
Subject: Vital tips for the holidays
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This came on an e-mail list. I pass it along before I head out to binge with
the family this weekend!

+++

I hate this time of year. Not for its crass commercialism and
forced frivolity, but because it's the season when the food
police come out with their wagging fingers and annual tips on
how to get through the holidays without gaining 10 pounds.

You can't pick up a magazine without finding a list of holiday
eating do's and don'ts. Eliminate second helpings, high-calorie
sauces and cookies made with butter, they say. Fill up on
vegetable sticks, they say.

Good grief. Is your favorite childhood memory of Christmas a
carrot stick? I didn't think so. Isn't mine, either. A carrot
was something you left for Rudolph.

I have my own list of tips for holiday eating. I assure you, if
you follow them, you'll be fat and happy. So what if you don't
make it to New Year's? Your pants won't fit anymore, anyway.

1. About those carrot sticks. Avoid them. Anyone who puts
carrots on a holiday buffet table knows nothing of the Christmas
spirit. In fact, if you see carrots, leave immediately. Go next
door, where they're serving rum balls.

2. Drink as much eggnog as you can. And quickly. Like fine
single-malt scotch, it's rare. In fact, it's even rarer
than single-malt scotch. You can't find it any other time of
year but now. So drink up! Who cares that it has 10,000 calories
in every sip? It's not as if you're going to turn into an
eggnogaholic or something. It's a treat. Enjoy it. Have one for
me. Have two. It's later than you think. It's Christmas!

3. If something comes with gravy, use it. That's the whole point
of gravy. Gravy does not stand alone. Pour it on. Make a volcano
out of your mashed potatoes. Fill it with gravy. Eat the
volcano. Repeat.

4. As for mashed potatoes, always ask if they're made with skim
milk or whole milk. If it's skim, pass. Why bother? It's like
buying a sports car with an automatic transmission.

5. Do not have a snack before going to a party in an effort to
control your eating. The whole point of going to a Christmas
party is to eat other people's food for free. Lots of it. Hello?
Remember college?

6. Under no circumstances should you exercise between now and
New Year's. You can do that in January when you have nothing
else to do. This is the time for long naps, which you'll need
after circling the buffet table while carrying a 10-pound plate
of food and that vat of eggnog.

7. If you come across something really good at a buffet table,
like frosted Christmas cookies in the shape and size of Santa,
position yourself near them and don't budge. Have as many as you
can before becoming the center of attention. They're like a
beautiful pair of shoes. You can't leave them behind. You're not
going to see them again.

8. Same for pies. Apple. Pumpkin. Mincemeat. Have a slice of
each. Or, if you don't like mincemeat, have two apples and one
pumpkin. Aways have three. When else do you get to have
more than one dessert? Labor Day?

9. Did someone mention fruitcake? Granted, it's loaded with the
mandatory celebratory calories, but avoid it at all cost. I
mean, have some standards, pal.

10. And one final tip: If you don't feel terrible when you leave
the party or get up from the table, you haven't been paying
attention. Reread tips. Start over. But hurry! Cookieless
January is just around the corner!



--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18151
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:13:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Vital tips for the holidays
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

As RAH said, "Everything in excess! Moderation is for monks."

"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a3706e7.0@news.sff.net...
> This came on an e-mail list. I pass it along before I head out to binge
with
> the family this weekend!
>
> +++
>
> I hate this time of year. Not for its crass commercialism and
> forced frivolity, but because it's the season when the food
> police come out with their wagging fingers and annual tips on
> how to get through the holidays without gaining 10 pounds.
>
> You can't pick up a magazine without finding a list of holiday
> eating do's and don'ts. Eliminate second helpings, high-calorie
> sauces and cookies made with butter, they say. Fill up on
> vegetable sticks, they say.
>
> Good grief. Is your favorite childhood memory of Christmas a
> carrot stick? I didn't think so. Isn't mine, either. A carrot
> was something you left for Rudolph.
>
> I have my own list of tips for holiday eating. I assure you, if
> you follow them, you'll be fat and happy. So what if you don't
> make it to New Year's? Your pants won't fit anymore, anyway.
>
> 1. About those carrot sticks. Avoid them. Anyone who puts
> carrots on a holiday buffet table knows nothing of the Christmas
> spirit. In fact, if you see carrots, leave immediately. Go next
> door, where they're serving rum balls.
>
> 2. Drink as much eggnog as you can. And quickly. Like fine
> single-malt scotch, it's rare. In fact, it's even rarer
> than single-malt scotch. You can't find it any other time of
> year but now. So drink up! Who cares that it has 10,000 calories
> in every sip? It's not as if you're going to turn into an
> eggnogaholic or something. It's a treat. Enjoy it. Have one for
> me. Have two. It's later than you think. It's Christmas!
>
> 3. If something comes with gravy, use it. That's the whole point
> of gravy. Gravy does not stand alone. Pour it on. Make a volcano
> out of your mashed potatoes. Fill it with gravy. Eat the
> volcano. Repeat.
>
> 4. As for mashed potatoes, always ask if they're made with skim
> milk or whole milk. If it's skim, pass. Why bother? It's like
> buying a sports car with an automatic transmission.
>
> 5. Do not have a snack before going to a party in an effort to
> control your eating. The whole point of going to a Christmas
> party is to eat other people's food for free. Lots of it. Hello?
> Remember college?
>
> 6. Under no circumstances should you exercise between now and
> New Year's. You can do that in January when you have nothing
> else to do. This is the time for long naps, which you'll need
> after circling the buffet table while carrying a 10-pound plate
> of food and that vat of eggnog.
>
> 7. If you come across something really good at a buffet table,
> like frosted Christmas cookies in the shape and size of Santa,
> position yourself near them and don't budge. Have as many as you
> can before becoming the center of attention. They're like a
> beautiful pair of shoes. You can't leave them behind. You're not
> going to see them again.
>
> 8. Same for pies. Apple. Pumpkin. Mincemeat. Have a slice of
> each. Or, if you don't like mincemeat, have two apples and one
> pumpkin. Aways have three. When else do you get to have
> more than one dessert? Labor Day?
>
> 9. Did someone mention fruitcake? Granted, it's loaded with the
> mandatory celebratory calories, but avoid it at all cost. I
> mean, have some standards, pal.
>
> 10. And one final tip: If you don't feel terrible when you leave
> the party or get up from the table, you haven't been paying
> attention. Reread tips. Start over. But hurry! Cookieless
> January is just around the corner!
>
>
>
> --
> WJaKe
>
> http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18152
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:39:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Highly recommmended
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I'll throw in my professional 2 cents and agree as well. I'm a network admin
and just love 2000. It's 98 without all the crashing.

You do need to make sure you have hardware drivers ready before you begin
upgrading. I lost access to my Intel video camera when I upgraded my home
system. No drivers available.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that, as with all things new from
Microsoft, it's a pig resource-wise. Recommended system is Pentium III 500
with at LEAST 128MB RAM. If you can get up to 192 or 256 you'll be much
happier. RAM is really much more important at this point than processor
speed.


"James Gifford" <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:3A27F45D.2A7147F6@rcsis.com...
> I just rebuilt my main workstation and decided it was time to upgrade to
> Windows 2000. I've run NT4 for several years, and it was lovely and
> solid and bulletproof under the hood, but the top layer-- desktop,
> support for advanced interface elements like DirectX and USB-- was
> horribly outdated. (NT4 is stuck at about the Win95, original release
> level on that plane.)
>
> Short take: Windows 2000 is highly, highly recommended. I've never had
> an OS install so smoothly (and I've installed everything since Windows
> 3.0 double- or triple-digit times). All the power and stability of NT,
> with a Win 98-plus desktop and interface support.
>
> It worked just fine with all my existing applications, not all of which
> are the newest and bestest. The only item that flat would not work was
> WinFax Pro 9.0; I picked up 10.0 cheap on eBay. The games all run fine
> (Half-Life required a fully updated version, which I already had; Aliens
> vs Predator, no problem-- and it wouldn't run under NT4; Battlezone,
> also needed the update).
>
> In short, if you hate the unreliability of Win 95/98, or if you're
> putting together a new system or upgrade soon, go the extra $50-75 and
> use Win2K. Wonderful stuff!
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> |   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |
>
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18153
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:41:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

That's most excellent news! I didn't know this was up for debate. I make a
point of turning around and going the long-way-round whenever I see one of
these things. What right do they have? Well, known apparantly.

"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3A23E2AD.74B79798@aol.com...
> Court Strikes Down Drug Checkpoints
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court today struck down as
> unconstitutional random roadblocks intended to catch drug criminals. The
> 6-3 ruling weighed privacy rights against the interests of law
> enforcement. The majority found that Indianapolis' use of drug-sniffing
> dogs to check all cars pulled over at the roadblocks was an unreasonable
> search under the Constitution. The majority said the ruling does not
> affect other kinds of police roadblocks such as border checks and
> drunken-driving checkpoints.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
>
> Yeahhhh!!!
>
> --
> <<Big Charlie>>
>
> Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.
>
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18154
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:45:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I know better than to jump in here as a new guy but... here goes anyway...

You are kidding about the 2nd ammendment having anything whatsoever to do
with securing our liberty, right? I mean, maybe in 1780... but not now. You
going to take on the millitary with your shotgun there?


"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14945c7ba8453516989732@news.sff.net...
> In article <3A2A9015.726EF3EE@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
> ...
> > Ahh... "pardnuh" finally clued me in to the precise nature of satire at
work
> > here.
>
> > When you first posted, I wondered why you didn't think other parts of
> > the Constitution (esp. the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments) had
anything
> > to do with civil liberties.
>
> Oh, sure, those amendments are fine, as far as they go.  But in the
> crunch, only the Second really matters.  God helps them that helps
> themselves!
>
> > Is "Chief Guardian of our liberties..." an NRA
> > trope that I'm unfamiliar with?
>
> Not that I know of - but I wouldn't be surprised.  For a guy who doesn't
> even own a firearm, I do a remarkable job of channeling those folks.  But
> I think I may have found a button with your number on it, Bill.  ;-)
>
> > In any case, *MY* quibble, since we're quibbling <G>, is that in common
> > usage, "guardian" typically denotes a person, or at least something
(e.g., a
> > statue) that *stands for* a person.
>
> Poetic license.  Metaphor is essential to human life.
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18155
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:01:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a37f177.0@news.sff.net>, Robert Larson writes...
> I know better than to jump in here as a new guy but... here goes anyway...
> 
> You are kidding about the 2nd ammendment having anything whatsoever to do
> with securing our liberty, right?

Not at all.  Many a true word has been spoken in jest.  And that goes 
double for me! 

> mean, maybe in 1780... but not now. You
> going to take on the millitary with your shotgun there?

Motivated guerrilla forces have been effective against military 
superpowers in the past, and I suspect this will continue to be true.  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18156
From: Michael S. Keller" <green@null.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:12:08 -0600
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Highly recommmended
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Robert Larson wrote:
> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that, as with all things new from
> Microsoft, it's a pig resource-wise. Recommended system is Pentium III 500
> with at LEAST 128MB RAM. If you can get up to 192 or 256 you'll be much
> happier. RAM is really much more important at this point than processor
> speed.

I second the RAM requirement. If only the work computer had more than
128MB. . . . Any graphics-intensive work benefits from more memory. So
does having multiple or bloated applications running.

I don't have nearly as much bloat with my personal Linux system as
Windows systems have, but I make up for it by running four distributed
computing projects, MP3 decoding and a nice GUI. (Also StarOffice, a pig
on any OS on which it runs.)

I just added a Voodoo3. It's a nice performance boost over the old 2MB
PCI video card.

-- 
-Michael S. Keller, Amateur Radio Station N5RDV, ICQ 1007068
 http://www.hai.org, http://www.barefooters.org
 http://www.dhamma.org, http://www.debian.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18157
From: debrule@jps.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:39:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>You are kidding about the 2nd ammendment having anything whatsoever to do
>with securing our liberty, right? I mean, maybe in 1780... but not now. You
>going to take on the millitary with your shotgun there?

  Better than taking them on armed only with sharply worded rhetoric!
:-)

  
Deb  (D.A. Houdek) 
http://www.sff.net/people/Deb


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18158
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:33:45 -0800
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Highly recommmended
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Robert Larson wrote:
> I'll throw in my professional 2 cents and agree as well. I'm a network admin
> and just love 2000. It's 98 without all the crashing.

Well, NT lacked the crashing, too, but it also lacked an up to date
desktop/API. Win2k has both-- the reliability of NT with full DirectX,
USB and other fancy stuff support.

> You do need to make sure you have hardware drivers ready before you begin
> upgrading. I lost access to my Intel video camera when I upgraded my home
> system. No drivers available.

I didn't lose anything, fortunately. Had to upgrade WinFax (to v10.0)
and ATM (v4.1). Had to download a lot of patches and updates, but
nothing that took very long or was hard to get. But I'm sure there's
older hardware out there that doesn't have W2K drivers, so it will be a
tradeoff for some folks.

> One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that, as with all things new from
> Microsoft, it's a pig resource-wise. Recommended system is Pentium III 500
> with at LEAST 128MB RAM. If you can get up to 192 or 256 you'll be much
> happier. RAM is really much more important at this point than processor speed.

PIII, 902 MHz (800EB CPU), 256 MB. No problem. :)

I just built a second system and it was even more of a joy-- no
stumbles, no hassles, no problems. Quickest, smoothest, easiest to work
with OS I've ever used.

-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18159
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:37:30 -0800
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Highly recommmended
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

"Michael S. Keller" wrote:

> Robert Larson wrote:
> > One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that, as with all things new from
> > Microsoft, it's a pig resource-wise. Recommended system is Pentium III 500
> > with at LEAST 128MB RAM. If you can get up to 192 or 256 you'll be much
> > happier. RAM is really much more important at this point than processor
> > speed.

> I second the RAM requirement. If only the work computer had more than
> 128MB. . . . Any graphics-intensive work benefits from more memory. So
> does having multiple or bloated applications running.

The price difference between 128 and 256 is less than $100. With hard
drives at rock-bottom prices and thus not eating more than their share
of system budget, it's hard to justify skimping on RAM.
 
> I don't have nearly as much bloat with my personal Linux system as
> Windows systems have, but I make up for it by running four distributed
> computing projects, MP3 decoding and a nice GUI. (Also StarOffice, a pig
> on any OS on which it runs.)

Linux is nice, but the lack of major apps (outside the tech ween arena)
make it a poor choice for many users. Not-really-compatible substitutes
for Word, or Photoshop, or Framemaker, or such doesn't really cut it
when you have to interop with other workers and service bureaus.

But it's getting there.

-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18160
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:38:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ooohhh. Ok. Let me know when the shooting starts so I can side with the guys
that have the nukes. :-)

"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14a1f405e279171898973b@news.sff.net...
> In article <3a37f177.0@news.sff.net>, Robert Larson writes...
> > I know better than to jump in here as a new guy but... here goes
anyway...
> >
> > You are kidding about the 2nd ammendment having anything whatsoever to
do
> > with securing our liberty, right?
>
> Not at all.  Many a true word has been spoken in jest.  And that goes
> double for me!
>
> > mean, maybe in 1780... but not now. You
> > going to take on the millitary with your shotgun there?
>
> Motivated guerrilla forces have been effective against military
> superpowers in the past, and I suspect this will continue to be true.
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18161
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:31:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a394c42.0@news.sff.net>, Robert Larson writes...
> Ooohhh. Ok. Let me know when the shooting starts so I can side with the guys
> that have the nukes. :-)

Good luck!  The "guys with nukes" are not all on the same side.

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18162
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:42:10 -0500
Subject: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gene Mutation Doubles Life Span

By PAUL RECER
..c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Dec. 14) - Mutation of a gene whimsically named ''I'm not
dead yet'' can double the life span of fruit flies, a laboratory
discovery that researchers said may lead to drugs to help people live
longer and, perhaps, even lose weight.

Researchers at the University of Connecticut Health Center have found
that the life span of fruit flies was extended from an average of 37
days to 70 days when a gene was modified on a single chromosome. Some
flies in the study lived 110 days.

The same long-life gene exists in humans, said Dr. Stephen L. Helfand,
senior author of the study, and ''offers a target for future drug
therapies aimed at extending life.''

In human terms, a doubled life span would be about 150 years.

Helfand said the gene mutation appears to work by restricting calorie
absorption on a cellular level - in effect, putting the cells on a diet.
This raises the possibility, he said, of one day developing a pill that
would both extend life and control weight.

''From what we know about this gene, that makes perfect sense,'' he
said.

Helfand said a key finding of the study, which was appearing Friday in
the journal Science, is that not only did the fruit flies live longer,
but they also seemed to maintain a high quality of life.

''It is not an empty or hollow increase in life span. It prolongs active
adult life, and I think, delays the onset of aging,'' he said.

Some life-extension studies showed that animals tended to trade vigor
and energy for a longer life, he said.

But the mutant flies ''do well throughout their longer life,'' Helfand
said. ''By the time that 80 to 90 percent of normal flies are dead,
these mutants are still doing just fine.''

Blanka Rogina, a co-author of the study, said female flies with the
mutated genes were able to reproduce throughout life. They had the
energy for the fruit flies complex courtship ritual and could lay up to
2,000 eggs in their lifetime, compared with about 1,300 eggs normally,
she said.

The long-life gene was named for a comical line - ''I'm not dead yet'' -
from a Monty Python movie, Helfand said. The gene's name was suggested
by co-author Robert A. Reenan and has been shortened to ''Indy.''

''In academic circles,'' explained Helfand, ''sophomoric humor, such as
in Monty Python, is very common.''

There have been other studies that found long-life genes in fruit flies
and nematodes. There also have been experiments in mice that show
calorie restriction - a severe diet - can extend life by up to 50
percent.

But Huber Warner, associate director for research into the biology of
aging at the National Institute of Aging, said the Indy gene discovery
is more significant because ''it may be a different way to get the same
effect that caloric restriction achieved in mice and other organisms.''

He said it may be possible to develop a drug that inhibits metabolism in
the same way as the mutated Indy gene. Such a drug would have to be
tested extensively in animals to assure that it is safe, Warner said.

''If you wanted to slow metabolism in people, this research suggests
that this could be a way to do it,'' he said. ''It is strictly
theoretical right now, but it is a possibility.''

Helfand and his colleagues discovered the livelong gene by chance. He
said they were screening a strain of fruit flies in another study and
found that flies were living much longer than normal.

They isolated the Indy gene and then tested it in a number of different
laboratory fruit fly strains. In all cases, it extended life.

But Helfand said the researchers discovered that if the gene is mutated
too much, it actually shortens life.

The normal gene is on two chromosomes of the fruit fly. If one of these
genes is altered, thus reducing the strength of the gene, then the flies
enjoyed a long life. If both genes were knocked out altogether, said
Helfand, the flies actually died sooner, perhaps starving to death.

''If we restrict (the gene) a little bit there is a big advantage,''
said Helfand. ''But if we make an animal that has only the mutated gene,
we find that the animal lives a shorter than normal.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a copyrighted article the posting of which for the purposes of
discussion I believe to be covered under the fair use doctrine.
--
<<Big Charlie>>

Men who say they understand women probably lie about other things too.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18163
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:46:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Charles Graft quoted:

> Gene Mutation Doubles Life Span
>
> By PAUL RECER
> .c The Associated Press

I've thought about this before. At one time a cousin of mine (by marriage)
was working on a drug to treat Parkinsons, Alzheimer's, etc., by promoting
regrowth of brain tissue. AFAIK, it all fell through, but some of the early
animal trials were promising, and indicated that one *side effect* would be
~2X increase in lifespan. It occurred to me at the time that, while this
seems at first blush like a boon, in fact it might lead to a global
catastrophe: Think for a minute how many social institutions, not to mention
individuals' financial and emotional lives, are predicated on the
understanding that pretty much everybody dies, mostly between the ages of 70
and 90. If somebody waved a magic wand and said "OK, everybody now alive,
and everybody born from now on, will (barring violence) live to be at least
150 years old," I'm NOT convinced it would be a Good Thing.

Make a great plot for an SF novel (or series thereof), though.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18164
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 15:30:55 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Notice, though, that at first approximation food would not be one of the major
worries.  The same change that makes life longer reduces caloric intake.

Bill Dauphin wrote:

> Charles Graft quoted:
>
> > Gene Mutation Doubles Life Span
> >
> > By PAUL RECER
> > .c The Associated Press
>
> I've thought about this before. At one time a cousin of mine (by marriage)
> was working on a drug to treat Parkinsons, Alzheimer's, etc., by promoting
> regrowth of brain tissue. AFAIK, it all fell through, but some of the early
> animal trials were promising, and indicated that one *side effect* would be
> ~2X increase in lifespan. It occurred to me at the time that, while this
> seems at first blush like a boon, in fact it might lead to a global
> catastrophe: Think for a minute how many social institutions, not to mention
> individuals' financial and emotional lives, are predicated on the
> understanding that pretty much everybody dies, mostly between the ages of 70
> and 90. If somebody waved a magic wand and said "OK, everybody now alive,
> and everybody born from now on, will (barring violence) live to be at least
> 150 years old," I'm NOT convinced it would be a Good Thing.
>
> Make a great plot for an SF novel (or series thereof), though.
>
> -JovBill

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18165
From: SynABit@kc.invalid (Dennis Doms)
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:01:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3A3B0C1E.90B11C6A@whoi.edu>, Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
wrote:

>Notice, though, that at first approximation food would not be one of the major
>worries.  The same change that makes life longer reduces caloric intake.
>--
>Eli V. Hestermann
>ehestermann@whoi.edu
>"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca

That presumes humanity only uses what it _needs_, not what it _wants_. I'm not
sure that's a valid assumption. There are already areas in the world where
malnutrition is a problem and any increase in lifespan could aggravate that
(not that it may matter to increase potential lifespan if malnutrition is a
major cause of death). And food isn't the only limiting resource.

It won't be a simple analysis. Simply having a longer potential life doesn't
necessarily mean it will be experienced; how many people make it to 80+ _now_
(neither of my parents did). I also wonder what the quality of life; I'm
nearing 50 now and if I had to live my next 100 years on the track my parents
did (with severe medical issues as they approached 70) I'm not sure I would
consider that positive. If the improvements could actually postpone (or
better, negate) the onset of those complications then that might be different.

 --
Dennis Doms  SynABit@kc.invalid  http://home.earthlink.net/~chemsleuth
[replace "invalid" with "rr.com" for valid mail]

  "It doesn't matter if we turn to dust; turn and turn and turn we must
         I guess I'll see you, dancing in the ruins tonight..."
	                 -- Blue Oyster Cult

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18166
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:02:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

>If the improvements could actually postpone (or
>better, negate) the onset of those complications then that might be different.

I believe the article suggested that this was the case.

Of course, while having humans live to 150 could be catastrophic in
some ways, having all creatures live to 150 (or even just fruit flies)
would be even more so, I imagine.

OTOH, if there were a drug that made people's lifespans inversely
proportional to their fertility it might not be so bad. Actually, come
to think of it, a great deal of resources would be needed less. (among
those that come to mind are lower education, clothing, and anything
else related to childhood/young adulthood)
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18167
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:22:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme court... and other courts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

>You are kidding about the 2nd ammendment having anything whatsoever to do
>with securing our liberty, right? I mean, maybe in 1780... but not now. You
>going to take on the millitary with your shotgun there?

No, but possessing a firearm can have a great deal to do with securing
my liberty. Say a person comes up to me and decides he/she'd be a lot
happier if I were dead. Now, if we are both armed rather than just the
outlaw, I have a far greater chance of maintaining my liberty than if
I had only my untrained fists.

Furthermore, someone else already said it but small organized forces
can be effective against the military. Guerilla forces may be such an
example.
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18168
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:26:55 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bob Lawson wrote:

> >If the improvements could actually postpone (or
> >better, negate) the onset of those complications then that might be different.
>
> I believe the article suggested that this was the case.

We've been hashing through this over on Elizabeth Moon's newsgroup.  The "quality
of life" measures for the fruit flies were essentially length of reproductive span
and fecundity (number of healthy offspring produced).  These were fine
(reproductive span doubled and rate of repoduction stayed the same).  However, it's
unclear how these traits would translate to humans, and I think most people would
want better assurances of a healthy long life than, "Well, you could have kids
until you're 100 or so."

My own suspicion is that some negative consequence of the mutation will be found.
Otherwise I'd expect fruit flies to already have it.  Doubled reproductive output
gives one a pretty big evolutionary advantage.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18169
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 16 Dec 2000 23:14:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hesterman wrote:
> Notice, though, that at first approximation food would not be one of the
major
> worries.  The same change that makes life longer reduces caloric intake.
> 

Actually, no. It said it reduced caloric absorbtion on the cellular level,
not caloric intake. Reducing caloric intake was already known to increase
lifespan in lab rats, for example, but all such animals, when exposed to
food, ate it anyway and died young.

Essentially, a human who ate a carefully balanced diet and took his vitamins
might, according to the research with rats already done, live longer than
the rest of us, by %50 or more. You will note that few humans have chosen
to do this, however.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18170
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 16 Dec 2000 23:52:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann wrote:

> Bob Lawson wrote:
> 
> > >If the improvements could actually postpone (or
> > >better, negate) the onset of those complications then that might be
different.
> >
> > I believe the article suggested that this was the case.
> 
> We've been hashing through this over on Elizabeth Moon's newsgroup.  The
"quality
> of life" measures for the fruit flies were essentially length of reproductive
span
> and fecundity (number of healthy offspring produced).  These were fine
> (reproductive span doubled and rate of repoduction stayed the same). 
However, it's
> unclear how these traits would translate to humans, and I think most people
would
> want better assurances of a healthy long life than, "Well, you could have
kids
> until you're 100 or so."

True, but what would those standards be? Physical activity? In previous
experiments with rats, where plenty of vitamins and reduced calories translated
into 50% longer lives, they found the rats _more_ active than normal, well-fed
rats. Brain function? We haven't a clue whether or not that is impaired,
but we have no reason to believe it is. Sexual capabilities? Best evidence
is that it would continue at a strong level.

> My own suspicion is that some negative consequence of the mutation will
be found.
> Otherwise I'd expect fruit flies to already have it.  Doubled reproductive
output
> gives one a pretty big evolutionary advantage.

Doubled length of lifespan can also give disadvantages. For example, you
might well evolve half as fast.

Even more important, it stated in the study that if you damaged one gene
of a pair, you got long life, but two genes and you got very short life.
This would mean that, if the damaged gene were released into the population,
it would tend to do as much or more harm than good.

This even gives us a possible solution to the population problem, though
it will change society in other ways which we can only begin to predict.
Create a treatment that works by damaging that gene. Now, give it only to
people who undergo permanent sterilization to avoid releasing the damaged
gene into the population.

Changes that occur would be both simple and complex. For example, assume
that the treatment keeps you young more than it makes you young. People
would try to have children young, so they could retire from the child-bearing
business young enough to benefit from the long life treatment while they
still had their youth. Alternately, some women might not take the treatment
until they reach menopause, assuming the treatment doesn't reverse menopause.

Countries where the children would be expected to support their parents
would change dramatically, when the children might well have left home 100
years earlier. They might feel little obligation to parents they hadn't
seen in generations.

However, today we live approx 75 years in the US and Western European countries.
We reach adulthood in twenty years, spend 35 years reasonably young, and
20 years as old people, with 10 of those years being considered "retirement
age", where you aren't expected to work because you are just too old. Assuming
that old age is not lengthened, but is simply put off, people would have
productive adulthoods more than four times as long as today.

Would this create a world where something like Social Security, where the
young take care of the old, would be seen as a minor and reasonable burden?
Or would it create a world where people are told, "You knew it was coming.
You could have spent 80 years ignoring it, saved for the next 30, and still
saved for retirement. So don't expect me to care."

Hmm. That was much longer than I planned, and is pretty much an entirely
new thread. That'll teach me.

Yeah, right.:)

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18171
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:52:41 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

filksinger@earthling.net wrote:

> Even more important, it stated in the study that if you damaged one gene
> of a pair, you got long life, but two genes and you got very short life.
> This would mean that, if the damaged gene were released into the population,
> it would tend to do as much or more harm than good.

Oops!  Yeah, I realized later that I missed this one.  If half the long-lived
animal's progeny either die young or don't inherit the mutant gene, then of course
the evolutionary advantage is severly reduced. <g>

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18172
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:56:32 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

filksinger@earthling.net wrote:

> Eli Hesterman wrote:
> > Notice, though, that at first approximation food would not be one of the
> > major worries.  The same change that makes life longer reduces caloric
> intake.
>
> Actually, no. It said it reduced caloric absorbtion on the cellular level,
> not caloric intake.

Where else do you think total caloric intake is being used, if not at the
cellular level?

> Reducing caloric intake was already known to increase
> lifespan in lab rats, for example, but all such animals, when exposed to
> food, ate it anyway and died young.

> Essentially, a human who ate a carefully balanced diet and took his vitamins
> might, according to the research with rats already done, live longer than
> the rest of us, by %50 or more. You will note that few humans have chosen
> to do this, however.

Then allow me to amend my earlier statement to "food _need_ not be one of the
major worries".  Of course people could eat more than they need.  Not that
*that* would ever happen. <g>

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18173
From: eljohn2@home.spamthis.com (Ed Johnson)
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:52:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On 16 Dec 2000 23:14:29 GMT, filksinger@earthling.net wrote:
           <snip>
>Essentially, a human who ate a carefully balanced diet and took his vitamins
>might, according to the research with rats already done, live longer than
>the rest of us, by %50 or more. You will note that few humans have chosen
>to do this, however.
>
>Filksinger

FS:   I have heard of someone who is (?was) following a strict diet
with hopes for longevity as it's reward.  I can't recall his name,
but he was one of the scientists in the BioSphere.  Does anyone here
recall who that might have been?  (BioSphere:  IIRC, the first group
had 8 people living in a closed environment.  They dug up additional
sponsors and had a second group move in somewhat later.)

Ed J

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18174
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:09:04 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed Johnson wrote:

> FS:   I have heard of someone who is (?was) following a strict diet
> with hopes for longevity as it's reward.  I can't recall his name,
> but he was one of the scientists in the BioSphere.  Does anyone here
> recall who that might have been?

There's apparently a group of people practicing caloric restriction:
http://www.infinitefaculty.org/sci/cr/cr2.htm

The main side effect (I swear I am not making this up): you get really hungry.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18175
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:17:47 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:21:05 GMT, bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob
Lawson) wrote:
Well, barring a couple of faithless electors, it seems that this
election should be added to this list.

>3 instances, in fact.
>1824: Andrew Jackson wins popular vote (closely, not not a majority).
>He got 40.3 perc(much snipped)
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18176
From: eljohn2@home.spamthis.com (Ed Johnson)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 03:06:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli:
   Have you been introduced to JT?  I think the your note deserves a
good pun in respose;  I just don't have one handy!  <g,d&r>

Ed J

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:09:04 +0900, Eli Hestermann
<ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:

>Ed Johnson wrote:
>
>> FS:   I have heard of someone who is (?was) following a strict diet
>> with hopes for longevity as it's reward.  I can't recall his name,
>> but he was one of the scientists in the BioSphere.  Does anyone here
>> recall who that might have been?
>
>There's apparently a group of people practicing caloric restriction:
>http://www.infinitefaculty.org/sci/cr/cr2.htm
>
>The main side effect (I swear I am not making this up): you get really hungry.
>
>--
>Eli V. Hestermann
>ehestermann@whoi.edu
>"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18177
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:22:33 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed Johnson wrote:

> Eli:
>    Have you been introduced to JT?  I think the your note deserves a
> good pun in respose;  I just don't have one handy!  <g,d&r>

Yeah, we've met once or twice. <g>  I gave my best attempt at humor with the Dave
Barry reference.

> Ed J
>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:09:04 +0900, Eli Hestermann
> <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:
>
> >Ed Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> FS:   I have heard of someone who is (?was) following a strict diet
> >> with hopes for longevity as it's reward.  I can't recall his name,
> >> but he was one of the scientists in the BioSphere.  Does anyone here
> >> recall who that might have been?
> >
> >There's apparently a group of people practicing caloric restriction:
> >http://www.infinitefaculty.org/sci/cr/cr2.htm
> >
> >The main side effect (I swear I am not making this up): you get really hungry.
> >
> >--
> >Eli V. Hestermann
> >ehestermann@whoi.edu
> >"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca
> >
> >

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18178
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:52:47 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bob Lawson <bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com> wrote in message
news:3a3d7376.1301331@news.sff.net...
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 05:21:05 GMT, bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob
> Lawson) wrote:
> Well, barring a couple of faithless electors, it seems that this
> election should be added to this list.

Not so clear.  My understanding is that there are at least 1.5 million
absentee ballots that states will not count since, when broken out by state,
they can not change the result.  If these were to go, say, 2 to 1 in favor
or Bush, he could be the popular vote winner.

There is a newspaper in Florida that says it will pay to have the Florida
votes recounted; it will be interesting to see if anyone is as concerned
about counting the absentee ballots nationwide.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18179
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:26:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:22:33 +0900, Eli Hestermann
<ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:
>Ed Johnson wrote:
>
>> Eli:
>>    Have you been introduced to JT?  I think the your note deserves a
>> good pun in respose;  I just don't have one handy!  <g,d&r>
>
>Yeah, we've met once or twice. <g>  I gave my best attempt at humor with the Dave
>Barry reference.
>
>> Ed J
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:09:04 +0900, Eli Hestermann
>> <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:

>> >The main side effect (I swear I am not making this up): you get really hungry.
>> >

You're both just starved for attention. ;)

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18180
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:25:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



filksinger@earthling.net wrote:

> We reach adulthood in twenty years, spend 35 years reasonably young, and
> 20 years as old people, with 10 of those years being considered "retirement
> age", where you aren't expected to work because you are just too old. Assuming
> that old age is not lengthened, but is simply put off, people would have
> productive adulthoods more than four times as long as today.

This is exactly my concern: If "productive adulthood" means that phase of your life
during which you spend 80 percent of your waking hours doing things you don't enjoy
to meet the necessity of feeding your family, I'm not sure 100 years of it sounds
like all that much of a boon. If life extension meant, say, 40 or 45 years of work
followed by 80 or so years of freedom in which to enjoy the fruits of that labor,
*that* would be something valuable, but if, on the other hand, it's just going to be
100 years as a wage slave to support the same 10 or so years of active, relatively
youthful retirement most of us already get, then what's the point? My goal in life
(well, one of 'em) is to maximize the ratio of time spent doing stuff I *want* to do
versus time spent doing stuff I *have to* do... and I'm not at all convinced that a
150 year lifespan will accomplish that.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18181
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:02:27 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:52:47 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>Not so clear.  My understanding is that there are at least 1.5 million
>absentee ballots that states will not count since, when broken out by state,
>they can not change the result.  If these were to go, say, 2 to 1 in favor
>or Bush, he could be the popular vote winner.
>
>There is a newspaper in Florida that says it will pay to have the Florida
>votes recounted; it will be interesting to see if anyone is as concerned
>about counting the absentee ballots nationwide.

Here's the text of a short article I read on page 2 of yesterday's
Kansas City Star.

        According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, it wasn't quite as
     close as we thought.
       Gore's popular vote lead rose to 540,435, according to the
     latest official numbers.  The previously reported margin of
     337,576 didn't include late-arriving absentee ballots from places
     such as California.
       The Inquirer's tally: Gore 50,977,109; Bush 50,436,674.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18182
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:17:44 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

You asked for it, Ed!

JT wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:22:33 +0900, Eli Hestermann
> <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:
> >Ed Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> Eli:
> >>    Have you been introduced to JT?  I think the your note deserves a
> >> good pun in respose;  I just don't have one handy!  <g,d&r>
> >
> >Yeah, we've met once or twice. <g>  I gave my best attempt at humor with the Dave
> >Barry reference.
> >
> >> Ed J
> >>
> >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:09:04 +0900, Eli Hestermann
> >> <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >The main side effect (I swear I am not making this up): you get really hungry.
> >> >
>
> You're both just starved for attention. ;)
>
> JT

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18183
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 05:11:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Is it not possible to enjoy life while on works? Even if one's job is
not the most stimulating there are still pleasures to be had outside
of one's career, I dearly hope.

>This is exactly my concern: If "productive adulthood" means that phase of your life
>during which you spend 80 percent of your waking hours doing things you don't  >enjoy
>to meet the necessity of feeding your family, I'm not sure 100 years of it sounds
>like all that much of a boon. 
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18184
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:10:32 -0700
Subject: Re: revocation of independance
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


Damn -- this is what I get for making sporadic appearances. I never 
saw the "American response" you refer to. Would you be good enough to
e-mail it to me?

--
Clay Steiner claysteiner@SPAMTHIS.prodigy.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Remember: amatuers built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

----------
In article <3a1ec773.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net wrote:


> Since we have already seen this and the American response, I have forwarded
> the American response to Mr. Rivaz.
>
> Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18185
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:51:14 -0700
Subject: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


My brother is finally breaking down and buying a computer for his 
wife; swears he won't touch it and can spend only $1,000. Were it not
for his Luddite approach to computers in general, I'd be totally
unqualified to counsel him on his purchase (I'm using a six year old
Mac, for ****'s sake). OTOH, the closest he's come to using a computer
is having his groceries scanned at the supermarket. As may be, I've
told him the following:

*Gateway seems to be a good choice for a package system purchase,
based on opinions I've trusted in the past;

*Do NOT go the "enslave yourself to XXX ISP for 3 years for a $400
rebate" route;

*Make sure it has at least 32 MB RAM on board, expandable to at least
128 MB (kindly read through the rest before your snort milk or George
Dickel out of your nose);

*Processor should be a Pentium III or better (keep in mind that he
hasn't the foggiest as to what a processor is, much less what would be
better).

I told him these things Sunday night, and then read Jim's WIN2K
thread. Now I'm thinking I may have given bad advice on some of the
above. For example: I didn't know that 256 MB of RAM was even
possible; I'm THAT out of date.

Anyone care to counsel?

--
Clay Steiner claysteiner@SPAMTHIS.prodigy.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Remember: amatuers built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18186
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:31:30 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a3eb206.50717047@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...
....
> Here's the text of a short article I read on page 2 of yesterday's
> Kansas City Star.
> 
>         According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, it wasn't quite as
>      close as we thought.
>        Gore's popular vote lead rose to 540,435, according to the
>      latest official numbers.  The previously reported margin of
>      337,576 didn't include late-arriving absentee ballots from places
>      such as California.
>        The Inquirer's tally: Gore 50,977,109; Bush 50,436,674.

Interesting.  I wonder why absentee ballots from "places such as 
California" would have such a different profile from those from Florida?

The article might be taken to imply that all absentee ballots eventually 
get counted regardless of the possible effect on a state's vote.  I had 
heard that that was not the case.   OTOH, it may be that each of the 
"several states" handle this differently, so that absentee ballot will 
continue to come in from some states and not others.  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18187
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:25:37 -0800
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Clay Steiner wrote:
> *Gateway seems to be a good choice for a package system purchase,
> based on opinions I've trusted in the past;

They're not bad. Dell is good, too.

> *Do NOT go the "enslave yourself to XXX ISP for 3 years for a $400
> rebate" route;

Absolutely. Remember Prof Paz's advice about free things.

> *Make sure it has at least 32 MB RAM on board, expandable to at least
> 128 MB (kindly read through the rest before your snort milk or George
> Dickel out of your nose);
> 
> *Processor should be a Pentium III or better (keep in mind that he
> hasn't the foggiest as to what a processor is, much less what would be
> better).
> 
> I told him these things Sunday night, and then read Jim's WIN2K
> thread. Now I'm thinking I may have given bad advice on some of the
> above. For example: I didn't know that 256 MB of RAM was even
> possible; I'm THAT out of date.

Processors, RAM and hard drives have gotten so incredibly cheap that
it's foolish not to go with top-of-the wave (NOT feathery front edge of
the wave) stuff. But he'd probably be happy with a Celeron instead of a
PIII, at a savings of over $100. For a good, solid, adequate for now and
the near future box, I'd recommend a system with:

Celeron 667 or P-III 800EB
64-128 MB RAM
10 GB hard drive
17" monitor
And Windows 98 SE (NOT Windows ME, and probably not Windows 2000)

This represents solid, high-performance, low-cost computing. He should
be able to get this system from DellWay for about $8-900. You can trim
maybe $100 from this system before you fell off the performance curve,
and add thousands without appreciably speeding it up.

Clay Steiner wrote:
> 
> My brother is finally breaking down and buying a computer for his
> wife; swears he won't touch it and can spend only $1,000. Were it not
> for his Luddite approach to computers in general, I'd be totally
> unqualified to counsel him on his purchase (I'm using a six year old
> Mac, for ****'s sake). OTOH, the closest he's come to using a computer
> is having his groceries scanned at the supermarket. As may be, I've
> told him the following:
> 
> *Gateway seems to be a good choice for a package system purchase,
> based on opinions I've trusted in the past;
> 
> *Do NOT go the "enslave yourself to XXX ISP for 3 years for a $400
> rebate" route;
> 
> *Make sure it has at least 32 MB RAM on board, expandable to at least
> 128 MB (kindly read through the rest before your snort milk or George
> Dickel out of your nose);
> 
> *Processor should be a Pentium III or better (keep in mind that he
> hasn't the foggiest as to what a processor is, much less what would be
> better).
> 
> I told him these things Sunday night, and then read Jim's WIN2K
> thread. Now I'm thinking I may have given bad advice on some of the
> above. For example: I didn't know that 256 MB of RAM was even
> possible; I'm THAT out of date.
> 
> Anyone care to counsel?
> 
> --
> Clay Steiner claysteiner@SPAMTHIS.prodigy.net
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Remember: amatuers built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.


-- 

| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
|   See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more   |

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18188
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:41:11 -0800
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Ed Johnson wrote in message <3a3d268c.9597047@news.sff.net>...
|FS:   I have heard of someone who is (?was) following a strict diet
|with hopes for longevity as it's reward.  <snip, snip>
|Ed J

Ed,
I recall seeing the guy you're talking about doing an interview with Alan
Alda on "Scientific American Frontiers" on PBS.  He didn't look healthy to
me, but most vegans don't look right to me not just the skinny ones.

You might try looking at www.pbs.org for back shows of "Scientific American
Frontiers."   I think the topic was nutrition and it was the 1998 or 1999
season.  Neat things preparing on blue corn, soy beans, and poi, I think,
for human consumption in the traditional manner.

--
`rita
Almost live from Finley, Washington

pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
lorrita-m@prodigy.net
lorrita@myself.com
lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
!!HOME PAGE!!
http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18189
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:21:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:51:14 -0700, "Clay Steiner"
<claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net> wrote:

>
>My brother is finally breaking down and buying a computer for his 
>wife; swears he won't touch it and can spend only $1,000.

Jim's advice is good...I will add that I personally don't like Gateway
because of their customer service, but I do like Dell.  I've also
dealt with Circuit City as a chain & been pleased.

If the family just wants email & web, consider something like the
"i-opener" (www.netpliance.com--but I've never heard anything about it
from someone who's actually used it).  If they want a hard disk for
local storage, this wouldn't be the thing for them, though.

good luck--you're "Tech Support", you just don't know it! <EG>

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18190
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:30:55 +0900
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT wrote:

> Jim's advice is good...I will add that I personally don't like Gateway
> because of their customer service, but I do like Dell.  I've also
> dealt with Circuit City as a chain & been pleased.

Speaking to customer service: I had very good experience with the Gateway
notebook I bought a few years back.  After a problem with the CD-ROM
module, they sent a new one along with a prepaid label to return the
defective one in the same box.  When the computer inexplicably crashed
just a couple months before the (extended) warranty ended, I sent them the
whole unit, and it came back not only in working condition, but also with
many of the pieces that had gotten dinged up over three years replaced.

I've had an extremely bad experience with Compaq customer service, and in
contrast to JT had problems with Circuit City (a system purchased there
was missing speakers, and it took a month and multiple phone calls for me
to finally get them).

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18191
From: eljohn2@home.spamthis.com (Ed Johnson)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:49:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT:  That comment get a well deserved "Harrumpf!"  <g>

Ed J  (it would seem that those 1890's 'sound effects' have, for the
most part, disappeared from today's literature)

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:26:57 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

>
>You're both just starved for attention. ;)
>
>JT


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18192
From: eljohn2@home.spamthis.com (Ed Johnson)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:54:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Clay:   I'll have to second the Dell,  their three year, next day
full warranty is hard to beat.  I have found that their tech support
is usually most helpful.  (I call them a few times each month.)

Ed J

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:51:14 -0700, "Clay Steiner"
<claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net> wrote:

>
>My brother is finally breaking down and buying a computer for his 
>wife; swears he won't touch it and can spend only $1,000. Were it not
>for his Luddite approach to computers in general, I'd be totally
>unqualified to counsel him on his purchase (I'm using a six year old
>Mac, for ****'s sake). OTOH, the closest he's come to using a computer
>is having his groceries scanned at the supermarket. As may be, I've
>told him the following:
>
>*Gateway seems to be a good choice for a package system purchase,
>based on opinions I've trusted in the past;
>
>*Do NOT go the "enslave yourself to XXX ISP for 3 years for a $400
>rebate" route;
>
>*Make sure it has at least 32 MB RAM on board, expandable to at least
>128 MB (kindly read through the rest before your snort milk or George
>Dickel out of your nose);
>
>*Processor should be a Pentium III or better (keep in mind that he
>hasn't the foggiest as to what a processor is, much less what would be
>better).
>
>I told him these things Sunday night, and then read Jim's WIN2K
>thread. Now I'm thinking I may have given bad advice on some of the
>above. For example: I didn't know that 256 MB of RAM was even
>possible; I'm THAT out of date.
>
>Anyone care to counsel?
>
>--
>Clay Steiner claysteiner@SPAMTHIS.prodigy.net
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Remember: amatuers built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18193
From: Michael S. Keller, N5RDV" <green@null.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:30:18 -0600
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford wrote:
> Celeron 667 or P-III 800EB
> 64-128 MB RAM
> 10 GB hard drive
> 17" monitor
> And Windows 98 SE (NOT Windows ME, and probably not Windows 2000)
> 
> be able to get this system from DellWay for about $8-900. You can trim
> maybe $100 from this system before you fell off the performance curve,
> and add thousands without appreciably speeding it up.

The P-III advantage is faster Front-Side Bus, which is most important
with games. My 48K TRS-80 with a 1.77MHz processors was plenty fast for
WordStar. . . . Otherwise the Celeron is plenty.

Depending on the software, more memory may be in order. Depending on the
type, this could be pretty inexpensive.

> > I told him these things Sunday night, and then read Jim's WIN2K
> > thread. Now I'm thinking I may have given bad advice on some of the
> > above. For example: I didn't know that 256 MB of RAM was even
> > possible; I'm THAT out of date.

My wife's machine, with an end-of-the-line Pentium-class board, can hold
768MB. My PPro is limited to 512MB.

-- 
-Michael S. Keller, ICQ 1007068
 http://www.hai.org, http://www.barefooters.org
 http://www.dhamma.org, http://www.debian.org

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18194
From: eljohn2@home.spamthis.com (Ed Johnson)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:05:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

`rita:   I found "Biosphere 2" on the Web.  I think that the person
in question was part of the first 'expedition', Bio 1.  

I wonder if anyone has done any serious statistical analysis of
heredity longevity?  To grant RAH some hard math to back up the
origins of the Howard Families? (As in:  have people with 4 healthy,
living g-parents gone on to outlive people whose ancestors died
early of 'natural' causes?  I soulds plausible, I just hope that the
numbers back up that supposition. )
Having long lived grandparents beats starving yourself and makes for
a better story, IMHO. <g>

Ed J

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:41:11 -0800, "Lorrita Morgan"
<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:

>Ed Johnson wrote in message <3a3d268c.9597047@news.sff.net>...
>|FS:   I have heard of someone who is (?was) following a strict diet
>|with hopes for longevity as it's reward.  <snip, snip>
>|Ed J
>
>Ed,
>I recall seeing the guy you're talking about doing an interview with Alan
>Alda on "Scientific American Frontiers" on PBS.  He didn't look healthy to
>me, but most vegans don't look right to me not just the skinny ones.
>
>You might try looking at www.pbs.org for back shows of "Scientific American
>Frontiers."   I think the topic was nutrition and it was the 1998 or 1999
>season.  Neat things preparing on blue corn, soy beans, and poi, I think,
>for human consumption in the traditional manner.
>
>--
>`rita
>Almost live from Finley, Washington
>
>pick an address, any address It will get to me eventually.
>lorrita-m@prodigy.net
>lorrita@myself.com
>lorrita_m@hotmail.com (for MSN messenger)
>!!HOME PAGE!!
>http://home.talkcity.com/BookmarkBlvd/lorrita/
>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18195
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:54:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Bob Lawson wrote:

> Is it not possible to enjoy life while on works? Even if one's job is
> not the most stimulating there are still pleasures to be had outside
> of one's career, I dearly hope.

Oh, sure. I didn't mean to be such a downer. I will say, though, that over the last couple
years I have had precious little time to do anything *but* work (whether at "work" or at
home). Still, if you're lucky, you can enjoy your work (I'm in that category) and if
you're really very lucky, your work can be stuff you'd do anyway even if you didn't need
to work (I'm NOT in that category; astronauts and lead guitarists and second basemen are).
Still, for most of us, our job, even an good job, is what we do to pay for the stuff we
*really* want to do... and during the "productive adult years" we're likely to spend a
majority of our waking hours doing the former rather than the latter. I'm not complaining;
it's a good life... but if I were looking forward to *80 more years* of it, without a
corresponding increase in free time and/or years of active retirement, I might not
consider it an unmixed blessing.

Of course, it's not likely to happen that way: If people suddenly started staying in the
workforce until they were over 100, something would have to give, because I don't think
the economy could continue to absorb new workers in the 18-22 age group if nobody were
leaving the workforce. Either older workers would be forced out of the workforce, and the
economy (and the marketplace) would have to find some way to cope with 60-70 year
retirements OR (and this might be the most likely result) young people will delay entering
the workforce until 40 or later. I'm sure we'd reach a new equilibrium of some sort... but
I think the transitional period would be pretty tough.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18196
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:57:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Clay Steiner wrote:

> Anyone care to counsel?

Give me a second to squeeze into my nomex briefs, and I'll give you one
word and one number:

iMac

$799

<GD&RLH>

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18197
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:56:33 -0600
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3a3e40e8.0@news.sff.net...
> Not so clear.  My understanding is that there are at least 1.5 million
> absentee ballots that states will not count since, when broken out by
state,
> they can not change the result.

Is that even legal?  Regardless of whether or not the votes can make a
difference, I had the impression that legally the votes *have* to be
counted.  Which brings up another point, I was talking with a friend of mine
who lives in the UK.  She was once a poll worker there.  I asked her what
they did with write-in votes.  She said they discarded them.  Made me
wonder, do we actually *count* write in votes?  I know they aren't going to
change the results of an election, but I don't see a legal basis for
discarding those votes.  Does anyone know from first hand experience what
happens here in the US with write-in votes.? (Knowing, of course, that it
could vary from state to state and county to county.)
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18198
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:05:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:3A3F9A11.147BA444@rcsis.com...
> Processors, RAM and hard drives have gotten so incredibly cheap that
> it's foolish not to go with top-of-the wave (NOT feathery front edge of
> the wave) stuff. But he'd probably be happy with a Celeron instead of a
> PIII, at a savings of over $100. For a good, solid, adequate for now and
> the near future box, I'd recommend a system with:
>
> Celeron 667 or P-III 800EB
> 64-128 MB RAM
> 10 GB hard drive
> 17" monitor
> And Windows 98 SE (NOT Windows ME, and probably not Windows 2000)

Thank you.  That's pretty much what I got when I got my new PC a few months
back.  I am not a computer person and have a philosophy when it comes to
computers.  I never buy the best.  I buy a fairly basic system.  My new
fairly basic system is better than most people's computers which are two or
three years old.  Then about every three or four years I replace the system.
(At least that's the plan.  I'm only on my second home PC.)  I figure what's
top of the line now will be a basic computer at that time.  The price
difference is substantial.  I paid $650 for this computer.  I know people
who paid twenty-five hundred for a computer that's only two or three years
old, yet isn't as good as this one.  This computer does what I need.  As
long as it does, I'll be happy with it.  When the software and speeds reach
the point where this computer can't manage, then I'll buy a new one.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18199
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:11:33 -0600
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:3A3D2B70.D0AB23C5@whoi.edu...
> Ed Johnson wrote:
>
> > FS:   I have heard of someone who is (?was) following a strict diet
> > with hopes for longevity as it's reward.  I can't recall his name,
> > but he was one of the scientists in the BioSphere.  Does anyone here
> > recall who that might have been?
>
> There's apparently a group of people practicing caloric restriction:
> http://www.infinitefaculty.org/sci/cr/cr2.htm
>
> The main side effect (I swear I am not making this up): you get really
hungry.

There already is a group doing this.  Look at the entertainment / fashion
world.  Is it just restricting calorie intake or does it have to be balanced
a certain way?  If it's simply restricting calorie intake then models and
actresses should live substantially longer (assuming no harmful lifestyle
impact like alcoholism or drug abuse) because those people have a much lower
body fat percentage and weigh much less than the general population.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18200
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:21:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

No one's brought this point up.  Just *how* were those fruit flies modified?
Did they take adult fruit flies and some how replace the chromosome?  Or was
it done when the fruit flies were still in an egg?  I've wondered this when
they talk about therapies which involve fixing defective genes or replacing
chromosomes.  I'm me.  Those genes and chromosomes are in each and every
cell in my body.  How can you fix or replace that?  How do you genetically
resequence an adult?  Could be this is a treatment that *can't* be done to
an adult.  It may be only possible to do it to a embryo or fetus.  In that
case, the question would not be one we decide for ourselves, but would have
the opportunity to make for our children.

On a RAH note, first thing I thought when I saw the article was MC.  The
scene early on where, after the secret for long life was wrested out of the
Howards, it would only be available for the select few.  And the scene at
the end when the Howards come back to Earth.  The people on Earth had
developed life extension techniques, but, of course, it was only available
under certain circumstances.

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18201
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:14:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:

> Jim's advice is good...I will add that I personally don't like Gateway
> because of their customer service, but I do like Dell.  I've also
> dealt with Circuit City as a chain & been pleased.
>
> If the family just wants email & web, consider something like the
> "i-opener" (www.netpliance.com--but I've never heard anything about it
> from someone who's actually used it).  If they want a hard disk for
> local storage, this wouldn't be the thing for them, though.

Nope, an appliance would fall far short. His wife has a clue, you
see...

> good luck--you're "Tech Support", you just don't know it! <EG>
>
> JT

ARGH. Happy holidays to you as well. Getting any sleep these days?
<EVEN BIGGER EG>

Love, Cpl Ted. 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18202
From: storm-weaver@sff.net (Storm Weaver)
Date: 20 Dec 2000 11:18:50 GMT
Subject: Enjoying Life as a Productive Adult (wasRe: Genetic discoveries)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I think it's very MUCH possible to enjoy life while one works...and even
to enjoy one's work! I have several 'jobs'...including my writing. None
of them on their own pays enough to keep me going, but I have a blast working
each and every one of them, spending time with my family and just plain
old living. 

I don't know how relevant this is, since I just arrived and have been trying
to follow the thread, but this caught my eye...I was diagnosed as terminally
ill 4 years ago, and during the fight to retain my life, I discovered an
interesting thing. I don't think that not wanting to die is enough to keep
us alive. I really think that in order to live long and productive lives,
we need to do everything we can to want to LIVE and to love our lives. Sure,
some days are really cruddy, but I know they won't last, and I always look
forward to the adventure of tomorrow. I'll tell ya what...I'll take another
hundred years (or 3 or 4) of my life for doggone sure!

Thanks for letting me put in my pennies!
Storm

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18203
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:14:50 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:31:30 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>Interesting.  I wonder why absentee ballots from "places such as 
>California" would have such a different profile from those from Florida?

It could be that Florida has a disproportionate number of military
absentees.  I say that as a former service member who voted absentee
in Florida for 20 years.  My home of record was Georgia, but I went to
college in Florida, so changed my official residence before my
graduation and commissioning.  But my brother also entered the
military from Georgia and was able to change his residence to Florida
(sort of "pulled a Cheney"), even tho he never actually lived there.
I'm not sure how that worked, but I know a lot of military do it,
because there is no state income tax in FL.  Quite a few do the same
to TX, for the same reason.

OTOH, CA, NY, MD, and various other states, have quite a few
"residents" who live in Israel.  I would think FL would have its share
of these folks too, altho maybe not so many if the stereotype holds
true and their parents moved to FL after the kids were grown.  I
understand there was a record number of Americans in Israel voting
absentee because of Joe Lieberman on the ballot.

>The article might be taken to imply that all absentee ballots eventually 
>get counted regardless of the possible effect on a state's vote.  I had 
>heard that that was not the case.   OTOH, it may be that each of the 
>"several states" handle this differently, so that absentee ballot will 
>continue to come in from some states and not others.  

I've heard that too, but you're probably right that it varies from
state to state.  If the article is correct, it must.  Either that, or
the "rumor" that they are not counted is completely false.  As
Margaret asks, one would think it would be illegal to just throw them
away.  But who knows what really happens within the offices of
election commissioners?  The aftermath of the last election proves as
much.

Or it may be that there are just not that many absentee ballots which
arrive after the election, even if they're not always fully counted by
the night of the election (when historically most people quit paying
attention).  It would be much easier to complete counting ballots you
already have, which are "unwrapped" (I always had to send mine in a
double envelope, the inner one signed over the envelope flap),
verified as correctly executed, maybe even sorted, than to start with
those that just show up in the mail.

FWIW, when I was voting absentee, I don't remember even hearing
anything about a postmark, as was allegedly an issue in FL.  IIRC, the
instructions on my ballot said I needed to mail it in time to _arrive_
before the election.  But maybe that was a policy in Leon County (my
county of residence) and it differed elsewhere.

Or maybe they _usually_ don't bother to count them, but this year
precinct officials thought it might be a good idea to make a more
complete tally.     In a number of states, the final vote was very
closely divided, so there might have been a requirement that did not
exist in previous presidential elections.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18204
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:34:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Just to start out causing trouble <eg>:

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:57:21 -0500, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Give me a second to squeeze into my nomex briefs, and I'll give you one
>word and one number:
>
>iMac
>
>$799

Bah Humbug.  Apple products are a rip-off.

Now to continue with our regularly scheduled programming:

I'm not so sure I agree with how bad it is to get one of those $400
rebates for MSN or AOL.  Not that I would do it--I already have an
ISP.  But for someone starting out, he's gonna have to have one, and
either one is probably good to start out with.

I had MSN for a couple years (back when MS first started it) and
thought it was a pretty good setup.  I have had AOL (altho I access it
thru my primary ISP now) for ages and think it sucks, but it does have
the advantage of being easy to use, with a lot of "stuff" readily
available, for the completely computer illiterate.

Sure, there are cheaper ISPs out there, but is your brother gonna be
able to use them to their max potential?  Or is he gonna get
frustrated and not even bother finding out how to?

One thought about Gateway.  I think they make really good products,
but I too have heard nothing but horror stories about their tech
support.  My first job after military retirement was doing internal
tech support for H&R Block.  Many of our techies either worked part
time for Gateway or had worked there in the past (both are local
companies).  They had nothing good to say about Gateway, but the
biggest complaint was that they had to average no more than 2 minutes
with a customer, and there was tremendous pressure to reduce the time
further.  Their time was monitored and calculated, and it was the sole
basis of whether they got periodic raises, or whether they stayed
employed at all.  There was NO interest in whether they actually
helped anybody.  Now, this was about 3 years ago, so maybe the
management has gotten smarter.  But I would tend to send a
computer-newbie to Dell instead.  Besides, I own stock in Dell <g>.



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18205
From: storm-weaver@sff.net (Storm Weaver)
Date: 20 Dec 2000 22:09:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

The only real change, to my knowledge, in the administrative response to
tech support at Gateway (which used to be wonderful, back when we bought
our laptop and Destination system 3 years ago, but has slipped slipped slipped
slipped slipped ever since...to the point where my NEW laptop was a Toshiba
(which, by the way I love!!!))is that Gateway now OUTSOURCES a lot of it's
technical support. I lived with someone who worked for one of the outsource
agencies, and although they tried to be pretty good at what they did, there
was so much pressure to reduce call times that I think the customers HAD
to feel like they were "wasting the technician's time" and being brushed
off. Customer service USED to be important, but it seems that we're getting
used to being treated like dog-doo and just accepting it.

Not me. I got off the trolley at the next stop, and picked up a rather nice
replacement laptop from Toshiba that has been serving me well for over a
year with only ONE tech support call (which was handled impeccably by their
tech-support staff, though I have no idea whether they were in-house or
outsourced.)
I know that ALL of Compaq's tech support is outsourced to the same company
that handles Gateway's, no matter WHAT they say in the ads!

Oh, and BTW. I really LIKE Windows ME. Had it on all three of our systems
for the past 3 months and used it to set up a small network. It's been great
for us, and very flexible. 

Peace,
Storm

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18206
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:48:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:14:53 -0700, "Clay Steiner"
<claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net> wrote:

>ARGH. Happy holidays to you as well. Getting any sleep these days?
><EVEN BIGGER EG>
>
>Love, Cpl Ted. 

Meanie!  We fed Daniel his first cereal today.  After a few blissful
weeks of sleeping through the night he's been waking up hungry, so we
figure it's time.

Regarding Gateway & Circuit City...my problems with Gateway aren't
with their product, but with their tracking & billing.  I never had a
problem with my Gateway laptop, but had big problems getting it
shipped originally and with an extra memory chip I ordered two years
later.

With Circuit City, I was impressed when my original system had
problems, their 800# support patched me right in with a Packard Bell
tech that absolutely knew what he was talking about.  I bypassed about
an hour of waiting on hold because of that, I know.

So that's my full story.  My recommendation always used to be to buy
what you could get for $2000, but I've since dropped that figure to
$1500. 

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18207
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:15:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Enjoying Life as a Productive Adult (wasRe: Genetic discoveries)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Storm Weaver wrote:

> I think it's very MUCH possible to enjoy life while one works...and even
> to enjoy one's work!

I think I've been expressing myself badly in this thread. In no way did I mean
to be generally moaning and bitching about life. I love my life, and I very much
enjoy my work. But I don't always enjoy the fact that I'm obligated to do it 8
(or 10 or 12 or 16, sometimes) hours out of 5 (or 6 or 7 sometimes) days out of
every week. It's not the work that bothers me -- I'm not lazy -- it's the lack
of freedom to chose what I do with my time. Now, this is the price we pay (or at
least some of us do) for financial security and the ability to feed, clothe, and
shelter ourselves and our families, and (in my case, anyway) the family is well
worth the price. But I do look forward to the day when I can stamp that account
"Paid" and occupy myself with "work" of my own choosing rather than work of
necessity. You know...

> ...several 'jobs'...including my writing. None
> of them on their own pays enough to keep me going, but I have a blast working
> each and every one of them, spending time with my family and just plain
> old living.

I have a long list of projects, too. Some of them might make a little money;
others will certainly cost money; and some (like reading all the unread books on
my shelf) don't involve money at all. But for the most part, they have to stay
on the back burner  til I've completed the "Breadwinner" project. One of the
things I'm working so hard for now is to have time later to actually do thee
other stuff. If life extension gives me (relatively) more time for
self-directed, self-motivated "work," I'm all for it; if, OTOH, it requires
(relatively) more time for obligatory, wage-driven work... well, I'm probably
still all for it, but maybe I won't cheer quite so loud.

> I was diagnosed as terminally
> ill 4 years ago, and during the fight to retain my life, I discovered an
> interesting thing.

Does this way of saying it imply that you've won the fight... or am I just
wishfully reading too much into your verb tenses?

> I'll tell ya what...I'll take another
> hundred years (or 3 or 4) of my life for doggone sure!

And I fervently hope you get them. I also hope you get to use most of them doing
things that give you joy.

> Thanks for letting me put in my pennies!

But of course; that's what we're here for. I don't recall seeing your name
before. If you're new to the HF, welcome, cobber! (And if you're not, I'm sorry
I've missed you before.)

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18208
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:35:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



JT wrote:

> My recommendation always used to be to buy
> what you could get for $2000, but I've since dropped that figure to
> $1500.

I think your number is still too high. $1500 will buy FAR more computer
than a casual home user needs these days. I say spend $800-$1000 on the
basic system and put the extra money (if you have it) into a broadband
connection, more software, or a digital camera. Most folks are going to
[a] surf the Web, [b] send/receive e-mail and IMs, [c] do their taxes,
[d] play a few games, and [e] send pictures of the new baby to Aunt
Matilda. I'm currently doing all of the above more or less successfully
with a 180 MHz PowerPC 603e machine, and the only real gripes I have are
that 56k dialup is too slow and now that USB is here I can't find new
peripherals easily (my box is a serial/SCSI/ADB machine). Unless you're
really hardcore about [d] above, you really don't need a lot of computing
muscle. RAM, connect speed, and processor grunt are far more valuable
than processor grunt. IMHO, of course.

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18209
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:39:45 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret, I'm going to put on my biology professer wannabe hat and try to answer
your questions:

> No one's brought this point up.  Just *how* were those fruit flies modified?
> Did they take adult fruit flies and some how replace the chromosome?  Or was
> it done when the fruit flies were still in an egg?

I haven't actually read the article, but I'm almost positive this is how they
did it:  they took adult flies and treated them to induce mutations which could
be passed on to their eggs.  This could be done with certain chemicals, viruses
or X-rays.  Mutations crop up at a regular rate on their own, but geneticists
speed up the process to get better odds of finding an interesting mutant.  Then
they inbreed the mutated flies to make sure all of the flies in a population
have the mutation.  The scientists in this study were actually looking for other
types of mutants, and just happened to notice that this bunch seemed to be
hanging around an awfully long time.

> I've wondered this when they talk about therapies which involve fixing
> defective genes or replacing chromosomes.  I'm me.  Those genes and
> chromosomes are in each and every cell in my body.  How can you fix or replace
> that?  How do you genetically resequence an adult?  Could be this is a
> treatment that *can't* be done to an adult.

Bingo!  With present technology, in order to get a genetic change in every cell
in the adult, the change has to be made in the fertilized zygote, when the
entire organism is only one cell.  Gene therapy to treat adults currently
focuses on getting the gene into the necessary cells.  For instance, cystic
fibrosis is caused by a defective transporter in the lining of the breathing
passages.  One treatment is to introduce the gene for a working transporter into
those cells.  In this case, it doesn't matter if cells in the liver don't get
the new gene as well, since that wouldn't help the patient.

> It may be only possible to do it to a embryo or fetus.  In that case, the
> question would not be one we decide for ourselves, but would have the
> opportunity to make for our children.

This hits on a big current discussion in bioethics.  Whereas gene therapy to
treat a condition in adults is generally regarded as on the same level of using
medicine to treat illness, changing the DNA in an embryo is not, for two
reasons.  One is that the embryo cannot give informed consent, and the other is
that the change subsequently will be passed on to future generations, instead of
just affecting a single person (this process is often called "germ-line" genetic
engineering, to indicate that the changes are present in eggs and sperm as
well).  To return to cystic fibrosis, if we could screen for it early enough,
adding the transporter to a single-celled embryo would be easier than to all the
necessary cells in an adult.  Alternatively, embryos carrying a CF gene defect
could be selectively aborted, or not implanted if in vitro fertilization is
being used.  Assuming everyone was willing and able to go along with this, CF
could be wiped out in a generation, with no need to treat people in the future.

For anyone who has known someone who suffers from CS (or PKU, or many genetic
conditions caused by changes in a single gene) this may sound like a good thing,
and to a large extent it is.  However, there are some problems.  One is the
slippery slope: why not select for height, eye color, intelligence, or other
characteristics that we think would improve a child's quality of life - assuming
the ability to do so?  A related problem is genetic diversity.  The traits we
select for might improve lives today, but what about under different conditions?

A good cautionary example from SF is Haldeman's _Worlds_ series, where (IIRC,
it's been awhile since I read it) a virus kills anyone who isn't producing
growth hormone.  This virus therefore generally kills people in their late
teens, but "giants" who have a genetic defect that keeps them producing growth
hormone live into adulthood.  This clue is enough for the researchers living on
orbiting stations (who live on due to a quarantine) to figure out how to beat
the virus.  The people with the genetic defect generally live shorter lives and
go through incredible pain throughout their adult years.  It's one of the
conditions that could probably be wiped out by germ-line therapy, but in this
example doing so might kill off the entire race later.

This is long enough.  I hope it answered some of your questions.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18210
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:58:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I know I gave my iMac suggestion kind of flippantly, but I was serious, and
here's why:

Clay Steiner wrote:

> JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>
> > ...consider something like the
> > "i-opener" (www.netpliance.com--but I've never heard anything about it
> > from someone who's actually used it).  If they want a hard disk for
> > local storage, this wouldn't be the thing for them, though.
>
> Nope, an appliance would fall far short. His wife has a clue, you
> see...

The iMac offers very appliance-like simplicity for him (the Luddite), but
offers her (the one with a clue) all the functionality of a real,
honest-to-G*d computer. Despite Jai's unsupported comment about Apple
products being rip-offs (I suspect she's hanging on to the image that dates
back to the old days when Apple hardware really was egregiously more
expensive than its Wintel equivalents), the base iMac is very competitve
with PC machines in its price class on performance/price (don't get hung up
on processor clock speed; a 400 MHz G3 is plenty fast enough for anything a
home user is likely to do), and (IMHO) beats them hands-down in ease of
setup and use.

As for all the talk here about service and tech support... I've been using
Apple products for 20 years now, and I've only had 1 repair shop visit for
anything other than a hard-drive or CD-ROM replacement (and only 2 of
those). (To be fair, the logic board on my Apple ][+ did die, but only when
the machine was several years past due for replacement, and had literally
been around the world with me; I didn't bother to try to repair it.) As for
Tech Support... I've *never* needed to call Apple Tech Support, and the
only application software I've needed Tech Support on was... SoftWindows
95!  ;^)

I'm not trying to change anybody's religion here, but I think the iMac is a
good first computer for people who really aren't computer people (and I
mean that in a complimentary sense, both to the people and the machine). If
either of them is interested in digital video, they should get the $999
version, which includes a FireWire port (of course, the DV cameras still
cost $X,000.00... but that's another story).

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18211
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:05:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Not meaning to comment on the overall discussion, but one line jumped out at me:

Eli Hestermann wrote:

> ...the embryo cannot give informed consent,

Neither can a 12-year old, legally... but it doesn't mean we deny them treatment.
Isn't that what parents/guardians are for?

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18212
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:03:56 +0900
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin wrote:

> Not meaning to comment on the overall discussion, but one line jumped out at me:
>
> Eli Hestermann wrote:
>
> > ...the embryo cannot give informed consent,
>
> Neither can a 12-year old, legally... but it doesn't mean we deny them treatment.
> Isn't that what parents/guardians are for?

Yes it is.  However, the effects of this decision reach beyond their own children to
future generations in a way that's more direct than other treatments.

Besides, while we're on the topic <g>, parental consent in medical experimentation
could use some examination.  I recently read that 60% of children with cancer
participate in clinical trials while only 2-3% of adults with cancer do.  Some of
this disparity can be explained by the relative lack of standard treatments for
childhood cancers (e.g. breast cancer has several approved treatments, but not many
girls are suffering from it).  But it also appears that parents are willing to go to
greater lengths to cure their children than they would to cure themselves.  Some more
cynical than I have wondered in print whether people aren't more willing to enroll
others rather than themselves in research programs.


--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18213
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:00:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hi. I've read thru this thread. There's a lot of good info here and a little
bad. I'm an IT Manager supporting a few hundred systems right now. My
current shop is Dell/Compaq, my last one was Gateway with a little HP.
Here's my take.

Gateway and Dell are equivalent companies. I've literally called each
company at least 100 times now over the last 5 years. You know, I've had
good days and bad days and great days and really awful days with both of em.
I think it's a wash. Personally I like Gateway. Why? Cool boxes. Cow spots.
Love dem cow spots. The company is fun. They have a great attitude. Dell is
a little more business like. A little more stodgy. No big diff either way
though. Gateay offers a better ISP deal current and I love their YourWare
program where you can trade-in your old computer for a new one every two
years. Dell has a superior tech-support web-site. If you're like me and need
to download device drivers almost daily, Dell is great. But Gateway has a
fine site too.

Now the advice I really want to give are the places to avoid: Compaq,
Packard Bell, Best Buy, Circuit City, Radio Shack, the Mall, local computer
boutiques, and to a lesser degree, IBM. I used to really like IBM especially
for their ThinkPads, but I've had a string of trouble from them lately, so
their falling onto my Bad list.

As for specs, you've got good advice here. What I really didn't see is a
Needs Analysis. Hard to tell you what to get without first knowing what
you're going to do with it. But for typical home use, light word
pro/spreadsheet, web surf/email, and game play I'd get this today:

 Date: Thursday, December 21, 2000 10:58:19 AM CDT
    Catalog Number: 04 19
    Dell Dimension 4100 Series: Dimension® 4100 Series, Pentium® lll
Processor at 866MHz
D4186HB - [220-7474]
    Memory: 128MB 133MHz SDRAM
128M - [311-7001]
    Keyboard: Microsoft® Internet Keyboard, Dell Edition For Windows ME
STDME - [310-0436]
    Monitor: 17 in (16.0 in viewable, .26DP) M781 Monitor
M781S - [320-6888]
    Video Card: 32MB NVIDIA TNT2 M64 AGP Graphics Card
32LOW - [320-3131]
    Hard Drive: 20GB Ultra ATA-100 Hard Drive (7200 RPM)
20 - [340-9909]
    Floppy Drive: 3.5" Floppy Drive
3 - [340-2409]
    Operating System: Microsoft® Windows® Millennium (Windows Me)
WME - [412-2900][420-8050][310-8921][412-1050][412-5430][313-7222]
    Mouse: MS IntelliMouse®
IM - [310-8124]
    Network Card: No Network card
N - [430-0591]
    Modem: 3Com V.90/56K PCI Telephony Modem - Sound Option
V90HS - [313-0471]
    DVD-ROM or CD-ROM Drive: 8X/4X/32X CD-RW Drive
CDRW8 - [313-0504]
    Sound Card: SB Live! Value Digital with Music Match Software
SB512D - [313-7869]
    Speakers: Altec Lansing ACS-340 Speakers with Subwoofer
ACS340 - [313-4501]
    Bundled Software: MS Office SB plus Money 2001 with Free! EducateU
Online Training Pack
EUOB2KH - [422-4044][412-2356][412-2612]
    Norton Antivirus® at no additional charge: Norton Antivirus® 2000 for
Windows Millennium
NAV2KME - [412-2578]
    Limited Warranty and Support: 1 Year Next Business Day On-Site Parts and
Labor, Years 2 and 3 Parts
S3W - [900-3442][900-1600]
    Internet Access Service: 1-Year DellNetT by MSN® Internet Access
Service[add$0]
MSN1YRP - [412-9800]
    Resolution Assistant: Resolution Assistant
RA - [412-0175]
    Proactive Support at no additional charge: Dell Proactive Support by
Attune
ATTUNE - [412-4258]

Now, that's a very nice system. Not overboard. It doens't have a GHZ
processor and super speakers and a 19" monitor. But it does have a subwoofer
and a CDRW. Nice video card too. Features that I think are really nice in a
home system. I'd visit Dell or Gateway's .com sites and configure a system
yourself. That's the best way to see all the options.

Now, if Game Play/Multimedia is not a requirement, _then_  you can drop down
to the Celeron processor systems and save some money. Drop down to about
$900.

Anyway, if you need more advice feel free to mail me. Good luck.





"Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@SPAMTHISprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3a3f3c30.0@news.sff.net...
>
> My brother is finally breaking down and buying a computer for his
> wife; swears he won't touch it and can spend only $1,000. Were it not
> for his Luddite approach to computers in general, I'd be totally
> unqualified to counsel him on his purchase (I'm using a six year old
> Mac, for ****'s sake). OTOH, the closest he's come to using a computer
> is having his groceries scanned at the supermarket. As may be, I've
> told him the following:
>
> *Gateway seems to be a good choice for a package system purchase,
> based on opinions I've trusted in the past;
>
> *Do NOT go the "enslave yourself to XXX ISP for 3 years for a $400
> rebate" route;
>
> *Make sure it has at least 32 MB RAM on board, expandable to at least
> 128 MB (kindly read through the rest before your snort milk or George
> Dickel out of your nose);
>
> *Processor should be a Pentium III or better (keep in mind that he
> hasn't the foggiest as to what a processor is, much less what would be
> better).
>
> I told him these things Sunday night, and then read Jim's WIN2K
> thread. Now I'm thinking I may have given bad advice on some of the
> above. For example: I didn't know that 256 MB of RAM was even
> possible; I'm THAT out of date.
>
> Anyone care to counsel?
>
> --
> Clay Steiner claysteiner@SPAMTHIS.prodigy.net
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Remember: amatuers built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
>



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18214
From: David M. Silver" <agplusone@loop.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:08:46 -0800
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Clay Steiner wrote:

Anyone care to counsel?

Well, I just unwrapped my wife's brand new Christmas present to me, Clay.
The old 6200 Performa (which I think is what you run) is sitting next to
it, and soon will be dedicated to old games and such.

500 Mhz, iMac DVD SE, 256RAM [yes, indeed it's
possible]/30GigDrive/56kIntMod, and it's YUMMY!

Suggest, perhaps, that he buy something other than an IBM clone running
Windows.

Regards,
David



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18215
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 00:11:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:35:02 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I think your number is still too high. $1500 will buy FAR more computer
>than a casual home user needs these days. I say spend $800-$1000 on the

It really depends on how upgradeable you want the base system to be.
I posed the same questions to my in-laws and they went with the
cheaper system with the understanding that they'd basically be getting
a completely new box in three years if they wanted to keep running the
latest software.

As to Robert's discussion about avoiding the chain companies, they do
have one big advantage for the first-time user--you can take it back
someplace locally rather than shipping it someplace for service,
generally without spending a long time on the phone first.  IMO.

And the iMac series should definitely be considered, as long as you
don't want the newest stuff first, especially games!  My first "real"
computer was a Mac SE, and I thought about it long and hard before I
bought my first clone box.  But a Mac these days will give you the
Web, word processing, and digital imaging quite well, I agree.

Anyway, I'm leaving for Christmas travelling, so Merry Merry to all!

JT

 

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18216
From: Deanna S. Higginbotham" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 20:37:43 -0600
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Eli--
    Or, in a less cynical mode, one might consider whether adults are
unwillling to subject their families to the burdens (financial and
otherwise) of  protracted treatment with no proven track record to try to
prolong their own lives, but do not consider it a burden on themselves when
their children's lives are on the line.
--Dee2


Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu> wrote in message
news:3A41731C.BAAEAF17@whoi.edu...

> . . . . I recently read that 60% of children with cancer participate in
clinical trials while only 2-3% of adults with cancer
>do. . . . Some more cynical than I have wondered in print whether people
aren't more willing to enroll others rather than >themselves in research
programs.




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18217
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 04:40:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Just an aside; if "play a few games" means play solitaire and the
like; a mac will do fine. If "play a few games" means they want to be
able to play new games and not wait for a great deal of time
(sometimes forever) for games to be ported to mac, I would heartily
recommend against it. (Granted, some games are written for the mac
first, but these are by far the minority)
Of course, some would say that I focus too much on gaming. Computers
are really for homework, after all! 

>[a] surf the Web, [b] send/receive e-mail and IMs, [c] do their taxes,
>[d] play a few games, and [e] send pictures of the new baby to Aunt

Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18218
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 04:44:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Oooh yeah; after all, BEOS is SO user friendly! <G>
>Suggest, perhaps, that he buy something other than an IBM clone running
>Windows.

Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18219
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:16:41 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:56:33 -0600, "Margaret Albrecht"
<mealbr@bellsouth.net> wrote:

><snip> I was talking with a friend of mine
>who lives in the UK.  She was once a poll worker there.  I asked her what
>they did with write-in votes.  She said they discarded them.  Made me
>wonder, do we actually *count* write in votes?  I know they aren't going to
>change the results of an election, but I don't see a legal basis for
>discarding those votes.  Does anyone know from first hand experience what
>happens here in the US with write-in votes.? (Knowing, of course, that it
>could vary from state to state and county to county.)

I don't know from personal experience, but I have heard that if you
write-in a real, live person, it gets counted; if you write-in "Micky
Mouse" it doesn't.  Funny that your write-in has to be living, but the
winning senatorial candidate on the Missouri ballot did not.  Not that
he still wasn't the best choice <g>.

I did read that there was some young kid (18yo) in the Northeast
somewhere, who went to vote, saw there was no candidate for some local
office, and so went outside and "campaigned" for himself for several
hours.  He got elected with something like 31 write-in votes.

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18220
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 11:21:43 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a431a78.29775583@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett 
writes...

> I don't know from personal experience, but I have heard that if you
> write-in a real, live person, it gets counted; if you write-in "Micky
> Mouse" it doesn't.

Mickey is dead?!?  I didn't even know he was sick!

> Funny that your write-in has to be living, but the
> winning senatorial candidate on the Missouri ballot did not.

Maybe the write-in simply can't be fictional.  BTW, have you ever 
considered what the difference is between Mickey's friends, Goofy and 
Pluto?
....
> I did read that there was some young kid (18yo) in the Northeast
> somewhere, who went to vote, saw there was no candidate for some local
> office, and so went outside and "campaigned" for himself for several
> hours.  He got elected with something like 31 write-in votes.

God bless America! 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18221
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 23 Dec 2000 02:07:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JovBill wrote
>My goal in life
> (well, one of 'em) is to maximize the ratio of time spent doing stuff
I *want* to do
> versus time spent doing stuff I *have to* do... and I'm not at all convinced
that a
> 150 year lifespan will accomplish that.

Well, no, it won't. A smart savings plan, however, combined with the longer
lifespan, will. For example, three basic investing plans, the "Dogs of the
Dow", the "Flying Five", or best of all, the "Foolish Four" will allow you
to readily retire after 40-45 years of saving, and more.

Waste the first 5 years of your productive life, or spend the money on getting
established. Save $100/mo. after that, and assume that your normal savings
get no interest. Additionally, assume you can skip 2 payments a year for
other purposes - emergencies, Christmas, whatever. After 10 years of saving,
you have $10,000 to invest. Use the "Dogs of the Dow", the worst performing
method above.

Since your income has probably increased, start putting away $200/mo., getting
you the $10,000 every 5 years instead. Invest it using the same method above.
Do this every 5 years for the 40 you originally suggested as the minimum
working time.

Assume the "Dogs of the Dow" method does well below what it has done for
many years (18% annually for the past 25 years), and only brings in 15%
per year, compounded annually. This will bring you just over $330,000 in
savings after 25 years, at which time you are at the 40 years point. Retire.
Every 5 years, for the next 25 years, you get an additional $330,000 to
keep you going, for a total of $1.98 million.

Keep in mind that this is fairly pessimistic on the investment return. 
The "Dog's of the Dow" actually brings in 18% per year, averaged over a
25 year period, giving you $625k for the begining of your retirement, and
every 5 years for the first 25 years of your retirement you get another
$625k. The "Foolish Four" brings in 24.5% per year, averaged over 25 years,
giving you just under $2.4 million to retire on (starting with $10,000),
with an additional $2.4 million every 5 years for an additional 25 years.

This will allow you to retire with, assuming an active lifespan of 100 years,
60 years of retirement, starting with $2.4 million and with a total of $14.4
million when you only have 35 years of healthy retirement left.

Will that do?:)

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18222
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 23 Dec 2000 02:13:01 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:

 BTW, have you ever 
considered what the difference is between Mickey's friends, Goofy and 
Pluto?

That's simple. Pluto is a dog. Goofy is a dawg. Dawgs resemble dogs, but
are sentient.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18223
From: Madge Van Ness <madgevn@angelfire.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 06:51:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Yeah, Bob, but they have a program, Virtual Gamestation, that allows my
son's iMac to play the Playstation games. He's been very happy with it
(especially Tony Hawk Pro Skater II...)

MadgEdith

Bob Lawson wrote:

> Just an aside; if "play a few games" means play solitaire and the
> like; a mac will do fine. If "play a few games" means they want to be
> able to play new games and not wait for a great deal of time
> (sometimes forever) for games to be ported to mac, I would heartily
> recommend against it. (Granted, some games are written for the mac
> first, but these are by far the minority)
> Of course, some would say that I focus too much on gaming. Computers
> are really for homework, after all!
>
> >[a] surf the Web, [b] send/receive e-mail and IMs, [c] do their taxes,
> >[d] play a few games, and [e] send pictures of the new baby to Aunt
>
> Bob
> bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
> www.bluepoet.com


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18224
From: David M. Silver" <agplusone@loop.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:14:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Bob Lawson wrote:

> Oooh yeah; after all, BEOS is SO user friendly! <G>

Well, I always thought so. Even back when the "Be" OS was called System 6.
<G> Anyone here running the OS X beta yet? <veg>

David



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18225
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:48:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



"David M. Silver" wrote:

> Anyone here running the OS X beta yet? <veg>

Hmmmph! I'm afraid to even try OS 9. I have a copy, but I'm worried that my
180 MHz 603e-based PowerBase clone will cough it up like a haiball. I'm
working on Spousal Permission for a new machine, either an iMac or a low-end
G4... but it'll probably have to wait 'til [a] Christams is paid for, [b]
we've bough an area rug for our new livingroom, and [c] we've bought new
matresses.

-JovBill


------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18226
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 25 Dec 2000 01:18:31 GMT
Subject: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Politically Correct Christmas Greeting

Best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low
stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, winter solstice holiday, practiced
within the most joyous traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice,
but with respect for the religious persuasion of others who choose to practice
their own religion as well as those who choose not to practice a religion
at all; plus a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically
uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 1998,
but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures
whose contributions have helped make our society great, without regard to
the race, creed, color, religious, or sexual preferences of the wishes.

(Disclaimer: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal.
It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes
for her/himself or others and no responsibility for any unintended
emotional stress these greetings may bring to those not caught up in the
holiday spirit.)

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18227
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 25 Dec 2000 01:33:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Before anyone else says it, yes, that should have been 2001, not 1998.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18228
From: ddavitt <ddavitt@netcom.ca>
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:04:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


I'll just say, Happy Christmas or whatever you celebrate as I watch more
white stuff float down, covering up the magic reindeer food my daughter
scattered outside the back door before going to bed :-).
I wish I were five again......just for tonight......

Jane



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18229
From: storm-weaver@sff.net (Storm Weaver)
Date: 25 Dec 2000 13:34:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Jane Wrote:

>I wish I were five again......just for tonight......

>Jane

Jane...You ARE five, and every single day of your life before and after
5! So see...the magic is still there! Enjoy it (and the snow...it's been
so long since I've seen a white christmas that I'd probably bawl my eyes
out if I looked out the window and saw that soft, white blanket on the ground!)
 
Peace,
Storm

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18230
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:29:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Storm Weaver wrote:

> ...the magic is still there! Enjoy it (and the snow...it's been
> so long since I've seen a white christmas...

My family and I are enjoying our very first white Christmas, plus the first we've
spent all together in our own home (since Mara was born, we've spent every
Christmas 'til this one with one set of grandparents or the other). Yesterday
afternoon we went sledding and stayed out 'til our lungs burned and we couldn't
feel our feet. Last night we went to midnight Mass and sang in the choir (all of
us, plus Mara's cousin from FL); this morning we did the Santa thing (we got a
scanner... our first!... and the girls and I got kick scooters [yes, we know to be
very careful]). Around noontime we went out and observed the Christmas eclipse
(~55% coverage in our neck of the woods), and in a couple hours we have a turkey
dinner planned. Heaven! I wish you all the same joy we're having, today and
throughout the coming year.

-JovBill

PS: Now if I could only get the $^%&#* Nick Click camera to work on the *%&^$
obsolete PC I scrounged for it!   ;^)



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18231
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:42:28 -0600
Subject: Re: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Storm Weaver <storm-weaver@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3a474cfa.0@news.sff.net...
>(and the snow...it's been
> so long since I've seen a white christmas that I'd probably bawl my eyes
> out if I looked out the window and saw that soft, white blanket on the
ground!)

I just had my first somewhat white Christmas I can remember.  I went up to
Georgia and they still had some snow ground from earlier in the week.
Probably not what Bing Crosby had in mind, but it worked for me.
Margaret




------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18232
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:43:50 -0600
Subject: Re: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A47A017.A3E60BA7@ix.netcom.com...
>Heaven! I wish you all the same joy we're having, today and
> throughout the coming year.
>
> -JovBill
>
> PS: Now if I could only get the $^%&#* Nick Click camera to work on the
*%&^$
> obsolete PC I scrounged for it!   ;^)

JovBill,
You really had me going "Ahhhh" up until that last line.
Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18233
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 20:04:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Politically Correct Christmas Greetings!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum



Margaret Albrecht wrote:

> Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3A47A017.A3E60BA7@ix.netcom.com...
> >Heaven! I wish you all the same joy we're having, today and
> > throughout the coming year.
> >
> > -JovBill
> >
> > PS: Now if I could only get the $^%&#* Nick Click camera to work on the
> *%&^$
> > obsolete PC I scrounged for it!   ;^)
>
> JovBill,
> You really had me going "Ahhhh" up until that last line.

Didn't mean to spoil it for you. Just consider that these little nuggets of
frustration are like grains of sand in an oyster (got my wife pearls for
Christmas this year, so I'm thinking along those lines). A few moments of
hell make me appreciate Heaven all the more intensely. We had a great day
skiing today... the first time for my daughter and my niece, and the first
time in >12 years for me. More Heaven (and the hellish way my legs will feel
tomorrow will only remind me of it <g>).

-JovBill



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18234
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 29 Dec 2000 17:12:30 GMT
Subject: Freedomship
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Hurry hurry hurry! Units are going fast! A 300 sq ft economy room with bath
but no kitchen can be obtained for as little as $121k, with $442 in monthly
maintanance. Better buy quick, the prices go up once the ship is built.
A bargain at any price!

http://www.freedomship.com/

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18235
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:26:20 GMT
Subject: Holiday Goodies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

So what was the best present you received during the recent holiday
season?

The best present was lying in bed with my son on Christmas morning and
having him snuggle up for an extra hour's sleep.

I also liked my Playstation "one" (they've renamed the original now
that PS2 is out) that Christine got me.  She gave me Star Wars: Rebel
Assault 2 and Dukes of Hazzard 2 with it, and I bought Tekken 3, NHL
2001, and Space Invaders today.

The last interesting gift was a history of the village of Greenlawn
put out by the local historical society.  It's very strange to look in
a book and see pictures of your family, but the society actually had
copies of family photos that I'd never seen before. (The Tildens once
farmed much of what is now Greenlawn, and sold it off by the
Depression era.)

How about all y'all?

JT

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18236
From: James Hunt" <jhunt@txcyber.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:23:25 -0600
Subject: Re: Freedomship
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

This makes me think of Todos Santos in OOF.
GemStone



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18237
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:08:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Holiday Goodies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum


>So what was the best present you received during the recent holiday
>season?
Well, I saw a few members of my family who I don't see terribly often;
and enjoyed some excellent foods which I typically only have this time
of year. Yams with Marshmallows... mmmm... 

As for material possessions, I got a monitor. I must say it's _far_
superior to my old, beat up, 14 inch. (I am now using a Viewsonic
Optiquest Q71)
Also, I should note that I got a computer game which has proven to be
one of the most immersive I've ever played; I'm extremely impressed.
It's American McGee's Alice. The worlds are absolutely stunning, and
its macabre tone is wonderful. Also, I notice it more than most people
do; I think, but the music is excellent as well.
(BTW if anyone else here is playing it I could use a hint on one
particular level; any help would be appreciated)
Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18238
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 21:34:38 +0900
Subject: Re: Holiday Goodies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

JT wrote:

> How about all y'all?

Well, we-uns had usselves a real nice lunch on Christmas <g>.  Actually,
we had the new experience of going out to lunch and going shopping on
Christmas Day.

My main present I had already picked up: excellent tickets to the January
sumo tournament.

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18239
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 13:36:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Holiday Goodies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a4d1c18.1292187627@news.sff.net>, JT writes...
> So what was the best present you received during the recent holiday
> season?

Probably Raymond Smullyan's book /The Riddle of Scheherazade and Other 
Amazing Puzzles/, written back in 1997, but new to me.  It has 
interesting twists on the two-envelop paradox, which I understand 
exercised some folks here a few years back, and Newcombe's Paradox.
 
-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18240
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:05:16 -0500
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a440a2d.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net writes...
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
> 
>  BTW, have you ever 
> considered what the difference is between Mickey's friends, Goofy and 
> Pluto?
> 
> That's simple. Pluto is a dog. Goofy is a dawg. Dawgs resemble dogs, but
> are sentient.

I prefer the explanation given by the child of a friend of mine: Pluto is 
a dog, but Goofy is a person, although a silly one.  The external 
container is not that critical - or at least that's what the AI folks 
hope!  ;-) 

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18241
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 31 Dec 2000 00:14:17 GMT
Subject: Re: One Vote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Gordon Sollars wrote:

I prefer the explanation given by the child of a friend of mine: Pluto is

a dog, but Goofy is a person, although a silly one.  The external 
container is not that critical - or at least that's what the AI folks 
hope!  ;-) 
************

Well, yes, dawgs are people. So are meeses, like Jerry, Mickey, and Minnie.

Filksinger

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18242
From: Margaret Albrecht" <mealbr@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 23:49:02 -0600
Subject: Quote of the Century
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

I was going through the E on-line site where they have the top twelve of any
number of entertainment related items:  heartthrobs, scandals, etc.  They
also include the top 12 quotes.  Their number one choice was:

"May the Force be with you."

They include the following:
In 1978, a paper presented at the eighth annual convention of the Popular
Culture Associateion reported 46 percent of American were baffled by the
concept of "the Force," a confusion widely shared by the organization's
2,000 members.  Some academics saw it as simple Manichaean dualism, others
as Orthodox Christianity or Hollywood Zen.  Fraser Snowden of Louisiana's
Northwestern State University argued with some passion that the Force
derives from "the impersonal bipolar absolute of Chinese Taoism and the all
encompassing ki energy field of the Japanese art of aikido."

Of course they were all wrong.  As we all know, The Force turned out to be
midi-chlorians.  What a letdown.  What was George Lucas thinking?

Margaret



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18243
From: bobl@nospam.giantsfan.com (Bob Lawson)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 08:48:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Quote of the Century
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

What? Episode 1 isn't canon as far as I'm concerned. I believe "The
Courtship of Princess Leia" goes into this question in some detail;
but it's been a while since I read it.
I'm not a Star Wars geek! Honest! Really! I can quit anytime I
want....

>Of course they were all wrong.  As we all know, The Force turned out to be
>midi-chlorians.  What a letdown.  What was George Lucas thinking?

Bob
bobl@deletethis.bluepoet.com
www.bluepoet.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18244
From: Max <max@sff.net>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:22:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Welcome to sff.discuss.2001
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.2001
            sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

(Please excuse X-post, but thought JT and the others might
have an interest in this group)

Steve Ratzlaff wrote:

>Is anything actually like you were told it would be?  Daily
>commutes  to
>the research towers via hovercraft, social life in the
>undersea bubble communities,
>active exploration in the Mars colonies, etc.  Why is
>reality such a letdown?

I think Heinlein answered that one best:

"the answer to the question 'Why don't they ... ', the
answer is usually 'money'"

I can't remember which book it was, and apologise if the
quote isn't verbatim.

My biggest disappointment coming up to the beginning of
2001: having travelled home to Northern Ireland for
Christmas, discovering that the snow that had started to
fall on the final day of our holiday at 1 pm, resulted in
the airport being shut by the time we got back from the
ballet at 5 pm. Six inches of snow shutting an airport in
this day and age, mutter, grumble.

My second-biggest disappointment: "The Plant" is being
discontinued, whether "temporarily" or not :-(

My third-biggest disappointment: my photos of Donegal don't
look nearly as good on the computer screen as I'd hoped when
I viewed them on my Fuji camera.

My biggest hope: waiving of interest payments on third-world
debt, with the caveat that: if more free cash means more
expenditure on armaments rather than education, equipment
and health, it won't have been such a clever, noble or
Christian thing to have done after all.

I remember writing essays on what 2001 would be like, and it
doesn't look like that at all from here. OTOH, I remember
writing essays on what 1984 would be like, and some, at
least, of Orwell's gloomy vision appears accurate.

YMMV. Happy New Year, and my best wishes to all.
-- 
Max
"Laugh, and the world laughs with you,
 snore and you sleep alone"             - Anthony Burgess

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18245
From: John de Rivaz" <longevityrpt@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:52:28 -0000
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Although it may seem a little odd to suggest this after this year's stock
market performance, I still think that investing over a long period in
technology would be worthwhile.
http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt/shares.htm
gives my views on the matter, including comment on the boom and bust of 2000

Maybe the trough of the current decline will be the buying opportunity of
the next decade. I would be surprised if it came any later than March, or it
could have even passed already.

--
Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt
http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy?
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3a4408d4.0@news.sff.net...
> JovBill wrote
> >My goal in life
> > (well, one of 'em) is to maximize the ratio of time spent doing stuff
> I *want* to do
> > versus time spent doing stuff I *have to* do... and I'm not at all
convinced
> that a
> > 150 year lifespan will accomplish that.
>
> Well, no, it won't. A smart savings plan, however, combined with the
longer
> lifespan, will. For example, three basic investing plans, the "Dogs of the
> Dow", the "Flying Five", or best of all, the "Foolish Four" will allow you
> to readily retire after 40-45 years of saving, and more.
>
> Waste the first 5 years of your productive life, or spend the money on
getting
> established. Save $100/mo. after that, and assume that your normal savings
> get no interest. Additionally, assume you can skip 2 payments a year for
> other purposes - emergencies, Christmas, whatever. After 10 years of
saving,
> you have $10,000 to invest. Use the "Dogs of the Dow", the worst
performing
> method above.
>
> Since your income has probably increased, start putting away $200/mo.,
getting
> you the $10,000 every 5 years instead. Invest it using the same method
above.
> Do this every 5 years for the 40 you originally suggested as the minimum
> working time.
>
> Assume the "Dogs of the Dow" method does well below what it has done for
> many years (18% annually for the past 25 years), and only brings in 15%
> per year, compounded annually. This will bring you just over $330,000 in
> savings after 25 years, at which time you are at the 40 years point.
Retire.
> Every 5 years, for the next 25 years, you get an additional $330,000 to
> keep you going, for a total of $1.98 million.
>
> Keep in mind that this is fairly pessimistic on the investment return.
> The "Dog's of the Dow" actually brings in 18% per year, averaged over a
> 25 year period, giving you $625k for the begining of your retirement, and
> every 5 years for the first 25 years of your retirement you get another
> $625k. The "Foolish Four" brings in 24.5% per year, averaged over 25
years,
> giving you just under $2.4 million to retire on (starting with $10,000),
> with an additional $2.4 million every 5 years for an additional 25 years.
>
> This will allow you to retire with, assuming an active lifespan of 100
years,
> 60 years of retirement, starting with $2.4 million and with a total of
$14.4
> million when you only have 35 years of healthy retirement left.
>
> Will that do?:)
>
> Filksinger



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18246
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:05:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Genetic discoveries
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

In article <3a4408d4.0@news.sff.net>, filksinger@earthling.net writes...
....
> For example, three basic investing plans, the "Dogs of the
> Dow", the "Flying Five", or best of all, the "Foolish Four" will allow you
> to readily retire after 40-45 years of saving, and more.

Do the authors of these plans ever state the number of investment rules 
that they tested /before/ announcing their favorites?

It's very difficult to call ten coin tosses in a row, but very easy - 
given, say, 1024 rules - to find one that worked perfectly.  

-- 
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18247
From: Penn Hackney <penn@att.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:36:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Quote of the Century
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Margaret Albrecht wrote:
> 
[snip]
> In 1978, a paper presented at the eighth annual convention of the Popular
> Culture Associateion reported 46 percent of American were baffled by the
> concept of "the Force," a confusion widely shared by the organization's
> 2,000 members.  Some academics saw it as simple Manichaean dualism, others
> as Orthodox Christianity or Hollywood Zen.  Fraser Snowden of Louisiana's
> Northwestern State University argued with some passion that the Force
> derives from "the impersonal bipolar absolute of Chinese Taoism and the all
> encompassing ki energy field of the Japanese art of aikido."
> 
> Of course they were all wrong.  

Sure were.  Duct tape is the Force:  It's got a dark side, and a light
side, and it binds the universe together.  

>As we all know, The Force turned out to be
> midi-chlorians.  What a letdown.  What was George Lucas thinking?
> 
Well, midi-chlorians are just the rationalist explanation for the
resonant and un-pin-downable effects and concept.  Sort of like what
nuclear physics is to a nuclear explosion.  
-- 
Penn Hackney, Pittsburgh, PA
http://penn.home.att.net/heinlein.htm
The buiscuits and the syrup never come out even. 
 - Lazarus Long, 1912-

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18248
From: CSTilden@seemysig.com (Christine Simoes Tilden)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 01:47:12 GMT
Subject: Happy Birthday JT
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Just wanted to find another way to wish you Happy Birthday, John! Make
sure you tell everyone on here about your card from Daniel <g>.

Love,
Christine 
Christine Simoes Tilden
CSTilden@excite.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18249
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:19:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday JT
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

Dang. She beat me to it. Well, at least I can spill the beans on how many.

Happy 32nd, JT!

--
WJaKe

http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake

"Christine Simoes Tilden" <CSTilden@seemysig.com> wrote in message
news:3a55275f.266094573@news.sff.net...
> Just wanted to find another way to wish you Happy Birthday, John! Make
> sure you tell everyone on here about your card from Daniel <g>.
>
> Love,
> Christine
> Christine Simoes Tilden
> CSTilden@excite.com



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18250
From: Eli Hestermann <ehestermann@whoi.edu>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:40:14 +0900
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday JT
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

29 again?!

Happy Birthday!

--
Eli V. Hestermann
ehestermann@whoi.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa" - Seneca



------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18251
From: Robert Larson" <Robert.Larson@near.nxview.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:42:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Help?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

> As to Robert's discussion about avoiding the chain companies, they do
> have one big advantage for the first-time user--you can take it back
> someplace locally rather than shipping it someplace for service,
> generally without spending a long time on the phone first.  IMO.

IMO this is not a selling point for the chains. I've watched my father carry
in a Packard Bell to Best Buy too many times. It's never pretty. Sure you
get a new system. You lose all your data, program settings, etc. All they'll
do is slap in a new hd with a fresh image or re-image the existing drive.
It's ugly.

Whereas Dell or Gateway will next-day parts to you so you can install them
yourself or if your not comfortable with that they'll send a tech from
Unisys or whichever local VAR they're using to do the install for you. It's
very sweet. I've never in the last 5 years had to send a system back to the
vendor for repair and I've done at least a hundred or two calls to Gateway
and Dell. The one exception being a Dell Laptop that someone here ordered
without the on-site service contract. Arggh.

A next-day 1 year onsite (3yr parts only) warranty is now standard with the
mail-order companies.

> And the iMac series should definitely be considered, as long as you
> don't want the newest stuff first, especially games!  My first "real"
> computer was a Mac SE, and I thought about it long and hard before I
> bought my first clone box.  But a Mac these days will give you the
> Web, word processing, and digital imaging quite well, I agree.

Considered as what? A lawn ornament? <gdr>





------------------------------------------------------------
Article 18252
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:10:42 -0500
Subject: More on the election counting.....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum

While watching the 1948 thriller "Key Largo" with Edward G. Robinson and

Humphrey Bogart I practically fell out of my chair when Robinson
(playing a
gangster as only he could) says to the good guy (Bogart):

"Let me tell you about Florida politicians! I make them out of whole
cloth, just like a tailor makes a suit. I get their name in the
newspaper.
I get them some publicity and get them on the ballot. Then after the
election, we count the votes. And if they don't turn out right, we
recount
them. And recount them again. Until they do."

 ( THIS WAS IN 1948 ! )  ...
----------------------------------------------------

This was actually from a friend, but my (EBay) laserdisc copy is sitting
in my stack to be watched soon.

--
<<Big Charlie>>

"Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things
they make it easier to do don't need to be done."  -- Andy Rooney


------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
Archive of:   sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by:  webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 14:45:48
First article in this archive:  17507
Last article in this archive:   18252
Oldest article in this archive: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 01:18:58 GMT
Newest article in this archive: 6 Jan 2001 01:27:50 GMT