Joe -:- Voting for Nader (Again) (ot) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 20:11:40 (GMT)

__ TD -:- The Presidential Debate - I fell off my chair .... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 14:18:58 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- Hi TD.... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:14:44 (GMT)

__ __ __ Rick (formerly P-man) -:- Hi TD.... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:34:16 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The American Voter -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:20:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- The American Voter -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:30:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- The American Voter -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:02:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Short v. long term interests -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:16:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Short v. long term interests -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:18:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- School Vouchers -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:50:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- School Vouchers -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:42:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Catholic Schools -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:56:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Catholic Schools -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:43:10 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Catholic Schools -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:39:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Last part got clobbered... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:50:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- The American Voter -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:26:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ TD -:- Hi Joe and comments on Death Penalty -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:27:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Spot on, TD -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:52:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ G -:- Death penalty -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:53:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jerry -:- Death penalty fallacy -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:05:51 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Death penalty fallacy -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:14:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Death penalty fallacy -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:59:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Marianne -:- Nothing fair about death penalty -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:40:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- I agree with all three observations (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:21:17 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Death penalty fallacy -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:14:32 (GMT)

__ __ P-man -:- The Presidential Debate - I fell off my chair .... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:00:04 (GMT)

__ __ __ TD -:- The Presidential Debate - I fell off my chair .... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 16:25:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ gerry -:- It was decided months ago that Bush was to be prez -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 16:44:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- It was decided months ago that Bush was to be prez -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:18:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- a tidbit about 'Votescam' -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:45:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- a tidbit about 'Votescam' -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:07:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Gerry -:- a tidbit about 'Votescam' -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:21:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- a tidbit about 'Votescam' -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:33:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Infer or Imply -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:48:11 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You inferred what I only implied... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:21:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Not true, Scott -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:57:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- OK -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:06:52 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- You sound like that guy in King of the Hill.. -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 17:02:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ gerry -:- Did you read 'Vote Scam' ? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 17:42:35 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ ExTex -:- AMEN! Well put Gerry. (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:30:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Did you read 'Vote Scam' ? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:10:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ExTex -:- Skeptical too -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:35:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nigel -:- Beware of the 'false equivalence' -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 11:29:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Hi Nige (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:29:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Beware of the 'false equivalence' -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:06:48 (GMT)

__ Scott T. -:- The minor party game (ot) -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 00:48:37 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- The Stealth Candidate/Party -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:52:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ ExTex -:- Check out this.. -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:46:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Check out this.. -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:11:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Oh yeah, I wish Chomsky was running (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:54:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- So you *are* a socialist after all (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:24:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- The Stealth Candidate/Party -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:53:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- Nader and being stealth -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:09:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- A small misunderstanding. -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:38:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- The grass roots. -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:27:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ Joe -:- Sorry,-- should be NADER, not GORE in first line -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:54:35 (GMT)

__ Jim -:- Voting for Nader (Again) (ot) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:01:04 (GMT)

__ __ Joe -:- Voting for Nader (Again) (ot) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:09:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- What about the house, Joe? -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:40:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Joe -:- There's nothing there, Jim -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:02:00 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ G -:- Other allegations -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 22:33:37 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Other allegations -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:27:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- This that it? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 22:53:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- This that it? -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:41:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ G -:- quotes and sources -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 22:45:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- This is more of the same... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 23:01:31 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- But it DID show up in the Washington Post! -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:10:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Maxine Cheshire -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:44:36 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What are you suggesting, Katie? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:58:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- What are you suggesting, Katie? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:22:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Fair enough .... BUT -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:40:50 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Fair enough .... BUT -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 07:39:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Nader's 100K dollar luxury house. -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:27:43 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sure, Scott, or maybe she's just lying altogether -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:36:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Sure, Scott, or maybe she's just lying altogether -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:26:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yeah, but now YOU'RE assuming something -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:24:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Yeah, but now YOU'RE assuming something -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:46:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- Fair enough .... BUT -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:47:30 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Fair enough .... BUT -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:58:40 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Fair enough .... BUT -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:42:20 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Yes, yes, yes ... see my answer above (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:37:42 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Huh? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:13:24 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Huh? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:45:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Maybe he's proud for his brother.... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:52:27 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Nwo who's obfuscating? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:06:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Why don't you answer the question...... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:18:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Implication can be enough -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:38:57 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Maybe for you, not for me.... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:11:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Poorly written... NOT -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:54:07 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Absolutely right, Scott (nt) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:32:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Wrong, Scott -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:53:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You're not taking the point far enough. -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:41:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- And you're taking it where it just don't go -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:17:12 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- By the way, Jim -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:16:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Jim? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:18:01 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ P-man -:- Maxine Cheshire -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:04:09 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Katie -:- why I'm not a Nader fan -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:28:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- why I'm not a Nader fan -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:56:54 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Oh come on, Scott -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 20:05:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oh come on, Scott -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:07:29 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Oh come on, Scott -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:39:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oh come on, Scott -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:00:22 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Oh come on, Scott -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:32:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- Oh come on, Scott -:- Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 04:22:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Rick -:- why I'm not a Nader fan -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:16:39 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- why I'm not a Nader fan -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:35:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Get a life, Jim in the SOCIETY PAGES -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:12:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- What? That's a nonsequitor -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:20:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Then you didn't read the article, as usual.. -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:24:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, Joe, YOU didn't read it -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 00:44:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Is that it -- 'needlessly vague?' Indeed -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:38:23 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Quit screeching -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:15:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Talk about screeching.... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:01:18 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- You're not reading me carefully -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:30:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Scott T. -:- You're not reading me carefully -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 20:47:59 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- You're not reading that website carefully -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:43:48 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- So I don't deserve an answer, I guess -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:55:58 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- So I don't deserve an answer, I guess -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:04:25 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- Can I tell you something? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:24:34 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Smoke, or smoke rings -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:18:28 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- Smelling smoke or making rings...... -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:15:03 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- There's less than nothing there, Jim -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:06:47 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Jim -:- No, it's just not really clear -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:14:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- No, it's very clear -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:18:55 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Joe -:- And a correction -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:10:21 (GMT)

cq -:- Who ever thought the tobacco companies ... -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:32:23 (GMT)

Nigel -:- Liverpool's First Latvian night... (ot) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:14:37 (GMT)

__ Marianne -:- Liverpool's Next Latvian night... (ot) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:16:26 (GMT)

__ __ Cynthia -:- I came back, how are you? -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:56:21 (GMT)

__ __ __ Marianne -:- Hey there, Cynthia (ot) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 21:42:26 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Autumn has been great(ot) -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:25:14 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ bill -:- Autumn has been great(ot) -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:08:19 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Cynthia -:- Hi Bill.... -:- Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 13:22:08 (GMT)

Jim -:- I volunteer participating coordinating volunteers -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:36:51 (GMT)

__ Steven Quint -:- I volunteer participating coordinating volunteers -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:43:04 (GMT)

__ Steven Quint -:- I volunteer participating coordinating volunteers -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:20:30 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- This is hilarious -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:23:45 (GMT)

__ __ __ Steven Quint -:- This is hilarious -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 16:24:35 (GMT)

__ __ janet of venice -:- kissimmee 78 -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 08:38:33 (GMT)

__ __ __ Jim -:- Relax, janet, relax -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:24:45 (GMT)

__ Selene -:- hahahaha! I think I'll apply. -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:33:38 (GMT)

__ Tonette -:- LMAO!!!! -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:28:16 (GMT)

__ Cynthia -:- Great post! But...I think I want that job! (not)nt -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:12:15 (GMT)

__ Daneane -:- It's about time you showed a little iniative(nt) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:41:18 (GMT)

Jim -:- OK, I'm convinced (OT -- Tonette, keep out!) -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:08:23 (GMT)

__ Nigel -:- Not that old chestnut... -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 18:25:53 (GMT)

__ Tonette -:- I read it anyway. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:32:30 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Fuck off, Tonette -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:04:06 (GMT)

__ __ __ Tonette -:- Nice guy eh? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 07:31:38 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Jim -:- Sorry, there was a joke there? -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 14:18:02 (GMT)

__ Paul -:- de vere is Shakespeare -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 14:10:14 (GMT)

__ __ Steven Quint -:- de vere is Shakespeare -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 14:27:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ janet of venice -:- Fred være, de vere -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 08:47:56 (GMT)

__ will suchabananeare -:- Coming soon: A kingdom for a horse -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 06:47:38 (GMT)

__ Monmot -:- Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture.... TOT -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:30:02 (GMT)

__ __ Jim -:- Ha ha -- but really, wldn't this be a great film? -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:02:53 (GMT)

__ __ __ Scott T. -:- Ha ha -- but really, wldn't this be a great film? -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:21:53 (GMT)

__ __ Monmot -:- Ooops..... TOT -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:34:19 (GMT)

Brian -:- EPO fund-raising -:- Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 21:49:02 (GMT)

__ Forum Administrator -:- Terrific traffic report: the figures march upwards -:- Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 22:26:36 (GMT)

__ __ Brian -:- the figures march upwards -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:24:02 (GMT)

__ __ __ Daneane -:- Rest of the stuff -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:50:49 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ Brian -:- Site stats -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:56:56 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ Jean-Michel -:- I DON'T WANT BEING WIRED TO THIS WEBSITE! -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:41:13 (GMT)

__ __ __ __ __ __ Salam -:- I DON'T WANT BEING WIRED TO THIS WEBSITE! -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:47:59 (GMT)

Brian -:- Help re: Empty Posts -:- Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 21:33:04 (GMT)

__ Lotus Eater -:- Help re: Empty Posts 2 -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 20:57:56 (GMT)

__ __ Brian -:- Help re: Empty Posts 2 -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 04:55:32 (GMT)

__ __ __ Lotus Eater -:- tks, i'll try that with this post, nt -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:19:05 (GMT)

__ __ __ Katie -:- Help re: Empty Posts 2 -:- Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:39:05 (GMT)

__ Lotus eater -:- Help re: Empty Posts -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 20:44:05 (GMT)

__ suchabanana -:- Precisely: and curiously deleted text on posts! nt -:- Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:06:48 (GMT)

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 20:11:40 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Voting for Nader (Again) (ot) Message:

I read with interest what people were saying about the same dilemma I am feeling -- about whether to vote for Nader or not, in what looks like a very close election. I still think Nader dismisses too lightly the threat Bush poses to women's rights and civil rights generally. Having said that Gore was genuinely better on abortion, Nader seems to deny that this would matter. He said: Roe v. Wade 'is a settled issue. We're not going back to the back alley again. Prochoicers are too strong.' But if prochoicers are so strong, how come abortion is already encumbered with more than 300 state restrictions, most carrying criminal penalties? How come George W. Bush signed eighteen antiabortion bills into law in 1999? I read recently that Nader thinks Gore's got the election. And he predicts that the Greens will get the 5% needed to get matching funds and we will get the best of all worlds. He said that Greens will get the 5 percent and the federal funds, and Nader will become a watchdog on Capitol Hill for all those great progressive organizations people pay their twenty-five dollars to join...' I like that outcome, but I'm not so sure. I still think third-party politics is mostly a crock, but then, so is two-party politics. But Nader is so right on so many issues--he is the only candidate who talks about structural poverty, healthcare for all, abolishing the death penalty, cutting the military, ending the drug war, diversifying the media. I wouldn't lift a finger that would help elect George W., but I'm taking a leaf from Molly Ivins, who advises voters to take advantage of our antiquated Electoral College system and go for Nader if they live in a state that's solid for Bush or Gore. If Gore is still up in California on Election Day, I'm voting for Ralph.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 14:18:58 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: Joe Subject: The Presidential Debate - I fell off my chair .... Message:

....when Bush and Gore were talking about hate crimes, and Bush just talked so openly about putting those 3 guys in Texas to death. As though he were talking about a couple of rabid dogs (as dispicable as their crime was, it's hard to reconcile the Christian values espoused by your pollies and the advocate of the death penalty in the same breath!) Only in America!! For an outsider, this is just so fascinating, but also very very scary, especially as whoever heads up America does effect the rest of the world. Surely Bush can't get in. He's like something from the 1950s. You're almost waiting for him to say 'Let's bomb' or 'Let's nuke 'em'. I saw a doco on Nader here (in the US, not Oz), I hadn't heard of him before, but it was refreshing to see another alternative. In Oz, often our third parties tag-line is 'Keeping the bastards honest' in that they won't ever win an election, but they'll enforce a bit more balance of power. Mike Moore was supporting him openly which was interesting. His show 'Awful truth' I think it was called was pretty popular here. He's the king of the political PR stunt.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:14:44 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: TD Subject: Hi TD.... Message:

Hope you are doing well and staying away from the brautwurst.:) I watched the debate last night and it really depressed me. Of course, I watched an earlier one and it depressed me more, so maybe that's an improvement, or maybe I'm just getting numb. Like P-man said, Bush has a very good chance of winning. It will be close, but if I were betting I would bet on Bush, although I sure hope not. There is a lot more opposition to the death penalty than there used to be in this country. I saw a poll recently that said that 70% of the public is in favor of a moratorium on executions, because there has been so much publicity that innocent people are on death row (some getting off thanks to DNA and other things). But you are right, Texas is a disgrace in the assembly line that is the execution chamber down there. It's disgusting. When Bush ran against Ann Richards for governor, many of the debates were over which of the two candidates would execute MORE people than the other. Really scary stuff. Bush says with hand on heart that he carefully considered those executions, but Gail Sheehy has pretty convincing proof that George W. is dyslexic, and his former chief of staff says he has an attention span in the vicinity of 15 minutes. He likely was unable even to even read those clemency petitions, nor maintain concentration for the time required. Politics are a sad thing in this country. Half of the eligible voters don't vote. I know you Aussies are REQUIRED to vote by law, but here, half the population is so turned off that they don't even bother, and we have among the lowest turnout for elections of any country. We will probably get less than 50% turnout in this election, meaning that the election will be decided by voters who are older, richer, whiter and more conservative than the country as a whole. It's really sad. I don't think we can really say we have a democracy anymore.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:34:16 (GMT) From: Rick (formerly P-man) Email: None To: Joe Subject: Hi TD.... Message:

Bush says with hand on heart that he carefully considered those executions, but Gail Sheehy has pretty convincing proof that George W. is dyslexic, and his former chief of staff says he has an attention span in the vicinity of 15 minutes. He likely was unable even to even read those clemency petitions, nor maintain concentration for the time required. This is what I find so amazing about Bush's popularity. Here's a guy who the minute he walks out and says two words, is obviously unintelligent, adolescent, petty, boastful, incapable, shallow, and insincere. Even if he weren't all those things, I would recommend he doesn't run for office because he so clearly appears that way. I mean, this guy would be lucky to get a job in middle-management at a grain-elevator manufacturer in Kansas. And that would only be because his uncle owned the plant. So why do people who have at least average intelligence think Bush should be president? I'm baffled. I really wish Mario Cuomo were running for president because the contrast between someone who obviously displays intelligence against Bush, would be more effective in exposing just how 'out of his league' he is.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:20:20 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Rick (formerly P-man) Subject: The American Voter Message:

Rick: This is what I find so amazing about Bush's popularity. Here's a guy who the minute he walks out and says two words, is obviously unintelligent, adolescent, petty, boastful, incapable, shallow, and insincere. Even if he weren't all those things, I would recommend he doesn't run for office because he so clearly appears that way. Because that describes the typical disinterested voter. Also because Gore's campaign sucks, and apparently suffers from a certain elitist detachment. This is no accident, because the crowd he hangs out with *are* elitist and detached, and that's precisely the sort of government you'd get at the highest levels. Not that this would be the worst thing in the world. It'd probably be pretty competent in most respects. I suggest we start practicing our excuses to the rest of the world as to why we have yet another president from Texas who speaks only a rudimentary form of the English Language and has attention deficit disorder. It's not as if this is the first time either thing has happened. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:30:17 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: The American Voter Message:

You also can't underestimate the sheer personal greed among voters. Bush's huge tax cuts are all some people need to hear. I was talking to a guy in San Francisco, a gay man, working for a pharmaceutical company, with a healthy income. He said he was voting for Bush. When I asked how a gay man could vote for a homophobic party, he just said he didn't care and all he cared about was tax cuts. He said the NASDAQ had gone down, he wasn't as wealthy as he was, and he wants lower taxes to compensate. I really think the 'I got mine' mentality, which has increased exponentially since Reagan, is extremely strong in this election. Frankly, they don't care is Bush is stupid, or anything else. It's just about money.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:02:27 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: The American Voter Message:

Joe: Well, I'm not arguing that I'm above such crass considerations myself. In a sense I'm between a rock and a hard place. I have huge educational debt, and not much saved for retirement. In the absence of any really effective socio-economic policy I'd be a fool not to want to take advantage of what might be my best earning years under Bush. My income curve is highly skewed toward later life, so I need to dump as much as possible from what might be a relatively high income into Roth IRAs, etc., and a lower tax rate helps. Nearly all of the studies on school voucher systems, from both sides of the political spectrum, show big potential gains for students who use vouchers, and some more modest gains for those who don't. So Gore is just in the back pocket of the NEA on this. He doesn't really know what he's talking about. The dilemma on education policy is that rank and file democrats would clearly benefit from vouchers, while rank and file republicans would either be hurt or would break even. The elites in both parties have ideological convictions at odds with their own constituencies. It's a real bugger of a dilemma for the pols. As you point out, Gore is also on the wrong side of the death penalty issue so he can't even hit Bush over the head with Bush's most obvious ethical lapse, and of course he opposes a National Health Plan and has appointed a politician clearly in bed with the insurance industry as his running mate. So, there's not really much in it for me to vote for Gore, either personally or ideologically. I do care, however, that Bush appears to be rather dull-witted, and therefore can't bring myself to vote for him. Which reminds me: I need to make sure I'm registered in Maryland. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:16:56 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Short v. long term interests Message:

Well, I'm not arguing that I'm above such crass considerations myself. In a sense I'm between a rock and a hard place. I also would benefit (in the short term) much more under Bush's tax proposals than I would under Gore. In fact, I would get a substantial tax benefit under Bush and nothing under Gore, being that I am single, don't have kids, and an income above the limitations on the Gore plan. But that's the short term. I remember the Reagan tax cuts, the quadrupling of the national debt, resulting high interest rates, and recession. I really do believe that Gore's economic plan is more sensible, if for nothing else than to eliminate the national debt early and eliminate the huge interest payments we are all making on that debt. Plus, since American's don't save, I'm for banking some of the surplus. The government 'savings' would have the same effect as the savings of individuals. It keeps interest rates down, and leaves lots of capital for investment. Also, if you have debt and trouble saving for retirement, all the more reason that you might have to rely more on Social Security and Medicare, and Gore is a whole lot better on that than Bush is. Bush says he can fund SS 'from the surplus,' but as Gore points out his numbers are illusory, and Gore's plan actually does have a much better chance that SS and medicare will be around for when the baby boomers retire. Nearly all of the studies on school voucher systems, from both sides of the political spectrum, show big potential gains for students who use vouchers, and some more modest gains for those who don't. So Gore is just in the back pocket of the NEA on this You are just wrong here, Scott. First, there have been very few studies, the voucher programs that exist are so limited that they don't give an accurate sample anyway, and the downside destruction to the public school system (not to mention subsidizing millions of kids who are already in private school and their parents are quite able financially to send them there which is a complete waste of money), is just too great. We have another voucher proposition on the California ballot this year. Another one lost badly in 1995. The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced it is a really dumb idea. 90% of people send their kids to public schools, and I am against siphoning off money from them, to send kids to schools that don't even require certified teachers, let alone any kind of public accountability. It's a nice theory, but I'm against, that. Fortunately, the polls show it's going to lose again in California.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:18:54 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Short v. long term interests Message:

Joe: Also, if you have debt and trouble saving for retirement, all the more reason that you might have to rely more on Social Security and Medicare, and Gore is a whole lot better on that than Bush is. Just wouldn't be enough to live on. Simple as that. In other words, the status quo just won't work for me... and I don't think succeeding generations will underwrite SS anyway, and due to the 'Graying of America' syndrome they'll have to at some point. But my biggest concern is that even if they did, it still wouldn't be enough for me. That's the reality of it, I'm afraid. You are just wrong here, Scott. First, there have been very few studies, the voucher programs that exist are so limited that they don't give an accurate sample anyway, and the downside destruction to the public school system (not to mention subsidizing millions of kids who are already in private school and their parents are quite able financially to send them there which is a complete waste of money), is just too great. Yeah, I know that's the argument. As a general rule studies by sociologists sort of take this tack, while studies by political scientists don't concur. Some examples that I happen to have lying on the floor next to me: 'Making Democratic Education Work,' David E. Campbell, Harvard University Dept. of Govt. and Program on Education Policy and Government (APSA Panel Paper, Sept., 2, 2000); 'The Effect of School Choice: An Evaluation of the Charlotte Children's Scholarship Fund Program,' Jay P. Greene, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute of Policy Research - Center for Civic Education (Civic Report, August, 2000). 'Test-Score Effects of School Vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington, DC: Evidence from Randomized Field Tests,' William G. Howell, Patrick J. Wolf, Paul E. Peterson and David E. Campbell (Taubman Center for State and Local Government and the Center for American Political Studies, Harvard University). This last study is a field experiment, rather than a statistical evaluation under uncontrolled conditions, so the conclusions are pretty robust. As I said, in this regard the sociologists are behind the curve relative to the recent findings by political scientists. And, somewhat ironically, the biggest winners would clearly be minorities. The effect on public schools is not clear, though it appears that they do not as yet demonstrate much of a propensity to compete directly and substantively with private schools to whom they lose students. Instead they seem to respond with 'new programs' that appeal to parents, but don't really revamp the system. However, a widespread move toward private schools under a voucher system might elicit a much more substantive response. There's not any justification to remove funding from public schools in order to support vouchers, but there is absolutely no evidence that increased funding for public schools in the absence of a need to compete improves test scores at all. I mean really no evidence. Indeed, we have known this since the Coleman Report almost 40 years ago. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:50:23 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: School Vouchers Message:

There's not any justification to remove funding from public schools in order to support vouchers, but there is absolutely no evidence that increased funding for public schools in the absence of a need to compete improves test scores at all. Well, this isn't the case in California, which has increased funding to schools to reduce class size. Scores have gone up without any kind of vouchers, and studies show that reduced class size does increase scores. You can also induce competition without vouchers, which is also being done in California, and to his credit, Bush also did it in Texas. All the schools have their scores published, parents can chose their public school, and schools that improve get increased funding -- teachers even get bonuses. If a school fails, it can be shut down and re-opened with an entirely new management and staff. This is also accountability. There is a big downside to that, though. And that is, that teachers begin teaching the test. There is at least some evidence this is happening. I don't disagree that studies might show improvement in the voucher situation, but those are extremely limited programs. EXTREMELY limited. Once a voucher program is done on a large-scale basis everything changes. First, there aren't enough private schools to take all the students. Second, there aren't any regulations or accountability about what private schools do. Private schools can pick and choose and only take the cream, leaving the public schools with the dregs. Private schools are expensive, and vouchers only cover a portion. This favors the wealthy over the poor from benefiting from the vouchers. And even less funding goes to the public schools because the money is siphoned off. There is also a possible constitutional problem about using vouchers for religious schools. It's just a really bad idea.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:42:58 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: School Vouchers Message:

Joe: Well, this isn't the case in California, which has increased funding to schools to reduce class size. Scores have gone up without any kind of vouchers, and studies show that reduced class size does increase scores. You can also induce competition without vouchers, which is also being done in California, and to his credit, Bush also did it in Texas. All the schools have their scores published, parents can chose their public school, and schools that improve get increased funding -- teachers even get bonuses. I beg your pardon, the findings involved 'charter' schools not, as a rule, private schools. There was a recent book with Frederick Hess as the lead author. I think it was entitled something like The Competitive Response to Charter Schools. I'm currently considering co-authoring a paper on the impact of resources, class size, teacher education, etc., but I'm not very familiar with that literature. I'm the number cruncher. David Armor and Eric Hanuschek are, so I'll ask them when I get a chance. I'm not really hung up on private schools being the only answer, but there is something that Catholic Schools do that's very hard to replicate elsewhere, and Catholic schools have, by far, the best results (in terms of citizenship, racial attitudes, *and* achievement). If a school fails, it can be shut down and re-opened with an entirely new management and staff. This is also accountability. There is a big downside to that, though. And that is, that teachers begin teaching the test. There is at least some evidence this is happening. Yes, given the opportunity teachers will teach to the test. For this reason we usually use the first year that a particular version of the test is given, and if possible only the first administration. There are downsides to standardized testing, but I think the upsides vastly outweigh those. Besides, analyzing standardized tests is what I do, so the more the merrier. I don't disagree that studies might show improvement in the voucher situation, but those are extremely limited programs. EXTREMELY limited. Once a voucher program is done on a large-scale basis everything changes. First, there aren't enough private schools to take all the students. I think this is the most cogent argument, and I don't really have a counter. I have no idea what would happen if we started creating a lot more private Catholic schools in the inner city. The only way to tell is to have pilot programs that go beyond the Dayton/NYC/DC field experiment. Second, there aren't any regulations or accountability about what private schools do. Private schools can pick and choose and only take the cream, leaving the public schools with the dregs. Private schools are expensive, and vouchers only cover a portion. This favors the wealthy over the poor from benefiting from the vouchers. Well, the Dayton/NYC/DC study controls for this by randomizing selection. There is one point where bias might have crept in, as some people deliberately dropped out of the programs on their own, but I personally don't think this issue is a very serious flaw. The study also paid the entire tuition, not just a portion of it, as well as some peripheral expenses. Seems to me you ought to be making this point whenever anyone discusses a voucher program, rather than issuing a blanket statement against the idea. And even less funding goes to the public schools because the money is siphoned off. The issue is whether 'per pupil' expenditures would go down, and it's not at all clear that would be the case. If possible I'd argue the per pupil expenditures ought to go up. There is also a possible constitutional problem about using vouchers for religious schools. It's just a really bad idea. Frankly I don't know case law on this, but it might be an issue with Catholic schools. I gather from my colleagues that it's not an insurmountable one. BTW, the overall effect of switching to private schools for African Americans was 0.33 standard deviations, and was highly significant. The effect was negative for white students from the same schools, but was not significant so there really isn't an effect. See what I mean? The authors speculate as follows: 'At this point we do not know why the gains from switching to a private school are evident for black students after two years, but not for students from other ethnic backgrounds. In earlier reports from these evaluations, parents have reported that private schools are smaller in size, maintain a better disciplinary climate, ask students to do more homework, maintain closer communication with families, and have slightly smaller classes (about 3 fewer pupils). It remains to be seen whether any or all of these factors are especially associated with black test-score performance. Given the widespread concern about racial differences in academic performance, our research is particularly salient in that it suggests that school voucher programs may have the capacity to shrink the black-white test-score gap for participating students.' --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:56:01 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Catholic Schools Message:

I beg your pardon, the findings involved 'charter' schools not, as a rule, private schools. There was a recent book with Frederick Hess as the lead author. I think it was entitled something like The Competitive Response to Charter Schools. Well that's fine. Charter schools are public schools and they can encourage innovation, so I'm all for them. There is a charter elementary school right in my neighborhood that is doing very well. I'm not really hung up on private schools being the only answer, but there is something that Catholic Schools do that's very hard to replicate elsewhere, and Catholic schools have, by far, the best results (in terms of citizenship, racial attitudes, *and* achievement). Speaking as someone who had 12 years of Catholic school education, I can tell you why that is, at least partly. It's because if you are a problem in a Catholic school you get kicked out and the public schools have to take that student. If you can do that, you tend to end up as a college-prep school. Often, as was the case where I went to school, any non-academic courses, shop, art, music, etc., are minimal or lacking entirely. So, you end up with college prep kids and the school ranks very, very high when compared to schools that can't be selective. There is also a lot more discipline and order, which helps, but also has its downside. Frankly, I think Catholic School can be kind of stifling of creativity, but I suppose public schools can be too. Some Catholic schools do operate in the inner cities. These are usually parish schools that used to be all Irish or Italian or whatever, and are now all black of hispanic. They do get higher scores than the regular public schools, but its for the same reasons (being selective and kicking kids who are a problem out.) Also, working class parents who are shelling out tuition to send their kids to a Catholic School are usually pretty committed and are going to perhaps be a little more involved in making sure their kids do their homework.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:43:10 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Catholic Schools Message:

Joe: First, a couple of corrections to some previous statements I made about selection. Selections in the three programs were done by lottery, and vouchers for those families at or below the poverty line paid approximately 60% of tuition. Families with income above the poverty line received smaller scholarships. Now, you're not quite following me here with respect to the test results and bias. This was a panel study, so the improvements were for the same individuals in different schools followed over a period of years. An assumption is made that improvements for those not in the program would have been similar to those who were chosen by lottery. There is no reason to regard this assumption as unrealistic. Dropouts were a factor, but as far as I know admission standards and expulsions were not since all of the students chosen found a school, and performance was averaged across all of the schools attended. Let me repeat, for the most part only *self* selection was an issue, and then only in the sense that applications for the lottery may have been initially limited to those families with a genuine interest, and dropouts may have further narrowed that field. For the most part the study controlled for normal demographics, such as socio-economics, race, family structure, etc. so bias could have only resulted from a combination of self selection *and* unidentified factors not included in the model. Finally, we are still left with a quandary as to why improvements were so dramatic for African Americans and not for other racial groups. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:39:55 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Catholic Schools Message:

My only point what that those were extremely limited programs, and it's a completely different story if you are going to have vouchers on a state-wide basis, which is what Bush wants, and what Prop. 38 in CA would do. If you do that, it's bad for the public schools, and unworkable because there aren't enough private school spots, as well as other problems. From a public policy perspective, I would rather have my tax dollars going to improve the public schools, reducing class size, and to a system which is accountable for how they spend my tax money, rather than seeing some of my tax money go to private schools with no accountability, and at the same time, reducing funding for public schools.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 21:50:48 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Last part got clobbered... Message:

Sorry, the last part of the previous post got clobbered so currently doesn't make sense. Here's what it should have said: There is also a possible constitutional problem about using vouchers for religious schools. It's just a really bad idea. Frankly I don't know case law on this, but it might be an issue with Catholic schools. I gather from my colleagues that it's not an insurmountable one. BTW, the overall effect of switching to private schools for African Americans was 0.33 standard deviations, and was highly significant. The effect was negative for white students from the same schools, but was not significant so there really isn't an effect. See what I mean? The authors speculate as follows: 'At this point we do not know why the gains from switching to a private school are evident for black students after two years, but not for students from other ethnic backgrounds. In earlier reports from these evaluations, parents have reported that private schools are smaller in size, maintain a better disciplinary climate, ask students to do more homework, maintain closer communication with families, and have slightly smaller classes (about 3 fewer pupils). It remains to be seen whether any or all of these factors are especially associated with black test-score performance. Given the widespread concern about racial differences in academic performance, our research is particularly salient in that it suggests that school voucher programs may have the capacity to shrink the black-white test-score gap for participating students.' --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:26:48 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: The American Voter Message:

Good point about American voters... hadn't even thought about that.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:27:25 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: Joe Subject: Hi Joe and comments on Death Penalty Message:

Hi Joe, no bratwurst yet. But I've had Oktoberfest beer (yummy), and a big Deutsch steak with red cabbage. And I tried a New England fish called a Tautog last night! That's great news that it's likely 70% of American citizens would want to see a moratorium on the death penalty. It's always seemed odd, that the vast majority of Western developed countries did away the death penalty years ago, and yet the US keeps it up. I guess it's like the gun issue though too, although it seems that there have been enough school shootings here to trigger (bad pun) off more public sentiment that guns need more control here. As for the death penalty being a deterrant to crime, I recommend anyone to read 'When the State Kills' by Amnesty International. My first job was as a publicist with Amnesty and I got to meet Paul Hill of the Guildford Four (of In the Name of the Father fame), who said that if the death penalty had existed in the UK, they'd be 4 dead innocent men. Pretty sobering thought. I saw a doco here (US) on that DNA case that got that guy released who Bush was gonna send to the chair. I mean, unbelievable. And they said that was the first person on death row, Bush has ever prevented going from the chair. How many other innocents got fried? Anyway, in that book, it provides enough statistical data and research on how now only is the death penalty not a deterrant, but it in many cases actually exacerbates other negative patterns in societies where it exists. Especially in those countries where they still practice public execution, they note that it actually brutalises a society (kids watching somebody having their head sliced off is a bit different to watching Playschool). It's got some great quotes by famous people against the death penalty too. One guy said 'until you can absolutely guarantee the infallibility of the justice system, then I can never advocate the death penalty'. But even if you take away any stats or research, the big winning argument for me, is that murder in most cases (unless they're approaching it like an assasination, or premeditated), is an emotional and irrational act done by somebody pushed to their extreme by themselves or by people around them at a precise moment in time. It's a bit like how we would be in an argument with a partner, and it gets so emotional and fraught, that you end up saying something that you regret, regardless of the consequences, because at that precise moment in time, the consequences don't exist for you. So it is for the person who conducts murder in a state that has the death penalty. I bet the last thing on their mind when they kill somebody, is that they are themselves are likely to be killed too. Actually last night on the Justice Files (I'm getting up on all your shows) they had the story on Phil Hartman's murder, and I don't think his Missus would have been thinking at all about any death penalty consequence (is it still in California?) in the state she was in when she eventually did it - fucked up on all manner of drugs with a history of rampant insecurity and fights with Phil. As they said on the show, she just suddenly freaked and did it. Would the threat of the death penalty have prevented her from doing it on that night? Doubtful.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:52:27 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: TD Subject: Spot on, TD Message:

It is of considerable embarrassment to many Americans that we still have the brutality of the death penalty. And yes, unfortunately, we have it in California, although I think there are about 15 or 20 states that don't. Notably, New York very recently instituted the death penalty after not having it for decades. California only recently started executing people again. I think there have been around 4 in the past 25 years. But California has over 300 people on death row. Texas and Florida, but especially Texas, are notorious for executing people, for giving poor people the worst possible representation in their trials and appeals, and it is all so routine there, that almost nobody notices. Illinois, on the other hand, has suspended all executions, because something like 11 people who were on death row have now been proven innocent. Shocking. A number of people were framed by the police, had evidence fabricated or withheld, or just didn't get a fair trial. All those studies about how the death penalty doesn't deter crime and might actually increase it, how the death penalty is racially and unfairly applied, and how innocent people get executed, have been widely distributed, but the opinion of the public, and the shameless cowardace of elected officials on this issue, has been extremely slow to change.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:53:13 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Joe Subject: Death penalty Message:

I didn't believe Bush when he said that he carefully considered the cases. I recall there was one case that seemed very much in doubt, but he let the execution happen. I believe he is not for reopening murder cases when there is new DNA evidence. I was disappointed with Gore saying he's for the death penalty, but at least he qualified it with 'in the worst cases' (or similar wording) and talked about the need to use DNA evidence. Not a word about that from Bush.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:05:51 (GMT) From: Jerry Email: None To: Joe Subject: Death penalty fallacy Message:

Joe, Recently, in a study done by the New York Times, it was shown that the death penalty does NOT deter murder or manslaughter, so I was surprised when, in last night's debate, both candidates said they believed that it was a deterrent. Who's advising these guys? I mean, the results of the study were printed right on the front page. I think Nader gets it right with the issues, too. Some people will say he does because he doesn't owe anything to special interest groups, but I don't know. Are Bush and Gore that bought and sold? I'd hate to think so, especially since I'm voting for Gore. But my main beef with Nader is what kind of experience does he have? You seem to be the most politically savvy person on this forum. Let me ask you. Do you think a guy with Nader's experience is biting off way more than he can chew by running for Peseident? Or do you think he's as qualified as any other politician to run the country?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:14:28 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Death penalty fallacy Message:

Jerry: Recently, in a study done by the New York Times, it was shown that the death penalty does NOT deter murder or manslaughter, so I was surprised when, in last night's debate, both candidates said they believed that it was a deterrent. Who's advising these guys? I mean, the results of the study were printed right on the front page. Bearing in mind that I haven't actually read the article in question, I have serous doubts that anyone could 'prove' that the death penalty has no deterent effect. It's possible to show that one can't reject that hypothesis, given the evidence, but that's not quite the same thing. Statistical analysis of social science data generally has such low R-squared values that there is lots of unaccounted for variation. I don't think any social scientist would attempt to prove a negative. But the real issue, as John Gray observed, is that even if the deterrent effect were enormous the mistaken execution of innocent people offsets that advantage because it undermines the notion of justice. If people cannot expect just treatment under the law then whatever deterent punishment has must eventually be eroded by the uncertainty of appropriate punishment. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:59:26 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Death penalty fallacy Message:

What the studies generally show is that states that have the death penalty have higher rates of capital crime than states that don't, and also that after states institute the death penalty, the rate of capital crime hasn't gone down, and in some cases has gone up. It isn't a direct cause and effect relationship, but it's hard to argue the other side. Certainly there even less proof for that. There are also studies of individual criminals, looking into whether the death penalty, or the lack thereof, had any influence on their decision to commit the crime. Again, this is difficult, but the studies haven't found any correlation. Then there are the more significant studies, showing that the death penalty is racially applied. I really think this is the most significant issue. The idea that the death penalty is unfair, unjust, unfairly applied. For example, if you are black and murder a white person, you are many many times more likely to get the death penalty than a white person in the same state who kills a black person. This can just be shown statistically, and it's pretty convincing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:40:53 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Joe Subject: Nothing fair about death penalty Message:

Ok guys. I have been studiously avoiding posting much of anything here as I have actually been working on my death penalty cases, but when I saw these posts, I had to pipe up. I have been representing people on death row in California for 13 years. I know people all over the country who represent death sentenced inmates. The problems with the death penalty are myriad. Race is the most troubling issue. A minority defendant who kills a caucasian is statistically much more likely to be charged with a capital crime, convicted and sentenced to death. Secondly, the attorneys who are appointed to represent capitally charged defendants often have little or no experience, and receive very little financial assistance in defending someone charged with a capital crime. For instance, in the great state of Arkansas, a criminal defense atty at trial gets the tidy sum of $2,500 TOTAL for his fees, investigation and any experts -- like for DNA testing, psychiatrists, forensic experts, etc. The south is filled with states which do the same. Klan members are appointed to represent black capitally charged defendants. The stories are too horrifying and sadly to frequent to reiterate here. The state, on the other hand, has unlimited financial resources with which to see that the defendant is convicted and sentenced to death. After conviction and appeal (where the everything is usually rubber stamped), there's a small cadre of folks like me out here who take on these cases in the last stages of review and try to save people from execution. Some federal courts appoint us now and actually give us meaningful funds at this stage, but often the missteps of the prior attorneys have foreclosed federal habeas corpus review. It is possible for your client to be executed, even if you can prove he was innocent, because you filed your habeas corpus petition one day late. This happened to Roger Coleman in Virginia a few years ago. The death penalty is a political tool. It is a legacy of slavery. It has no place in a democratic society. That's my rant for today. Now I have to go back to finding nicer ways of saying this to the judges I'm trying to persuade. Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:21:17 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: I agree with all three observations (nt) Message:

ctac

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:14:32 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jerry Subject: Death penalty fallacy Message:

Recently, in a study done by the New York Times, it was shown that the death penalty does NOT deter murder or manslaughter, so I was surprised when, in last night's debate, both candidates said they believed that it was a deterrent. Who's advising these guys? I mean, the results of the study were printed right on the front page. I think they said it because the general population still believes, erroneously, that the death penalty deters crime. Also, let's face it, people want revenge. But a political candidate couldn't say that, so they say they believe it deters crime. Gore remembers what happened to Michael Dukakis, the last anti-death-penalty candidate, and he isn't about to let it happen to him. Dukakis was 'Willy Horton-ed' out of the election, which was a driect appear to racism and revenge, the worst qualities in the electorate. I think Nader is many times more qualified than Bush is, by far. He's been active in politics for 40 years. But could he function as President? Probably not, not with the kind of system we have, which is based on the two parties. I'm going to vote for him, IF Gore is far enough ahead in California, because I think we need an alternative to the tw-party system, in which the cadidates agree on most things, although there are a number of significant differences, and because I agree with Nader on most everything. I'm really tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I think Gore sucks. If it weren't for Bush being much worse, I wouldn't even consider voting for him.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:00:04 (GMT) From: P-man Email: None To: TD Subject: The Presidential Debate - I fell off my chair .... Message:

Unfortunately, Bush has a very good chance of winning the presidential election.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 16:25:54 (GMT) From: TD Email: None To: P-man Subject: The Presidential Debate - I fell off my chair .... Message:

Egads!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 16:44:03 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: TD Subject: It was decided months ago that Bush was to be prez Message:

It's the Republicans' turn. And there really isn't a two party system in this country-it's all one power elite. Read Vote Scam by Joe Collier. You'll see that the vote is counted by electronic means by a company owned by media moguls. No wonder their 'projections' of who is the winner are so uncannily accurate.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:18:12 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: gerry Subject: It was decided months ago that Bush was to be prez Message:

Gerry: Is there a conspiracy theory you don't like? Ever heard of 'vote watchers?' --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:45:14 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: a tidbit about 'Votescam' Message:

Among the gory details of the book we read about Mr. Jim Condit, Jr., of Cincinnati, Ohio who was part of a group which had been investigating a local VOTESCAM since 1979 and which resulted in court action. Judge Richard Niehaus declared that there is absolutely no way to determine the authenticity of voting results via computer tally and later refused to take action because he is 'a pacifist judge'. Condit called upon the Colliers in 1985 to help with his investigation. They surreptitiously videotaped a group of League of Women Voters volunteers using tweezers to pluck out tabs from punchcard ballots. A close up shot revealed that every tab was in the exact same spot on every card. This coincided with evidence the Colliers had gleaned in Miami years earlier where they discovered that precinct captains had taken ballot cards home a week before elections to punch out a slate of candidates using an IBM Port-o-punch. This device could punch identical holes in a pad of 50 cards. The tweezers were used to pull out tabs that didn't 'fall out' because the cards were packed together when they were punched.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:07:20 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: gerry Subject: a tidbit about 'Votescam' Message:

Gerry: So, you're implying that some volunteers for the League were corrupted, or that the leadership and executive officers were corrupted, or what? What happened? I mean, it's not as if vote fraud never happens. The point is that large scale strategic fraud would be nearly impossible to accomplish, given the nature of the interests involved, correlation with horse race polls, etc. Have you ever worked in the electoral system, either as a campaign official, organizer, or volunteer? I have, and I think I know what the system is about. It's complicated but vote fraud plays a *very* small part, if any. Mostly, elections are back-breaking work with long hours and inadequate pay... and winning is a matter of being creative about how you take advantage of unforeseen events. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:21:39 (GMT) From: Gerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: a tidbit about 'Votescam' Message:

Hi Scott, No, I've never worked an election. Check out these sites when you get time... Votefraud and NetworkAmerica

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:33:05 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Gerry Subject: a tidbit about 'Votescam' Message:

Gerry: Thanks. And here's a site that contains more than vague innuendo or simplistic conspiracy theories: http://www.vanishingvoter.org/ --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:48:11 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Infer or Imply Message:

I get those two confused... Anyway, do you think those two sites I linked contain merely 'vague innuendo or simplistic conspiracy theories?' If so, how did you determine this in less than twelve minutes?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:21:47 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: gerry Subject: You inferred what I only implied... Message:

Thanks for the illustration. Actually, I don't yet know what those sites contain since I haven't done more than glance at them. I'm inferring, from what I know about statistical correlation and aggregate evidence from sources like the National Election Survey, that as a general rule elections reflect public optinion, at least in a 2 dimensional way. That, frankly, doesn't leave much room for corruption of the 'vote fraud' variety on a large scale. Not that fraud doesn't or hasn't happened. The Kennedy/Nixon election was probably determined by a fairly large number of recently deceased voters in the Chicago area... and then someone in Hollywood glommed onto the idea to write the script for Night of the Living Dead. But, as Nigel so eloquently put it, the burden of proof for a general strategic conspiracy is enormously high. And most places have more effective vote watcher regulations than Chicago in the 1960s. BTW, in case you didn't know, each campaign is allowed to assign one volunteer per precinct whose job/purpose is to challenge voters, either on the basis of proper registration or some other relevant criterion. They also watch and observe during the vote counting procedure, and can even examine computers and software used to count votes in some circumstances. Sometimes their work makes a difference in the outcome. I've done it on more than one occasion. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:57:30 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Not true, Scott Message:

The Kennedy/Nixon election was probably determined by a fairly large number of recently deceased voters in the Chicago area... While there undoubtedly was voter fraud in Chicago in 1960 (actually the most fraud was proabaly in the state's attorney race, which is a position Daly and his machine desperately needed to control, for obvious reasons), even if Kennedy had not carried Illinois, he would still have been elected. So, even if the vote fraud affected the outcome in Illinois, which has never been proved, it wouldn't have 'determined' the election.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:06:52 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: OK Message:

You are right about determining the election. I wonder, however, whether it might have led to reform of the anachronistic electoral college system, had Nixon won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college? As I recall, the difference in the popular vote was less than one vote per precinct. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 17:02:40 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: gerry Subject: You sound like that guy in King of the Hill.. Message:

..gerry, Hank's pal, the consipiracy dude in the shades - the one who says things like: 'There ain't no such thing as a computer error. The computers are doing it on purpose...' ;)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 17:42:35 (GMT) From: gerry Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Did you read 'Vote Scam' ? Message:

I don't watch much tv. Yeah, it's all a joke and everything is exactly as it appears to be. Sorry, I don't buy it. It's so easy to toss around the term 'conspiracy nut.' It's much harder to do the reading, research and thinking it takes to decide things for one's self.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:30:20 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: gerry Subject: AMEN! Well put Gerry. (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:10:37 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: None To: gerry Subject: Did you read 'Vote Scam' ? Message:

I didn't say anything was ALL a joke (depends what you mean by 'all', really). But my post was a joke, sort of... Let's just say I'm sceptical till someone presents good evidence for whatever.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:35:56 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Skeptical too Message:

Funny, but that is exactly what those of us that are accused of being 'conspiracy nuts' are saying too. If we question the status quo....whoa look out! Let's just say we're skeptical until someone presents good evidence, whatever. Question MUCH! Obey LITTLE!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 11:29:36 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: ExTex Subject: Beware of the 'false equivalence' Message:

(BTW: I never used the expression 'conspiracy nut') For me it's about starting assumptions and balance of probabilities - not giving 50% equivalent probability to rival arguments just because there's two of them, and they are diametrically opposed. You would, for example, require a Flat-Earther to come up with a far stronger body of evidence before taking him/her seriously than a person saying the Earth is spherical - simply because of what we know already. In the case of elections, what we know already is beyond doubt - from millions of past polls around the world that careful opinion sampling prior to an election is sufficient to predict with remarkable accuracy the eventual outcome. What people think right now generally shows a strong correlation with what they will think a couple of months down the line. When an election is rigged (eg. Serbia) - the fraud is transparent because of, rather than in spite of psephological predictions. The result confounds the vox-pop polls. To justify the suggestion that US National Polls were being manipulated by computer pollsters - or whoever - you would need to show the complicity or bought silence of thousands of people, at all sorts of levels - which, for me, sets the a priori probability heavily against. Not impossible, but highly implausible. As always the burden of proof is on the claimant, and extraordinary claims require extraordinarily strong evidence. (I would agree US elections are certainly 'rigged' or at least skewed in the sense you can't even run for State senator without millions to back up you campaign - but that's a different argument.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:29:38 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Hi Nige (nt) Message:

rfffffff

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:06:48 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Beware of the 'false equivalence' Message:

Nigel: Your point about the correspondence between polls and elections is well taken. And since I analyze polls, and sometimes administer them, I can offer the observation that although there are good and bad pollsters it's really a matter of competence rather than corruption. After all, the whole point of conducting a poll is to find out what people think and feel, and if you deliberately skew that then you're wasting your money. There, of course, a few polls that are deliberately skewed... as simple matter of designing the right question or series of questions. Pollsters all know about these, and frequently discuss them on the POR listserve. The problem with politics in America as a great deal more complicated than corruption. Kathleen Hall Jamison has a clue. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 00:48:37 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: The minor party game (ot) Message:

Joe: I'm sure you probably know this, but the strategy of minor parties in a two party system is to influence the major party that's ideologically closest to them... or possibly the party that's closest on a particular issue. They have no influence on the more distant party because that party would just as soon have that minor draw as many votes as possible from the major competition. All of this 'influence' usually comes at the cost of at least one election cycle, since if the minor party vote does not cost the proximate major the election (or if it isn't at least close) then the minor may simply end up being ignored. Then there's the opportunity cost of giving the election to the more ideologically distant party. The strategy of using the electoral college outcome to make a statement avoids this cost, but probably dilutes the message for the reasons above. Finally, if as a progressive you are really willing to accept the 'generality principle' policy as an alternative to the straightforward social democratic policy then a 'noblesse oblige' conservative is the most likely to have the inclination and political credibility to carry it off. Nixon could have passed the guaranteed annual income (if he hadn't been ignorantly blocked by the left) but a left-leaning president couldn't. What worries me is that Bush is genuinely stupid, not just ideologically conservative. That could be disastrous. Most Texas millionaires think they're geniuses, and half of them have a hard time flushing the toilet. BTW, in the US third parties of the right have generally been more successful than third parties of the left. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:52:43 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: The Stealth Candidate/Party Message:

Gore seems to vacilate between being a gadfly and actually heading a third party which he expects will replace one of the other parties. And there is the issue of why Nader's support is lower among women and minorities, who don't seem to trust him. I read an article by Ellen DuBois at UCLA who says she knows lots of progressive couples in which the woman is furious at her man for backing Nader, and why Nader has almost no black support in polls. About electoral politics, Nader seems insufficiently skeptical: On the one hand he declared the Democrats 'unreformable from within'--too corrupted and controlled by corporate interests and donations. In the next breath he talked about building the Greens to push the Dems left--as if the corporate powers he just so vividly depicted wouldn't simply flex their own muscles more vigorously. But I don't think Nader is having any effect on either party, mostly because there is a news blackout about Nader, and he was excluded from the debates, at the behest of a campaign commission set up by the two major parties and funded largely by Anheiser Busch and other corporations. It isn't surprising TD had never heard of him. I think his support is mostly coming from the grass roots and the inclusion of people who wouldn't otherwise vote at all. [This may end up helping the democrats down-ticket, especially in house and senate races.] I noticed the other day that Nader held a rally in Madison Square Garden with over 10,000 people, which was the largest rally of any presidential candidate this year, of any party. Although it was held 7 blocks from the offices of the New York Times, the next day the Times ran one small article about it from THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. The Times didn't even bother to send a reporter to the rally, just 7 blocks from its offices. The Times is backing Gore and wants Nader disappear for fear he will cost Gore the election. Amazing.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:46:13 (GMT) From: ExTex Email: None To: Joe Subject: Check out this.. Message:

, the next day the Times ran one small article about it Not really suprising. Rent the video 'Manufacturing Consent'. It is about Noam Chomsky...and he has some very interesting facts that you should know about regarding the NY Times.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:11:01 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: ExTex Subject: Check out this.. Message:

Yeah, I read the book and saw the movie. Both are great. But don't tell Jim. Chomsky makes Jim very crabby.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:54:40 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: ExTex Subject: Oh yeah, I wish Chomsky was running (nt) Message:

dddddd

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 16:24:43 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: So you *are* a socialist after all (nt) Message:

ggcchcc

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:53:34 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: The Stealth Candidate/Party Message:

Joe: Well, I worked for a Nader organization for five years, and he has a huge army of activists at his disposal... media or no. I recognize that one of the major candidates would probably make a better president, while the other would be enormously better for my career. So, I might just vote for Nader purely on the basis that I think a civilized country needs a national healthcare system that covers everyone. If there were millions like me would it move the Democrats? You bet it would. But Bush makes me shudder. Who the hell ever heard of 'Affirmative Access' for God's sake? The guy is like the kid in a test who just makes stuff up on the spur of the moment. He doesn't have a clue about what's going on... and probably doesn't care. He didn't even know that software to regulate access to pornography and adult programming already exists. Sheesh. He does know something about one topic, however: a topic where Al Gore is just in the back pocket of the NEA, and everyone knows it. And, like I said before, there are certain things a noblesse oblige conservative can do that a more left leaning executive would be lynched for. The Ds are going to have to learn to play the Bush instrument. Do you know anyone who speaks Texan? --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:09:48 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Nader and being stealth Message:

Well, I worked for a Nader organization for five years, and he has a huge army of activists at his disposal... media or no. This is true, and that's what I meant about his support coming from the grass-roots. But if he isn't covered by the major press, and if he isn't allowed into the debates, it is very unlikely he is going to extend his support beyond activists. But I think he is likely to get the 5%. I read a story about a poll in Oregon, where Nader is running very well, around 12%. The allegation is that those votes would go to Gore if they didn't go to Nader, and Bush might win the state. But more than half of the Nader voters said that they would not vote for Gore, as he is just as corrupted by corporate influence and money as Bush is. Those are the activists. So I think there is some truth to the contention that Nader is bringing people into the voting process who would otherwise sit it out. . If there were millions like me would it move the Democrats? You bet it would. That's why there is such a concerted effort to keep him out of the process. Gore is continuing with Clinton's winning forumula, although from our earlier discussions, you know I believe this is a losing one in the long run. Gore wants to shift to the center and triangulate, just like Clinton did so well. But Gore isn't Clinton. He isn't half the superb politician that Clinton is, and I think he is more likely to alientate the liberal part of his party, while not really capturing the more conservative elements as well. Gore is left with a real dilemma right now. And that is, should he ask Clinton to campaign for him in the final weeks. To win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington, which he must do, he has to come up with huge majorities and big turnouts in the large cities. Clinton carried 92% of the vote in Detroit, and about 80% in Philadelphia in 1996. Gore needs to equal those numbers, or at least come close, and Clinton is still very popular, personally, in those areas. (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Milwaukee and Seattle are other examples.) So, does he have Clinton come out and do what he does so well? Or does he keep Clinton in the background for fear of alienating the suburban voters who like Clinton's policies, but not the man? It's a tough decision. One advantage in Michigan, though. The UAW has built into its contracts with the auto makers that election day is a holiday. Very smart. That means thousands of phone-bank volunteers and poll workers to help Gore.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 17:38:00 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: A small misunderstanding. Message:

Joe: I read a story about a poll in Oregon, where Nader is running very well, around 12%. The allegation is that those votes would go to Gore if they didn't go to Nader, and Bush might win the state. But more than half of the Nader voters said that they would not vote for Gore, as he is just as corrupted by corporate influence and money as Bush is. Those are the activists. So I think there is some truth to the contention that Nader is bringing people into the voting process who would otherwise sit it out. Oregon was where I worked for a Nader organization, and at least the more populous western part of the state has been well-cultivated by Citizen Action (Oregon Fair Share) and affiliated groups like Oregon Health Action Coalition, Common Cause, OSPIRG, etc. A few of these Nader voters are long term members of Fair Share, but not many are activists. The activists are the people hitting the boards for Nader door to door, and in places like Oregon if this were ever triangulated with media coverage Gore would have a tough time keeping up with Nader. Well, that's assuming that Fair Share's appeal is to more than 12% of the public. I suspect that they may be able to influence 30% of the vote under favoriable circumstances. Unfortunately, Oregon is far from a typical state. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:27:48 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: The grass roots. Message:

Nader and the Greens have a good organization in the Bay Area (Oakland elected a state representative from the Green party, I think the first in the country, last year), but California is so huge, that door-to-door isn't going to cut it. Still, Nader will do better in California that a lot of other states.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:54:35 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott Subject: Sorry,-- should be NADER, not GORE in first line Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:01:04 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Voting for Nader (Again) (ot) Message:

I don't know, Joe. Did you read the Closet Skeletons stuff on him? What do you think of them? It sounds like he's just another snake although, as is often the case with the self-righteous, a particularly sneaky one. Or does his character not matter to you? Or maybe you don't believe the allegations. See, I read that stuff and it DOES appear that he's lied about his wealth and assests including the house. What do you make of that? No important? Why? And how he treats his 'Raiders'? Looks pretty bad to me. What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:09:58 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Voting for Nader (Again) (ot) Message:

Did you read the Closet Skeletons stuff on him? What do you think of them? It sounds like he's just another snake although, as is often the case with the self-righteous, a particularly sneaky one. I did read it, and if that's all they got on him, then he really is squeaky clean. The idea that Nader is a monk is a creation of the media, although I admit that Nader hasn't dispelled it much. That's quite different than saying he lied about it. That website is mostly just quotes from right-wing nuts and those in the democratic party who see him as a threat to Gore's election. The substance there is really thin. Just read through it. I was really surprised they couldn't find SOMETHING more than what they did. He has done well in the stock market, although he said he is careful to buy stock in socially responsible companies. I try to do the same. So? But remember what General Motors tried to do to 'get' him? Offered money, women, and more. He didn't fall for it. Bush and Gore are bought and sold by special interests. No one is even suggesting that Nader is. I'm also not surprised he has some disgruntled employees who will say bad stuff about him. God, he called people in the middle of the night. So?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:40:42 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: What about the house, Joe? Message:

I'm surprised you found so little substance in that report. To me, if he really did buy that house for himself and lie about it, he's less trustworthy than anyone I'd ever vote for.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:02:00 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: There's nothing there, Jim Message:

I don't think you read that site very closely. There really is NOTHING there. So, Nader owns a house he bought for $100,000. So what? I paid four times that much for MY house. Big deal. I can't access that site again, to confirm what they are saying about the house. But if Nader really had lied about the existence of his house, which he has absolutely no reason to do, don't you think that MIGHT have shown up in say, the Washington Post instead of some stupid, amateurish website? Come on Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 22:33:37 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Joe Subject: Other allegations Message:

There are other allegations besides the house. Extracted from Ralph Nader's Skeleton Closet: Ralph Nader has done a lot of good for consumers. He has also led attacks on such evils as Volkswagen cars, the American Automobile Association, whole milk, colored toilet paper, fluoridated water, and the Elvis stamp. Through it all he has manipulated the press brilliantly and built himself a comfortable and powerful niche without need for election, even within his own consumer groups. For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be 'Saint Ralph', the only honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen. If that doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your choice: . a HUGE hypocrite . just another politician . Anti-democratic authoritarian . secret luxury house . owned by the trial lawyers' lobby . busted a union among his workers . abuses workers . amassing millions of dollars, playing the stock market with it . secrecy and stonewalling . vindictive toward critics . forced 'contributions' to his college PIRG groups . hypochondriac A HUGE hypocrite: ---------------- Nader wraps himself in the mantle of 'public interest' with a personally ascetic style and a focus on structural or 'apple pie' issues -- consumer safety, corporate accountability, 'citizen power' -- rather than traditional partisan issues. He opposes not conservatives, but arrogant corporate leaders who amass money through public tax breaks, deny any democratic input or inquiry, and viciously attack anyone who challenges them. It's a brilliant strategy. Unfortunately, Nader has become exactly what he attacks. His organizations allow no public input, intimidate foes and journalists, hide almost all details of their finances (to the point of breaking laws), and have amassed millions of dollars - all under Nader's direct and autocratic control. Just another politician: ----------------------- 'Nader is as ravenous as a Nixon or a Kennedy, and the abstract principles he espouses he does not live by.' -- Charles McCarry, 'Citizen Nader' Ralph's image is built on the idea that he is somehow pure, not motivated by power, fame or money like those nasty politicians. But he is in fact just another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000 a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staffers. Even his presidential ambitions are old news. He claims to be running just to send a message, but Nader also ran for president in 1992 (running a write-in campaign in the New Hampshire primary, with little success). As far back as 1976, his media supporters (including Nicholas Van Hoffman and Mary McGrory) were plugging a draft Nader movement in their columns. It's fine for him to want power, fame and even money -- everyone else in Washington does -- but he ought to cut the holier-than-thou crap and take responsibility for his ambitions. No one doubts that Ross Perot -- who spent $60 million out of pocket on his last campaign -- has huge personal ambitions, whatever good he may accomplish as a candidate. Why should we think more of Ralph Nader, who has built a career flush with power, fame and money out of nothing else but his political actions in Washington? Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed -- nimble but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as self-appointed moralists. Anti-Democratic Authoritarian: ----------------------------- Saint Ralph loves to preach about democracy and 'citizen power', but he runs his carefully concealed empire with an iron grip. Of 19 groups associated with Nader, the most powerful and important groups are all directly controlled by Nader or completely under his influence and no one else's. With some groups, Nader is the only contributor; others are controlled by his sister, Laura Nader Milleron, or his cousin. And there is nothing democratic about Nader's groups -- citizens have no power at all. Of 19 groups in Nader's network, only one relatively minor one is a membership organization, which would allow individuals to vote and challenge the decisions of the small elite running them. The groups' managers operate in strict secrecy, releasing the absolute legal minimum of information, and sometimes not even that. And when Nader IS challenged, he gets vindictive and often attacks his questioner. Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they support Nader or not. Beyond the hypocrisy, this authoritarian streak is very dangerous in a potential president -- presidents have tremendous power, and the most important check on it is simply their personal honor and unwillingness to abuse power. Nader has never shown these traits, much less an ability to make tough decisions that are fair to his enemies. Of course, he hasn't had much power to abuse -- yet. Anyone considering voting for him should think twice -- or three times -- about that. Secret luxury house: ------------------- The Nader myth is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism -- such as taking a minuscule salary, not owning a car (he bums lots of rides), and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom down the hall. However, David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him sneaking into an expensive house there. Some investigation showed that Nader's brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he was an underemployed educational 'consultant' and had no education beyond high school. Nader issued a statement 'that he does not live in his brother's Bancroft Place house', but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him privately, he wouldn't deny it. When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. 'He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla.' Nader, who has long earned hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the mid-1970s -- claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest to his organizations. But he has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton have done). He even says he will spend less than $5,000 on his campaign so that he won't be required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms every other candidate is filing. He has admitted to having invested undefined chunks of money in stocks, CDs and treasury notes. He also defended investing in corporations that commit the wrongs he rails against, because 'You can't transcend the system. It's all interlocked.' Owned by the trial lawyers' lobby: --------------------------------- Nader always received lots of funding from trials lawyers, and in return has supported their interests throughout his career. For all his talk of democracy, Nader's vision is of an elite of lawyers -- led of course by himself -- defending the little guy, much more than true 'citizen power'. He confided to Charles McCarry his dream of having 4,000 to 5,000 'professionals' around the country to battle business nationwide. Busted a union among his workers: -------------------------------- Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. He even opposed NAFTA and GATT, despite the likelihood of lower consumer prices, because they would hurt union jobs in America. But when his own workers got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader allegedly fired a bunch, busting the union. Abuses workers: -------------- 'How can we go out and try to save the world from people when we're grinding people to death all the time?'-- John Esposito, original staffer at Nader's Center for the Study of Responsive Law 'Nader strikes me as conforming to the stereotype people have of sociologists and politicians: they bleed for the poor and downtrodden but mistreat their maids.' -- David Sanford Like many Washington politicians, Ralph Nader's groups have long taken advantage of earnest young ambitious workers, with two differences; Nader was more controlling and paid far less. In 1976, many were paid $5,000 per year and only a few at the top made as much as $20,000. (Nader's organizations refuse to release information on what they pay workers.) Meanwhile, Nader required daily logs of everything the workers did from 7am to 9pm, plus monthly summaries of these logs. If you didn't turn in your logs, you didn't get paid. Nader often called workers after midnight or on sunny weekend days, with instructions, or just to test their willingness to work hard. When a revolt over working conditions broke out in the Congress Project and students demanded a group session with Nader, he contemptuously scheduled a meeting at 7:00 am, believing that few would show up. 9 marriages of staffers broke up under the pressure, including John and Nancy Esposito's, Mark Green's, Sid Wolfe's, and Davitt McAteer's. What makes this meanness worse is that Nader claims to be defending workers -- for example in opposing the GATT treaty -- and that his organizations have a huge surplus of money, accumulating millions of dollar with which Ralph has played the stock market. Amassing millions of dollars and playing, stock market with it: -------------------------------------------------------------- Unlike almost every other nonprofit organization, Nader's various groups often amass a nontaxable profit of several hundred thousand dollars per year, and have rapidly build up impressive net worth's -- which Ralph refuses to reveal in his annual reports. (His lame reply is that people who are interested can get the information by getting every year's annual report and doing the math. So much for openness.) The book 'Abuse of Trust' carefully documents the money amassed and stocks played for 6 major groups, including Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, his two largest groups. Public Citizen, Inc., in particular, amassed money so quickly that it bought an old FBI building for $1.25 million IN CASH in 1980, only its eighth year of existence. One reason he may hide his ample cash reserves -- besides the fact that people may not want to give him more money -- is that he is fond of playing the stock market with that green. (He also uses surpluses from his most flush organizations, usually the tax deductible ones, to give grants to his other groups.) Some of these transactions appear reckless for a nonprofit, 'public interest' group; others skirt the edges of insider trading and conflict of interest. Mostly, it seems that all this money was a toy that Nader enjoyed playing with, especially as his winnings increased his power, fame and influence. For example, the Nader is the president and treasurer of the Public Safety Research Institute. In 1970 alone, PSRI traded on the stock market 67 times, buying and selling $750,000 worth of stock, though the organization only had $150,000 worth of assets. These trades included a number of short sales, high risk and tricky transactions. Some worked, some lost money. In later years, PSRI traded less, for a good reason -- the IRS audited them after 1970 and charged the organization with 'churning', excessive stock trades whose risk threatens the charitable purposes of the organization. It paid a fine and did not contest the charge. Thereafter, PSRI continued to play the market with fewer, generally long positions. Likewise, the Safety Systems Foundation (SSF) -- run by Nader's sister, and entirely funded by him personally -- engaged in a number of stock and bond transactions in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was also fined by the IRS and paid without contest. Several of these trades were poised to take advantage of Nader's activities, by selling short the stock of companies Nader's groups attacked, or buying stock of their competitors. In 1973, PSRI bought stock in Allied Chemical, the primary manufacturer of airbags, on the very day before GM announced they would offer optional airbags on 1974 models. PSRI made a 12.5% profit in 3 and a half months. In 1976, PSRI and the SSF bought stock in Goodyear just as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- then run by former top Nader aide Joan Claybrook -- announced an investigation of the Firestone 500 series of steel-belted radials. The 2 organizations held onto the stock for 2 years until there was a recall, and Firestone -- Goodyear's major competitor -- suffered. In 1970, IT&T attempted to merge with the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Nader filed a 50 page brief attacking the merger, then SSF sold IT&T stock short. It made almost 10% on its money in 6 DAYS, then closed its position two days before the merger was approved. When pressed by a reporter, Nader said the timing was 'mere coincidence' and said he had no control over the investment. However, his sister Laura Nader Millerson was the sole trustee of SSF throughout its existence, and Nader was the sole contributor. Secrecy and stonewalling: ------------------------ Ralph exhibits a driven secrecy and paranoia reminiscent of no one so much as Richard Nixon, his old enemy. The man who said 'information is the currency of democracy; its denial must always be suspect' routinely refuses to release even basic information about himself or his organizations. Granted, he has enemies, but this trait goes back to when no one knew of him. In the mid-1960s, before 'Unsafe At Any Speed' made him famous, Nader wrote for the New Republic Magazine and often gave the secretary there a false name (Mr. Wilson) when he called or visited. Even then, he made some of his phone calls in whispers or in code to thwart possible wiretappers. Another Nixonian trait of Nader's is a tendency to cover-up. When pressed or challenged, he has lied, shunted responsibility onto his staff members, made them reconstruct documents, hidden his control over his own organizations, attacked the press or critics involved, or simply refused to release information with lame excuses. There are many examples: -- Ralph refuses to release his tax returns (as Clinton and Dole have) -- He even says he will spend less than $5,000 in this presidential campaign so he won't have to file the minimal financial disclosure all other candidates have filed. -- Two of his top aides even refused to give the address of Nader's office to two Congressman who requested it at a Congressional Hearing. -- His main group, Public Citizen, has actively fought disclosure laws that would inform the public of the role that special interest groups -- such as his -- play in lobbying on legislation. (e.g. H.R. 81 in the 96th Congress) -- Public Citizen refused to give information to the Better Business Bureau or the similar NIB when requested. -- He runs a network of organizations, which he claims are independent -- but his brother, sister and cousins hold major leadership positions with several, Nader heads advisory boards for others, and he is the only or major financial donor to 3 groups. Many other groups are funded in whole or in part by other groups in the network that Ralph does directly control. -- Ralph even incorporated one of his groups -- the Public Safety Research Institute -- in Delaware, because of its notoriously lax corporate laws, -- As of 1982, his groups disregarded the charitable solicitation laws of 25 by not filing legally required registrations. At least 1 state (New York) had to pursue Public Citizen, Inc. and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law (Nader's 2 biggest groups) legally to try and force them to obey the law. -- After the first attacks on him for being owned by trial lawyers, he distorted facts, attacked the press and forced am employee to create a false history to cover up the scandal. The employee, Lowell Dodge, later fell out with Nader and revealed this cover-up. Vindictive toward critics: ------------------------- Another authoritarian trait of Nader's is his inability to tolerate any criticism. Journalists who question his excesses are inevitably accused of personal vendettas, or being tools of industry. Politicians get worse: Nader called one Congressman who opposed the Consumer Protection Act 'a disgustingly repulsive, slimy double-crosser.' He called another a 'pathological liar' and a 'corrupt, lying anti-people crook.' His crime? Opposing a bill to mandate air bags. Nader went on to say that people who opposed mandatory airbags were the kind that would 'sell thalidomide to pregnant women.' Even his own workers face Ralph's wrath for leaving after years of grueling, underpaid and loyal work. James Fallows, author of a recent book critiquing the media, worked for Nader at the start of his career. He wrote: 'I think you won't find many people who have had a pleasant parting with Ralph. It's usually pretty ugly when the separation comes, and I think it's largely that by leaving you seem to make a choice... a 'if you're not with us you're against us' sort of thing.' Penn State's Board of Overseers declined Nader's PIRG group's coercive funding and voted instead to let students check a box to make a donation (like presidential campaign funding on 1040 tax forms) -- a perfectly reasonable compromise. Nader blasted this plan as a 'sabotage technique' and 'tyranny 1776 style,' and then announced an investigation of the school's trustees for 'conflicts of interest.' Forced contributions to his college PIRG groups: ----------------------------------------------- College PIRG groups, which Nader founded and leads despite his denials of control, use an astonishingly undemocratic, even coercive funding mechanism that Ralph designed. Once a college approves, all students are automatically billed a few dollars out of their student fees to support the local PIRG. To avoid paying, students must make a special trip to the Registrar and fill out a form so they can get their $2-6 back. Most don't of course, out of inertia or because they aren't even aware they're funding Ralph. That's why record and book clubs use the same mechanism. Nader, like most consumer advocates, opposes these billing methods as a rip-off - unless they fund his own groups. One PIRG worker estimated that at Penn State alone, forced payments would have brought in $270,000 a year, while a voluntary checkoff would only have raised $30,000 These forced payments brought over a million dollars a year to PIRGs even back in the mid-1970s. (Nader's PIRG group won't release the total amount.) At least 145 colleges in 20 states were involved. When Penn State turned down this method in favor of a box students could check to donate, the PIRG refused it. Nader attacked the school viciously, as described above. Hypochondriac: ------------- According to his former editor David Sanford, Nader is a hypochondriac who refuses dinner invitations from anyone with pets, because he thinks cats cause leukemia, and simply hates dogs.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:27:03 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: G Subject: Other allegations Message:

G: Is it really necessary to post all this stuff verbatim? I worked for the guy, so I know he isn't a saint. There are even 'turf wars' between various Nader factions. So what? There are no saints in politics, and there isn't much love either. BTW, his sister is a first rate anthropologist. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 22:53:39 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: G Subject: This that it? Message:

Well, I guess those are 'allegations' but they are mostly that these people don't like Nader. I read through and I am once again amazed that that's all there is there. Not much. I'll comment on a couple things. Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they support Nader or not. This is mentioned in about 3 places on the website, as if it is a very big deal when it is not. Public Interest Resource Group has chapters on many college campuses, because lots of college students are interested in consumer issues. Like any other campus club, including the young demos, the young republicans, and the christian coalition, (and even gay and lesbian clubs on some campuses), you get a share of the fees students pay for all clubs. They all divide up the money. So, it's true that even if you aren't a member you end up tacitly supporting PIRG, but you also end up supporting both the gay and lesbian club and the christian coalition (if they have chapters on campus). So this is a total red herring. But he has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton have done). He even says he will spend less than $5,000 on his campaign so that he won't be required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms every other candidate is filing. He didn't release his tax returns in 1996 because he didn't spend more than $5,000 on his campaign. He has released them this year, however. Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. He even opposed NAFTA and GATT, despite the likelihood of lower consumer prices, because they would hurt union jobs in America. Nader, like most labor unions, much of the democratic party, and lots of others, including Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan on the right, opposed NAFTA and GATT because they believe it sends good jobs in this country to other countries, means a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions, and allows corporations to exploit other countries both labor-wise and environmental-wise. This has been Nader's consistent position. This website might disagree with him, but there is no 'allegation' there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 05:41:27 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: This that it? Message:

Joe: Nader and his PIRG groups also fought for (and got) a very coercive funding mechanism -- dues charged automatically to all college students, whether they support Nader or not. This is really a sore spot with me, because I worked for another Nader organization that had to 'earn it's own keep' by organizing in neighborhoods, rather than get that seed money from campus. We were also frequently in turf wars with the PIRGs because, well, they were greedy and worked through turf at an alarming rate. We cultivated neighborhoods, whereas they slashed and burned. Once or twice I found out beforehand where they planned a canvass that would have left us broke, and altered our schedule so that we burned the turf just before they got there. Then we'd hang out at the same lunch site and gloat. Ahhh, to be a young aggressive canvass director again. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 22:45:25 (GMT) From: G Email: None To: Joe Subject: quotes and sources Message:

These are the quotes and sources from 'Nader's Skeleton Closet': Quotes: ------ 'Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes.' -- Dave Barry 'If they don't close these [nuclear] reactors down, we'll have civil war in five years.' -- Ralph Nader in 1977 'We spent a hundred years trying to clean sweatshops out of our system and what happens? Along comes the first major reformer of any impact, and he starts doing the same goddamned thing. ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to stop phoning after midnight.' -- Jim Turner, former Nader lieutenant 'Information is the currency of democracy. It's denial must always be suspect.' -- Ralph Nader 'He [Nader] is, I believe, an authoritarian, a man on a white horse, and I for one, hope that he will never ride into the White House.' -- David Sanford, Nader's former editor, 1976 Sources: ------- ----------Anti-democratic Authoritarian Sources 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p16-17 ----------Hypocrite Sources 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p19-20 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 ----------Secret Luxury House sources 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p23-26 ----------Owned by the Trial Lawyers Sources 'A Chink In Nader's Armor?', Leah Young, The New Republic, September 2, 1972 'Dems Step Up to Well-Stocked Plaintiff Bar', Wall Street Journal, September 4, 1992 pA6/A8 'Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure', Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14 Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1990 pA15 'Ralph Nader is a bargain for trial lawyers at $1,000 a table.' 'Naderite Mossbacks Lose Control Over Corporate Law', Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1992 'Tortmeisters In the Sun', Wall Street Journal, October 30,1990 pA18 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p33-42 ----------Just a Politician Sources $1000/plate: 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p14-15 1976 run - 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p1-5 ----------Union Busting Sources Washington Post, June 28, 1984 pB3 ----------Abusing Workers Sources 'The Low-Paid Affluent in Public-Interest Work', New York Times, July `8, 1983 p14 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p60-65 ----------Amassing Money Sources 'Nader Undaunted by Setbacks to Consumer Drive', Joseph Lleyveld, New York Times, November 24, 1975 p1 'Nader Pays $1,250,000 Cash for Old Office Building', Ann Zimmerman, Washingtonian, June 1980, p11 (cited in Abuse of Trust) 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p28-31 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p81-95 ----------Secrecy and Paranoia Sources 'Public Citizen's Non-Disclosure', Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1992 pA14 Tax returns and campaign reports: Newsweek, 'How Much Is He Worth?', April 8, 1996 p6 Network: 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p 31, 16-17, 80-95 Generally, and New Republic false name: 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p18-22, introduction p.xi-xii, p11, p19-23 Information denial must always be suspect quote: 'Abuse of Trust', p139, citing Good Housekeeping Wouldn't give Nader's office address out: 'Abuse of Trust', p119-120, 124 Refused info to BBB & NIB: 'Abuse of Trust', p118-119 Opposed HR 81: 'Abuse of Trust', p119, 124, 139 Failure to register: 'Abuse of Trust', p104-110 Lowell Dodge cover-up: 'Me & Ralph', chapter 3 ----------Vindictiveness Sources Generally -- 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p56-57 Penn State-- 'Me & Ralph', p52-55 Fallows & leaving Nader- 'Me & Ralph', p69-73 Congress-- 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p146-7 ----------Forced PIRG Contribution Los Angeles Times, April 8, 1983 p1 Christian Science Monitor, March 24, 1983 p2 New York Times, March 13, 1983 p20 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976, p8, 52-58 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p147- 149 ----------Hypochondriac Sources 'Me & Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Books) 1976,p18 ----------Quote Sources Civil war quote - 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p146, citing ''Geiger Counter', Voice, April 4, 1977'. Is that the Village Voice? Not clear. Dave Barry quote -- from his book 'Sweating Out Taxes', quoted on Susan Brumbaugh's The Quotations Archive. Denial of information is suspect quote -- 'Abuse of Trust' 1982 citing 'Ralph Nader Reports', Ladies Home Journal, September 1973, Sanford quote -- 'Me and Ralph: Is Nader Unsafe for America?', David Sanford (New Republic Book Company) 1976 Introduction (pX) sweatshops quote -- 'Me and Ralph', p62 ---------- BACK TO SKELETON CLOSET - scandals on all the presidential candidates Paid for by Real People For Real Change and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Copyright 1999 Real People For Real Change

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 23:01:31 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: G Subject: This is more of the same... Message:

'Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes.' -- Dave Barry Dave Barry is stand up commedian, who has also written at least one comdey book. A very liberal commedian at that. Non-profits don't pay taxes because they don't have profits. So? 'If they don't close these [nuclear] reactors down, we'll have civil war in five years.' -- Ralph Nader in 1977 Maybe not 'civil war', but remember 'Three Mile Island'? ... My wife had to tell Ralph once to stop phoning after midnight.' -- Jim Turner, former Nader lieutenant Ooooo. That's terrible. I'm shocked. 'Information is the currency of democracy. It's denial must always be suspect.' -- Ralph Nader I completely agree with this. 'Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network', Dan Burt, (Chicago: Regnery Gateway) 1982 p16-17 Dan Burt is a super-right winger. He used to work for Newt Gingrich

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:10:27 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: But it DID show up in the Washington Post! Message:

Here's the site: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#luxury : Secret luxury house: The Nader myth is built in large part of stories of his personal asceticism -- such as taking a minuscule salary, not owning a car (he bums lots of rides), and living (through the 1970s at least) in a boarding house with a bathroom down the hall. However, David Sanford of the New Republic documented that residents of a posh neighborhood in Washington -- on Bancroft Place NW -- often spotted him sneaking into an expensive house there. Some investigation showed that Nader's brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he was an underemployed educational 'consultant' and had no education beyond high school. Nader issued a statement 'that he does not live in his brother's Bancroft Place house', but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him privately, he wouldn't deny it. When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. 'He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla.' Nader, who has long earned hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in speaking fees -- over $250,000 annually even in the mid-1970s -- claims to live on $5,000 a year and give nearly all the rest to his organizations. But he has steadfastly refused to make his tax returns public (as Dole and Clinton have done). He even says he will spend less than $5,000 on his campaign so that he won't be required to file even the minimal financial disclosure forms every other candidate is filing. He has admitted to having invested undefined chunks of money in stocks, CDs and treasury notes. He also defended investing in corporations that commit the wrongs he rails against, because 'You can't transcend the system. It's all interlocked.'

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:44:36 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Maxine Cheshire Message:

Jim, I am no fan of Ralph Nader, but Maxine Cheshire is (was?) basically a gossip columnist. Don't know how seriously I'd take that statement if I were you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:58:22 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: What are you suggesting, Katie? Message:

Are you suggesting she lied? That she never met with Nader, never interviewed him? That he didn't boast about buying the house? What? See, I DO give at least a little weight to the fact that she APPARENTLY wrote this for the Washington Post. What do you think?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:22:20 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: What are you suggesting, Katie? Message:

Jim - I was trying to say that she is NOT an investigative reporter, and that this wasn't front page news, but could be something she heard at a cocktail party. I doubt that she formally interviewed Nader, because that was not the kind of column she wrote. Like I said, she wrote a society/gossip column - very opinionated and not what you would call 'straight reporting'. The Washington Post is a great newspaper (IMHO, the best newspaper in the US, but I still think one has to consider where this item was published.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:40:50 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Fair enough .... BUT Message:

Granted, the woman probably only talked with Nader at some function or something. After all, why would Nader, of all people, grant an interview to a gossip columnist. But this can only be stretched so far before she's either lying or he's got a bit of a problem on his hands. She did, after all, say that she asked Nader about these reports (that he was either living in the house or actually owned it -- damn article!). That's not at all the same as just asking Nader in passing about the house, maybe even in the context of how lucky his brother was or something. So Nader would have been well aware of the suspicion he was being asked to address. Instead, however, unless the woman's simply lying, he didn't address the report that it was his house or that he at least lived there but rather talked about what a great deal it was. Am I the only one who sees this as suspicious? Or are we to simply say that she's a flake and forget the whole thing?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 07:39:59 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Fair enough .... BUT Message:

Jim, I see a lot of other people have answered you, but IMHO there is not enough information in that quote on that website to draw any real conclusions. I'm not saying that Ms. Cheshire or Nader is lying - just that it's almost impossible to tell what actually happened except that Nader likes to talk about real estate. We can only guess about the rest (what question she actually asked, what setting this took place in, etc.)

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:27:43 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Nader's 100K dollar luxury house. Message:

Jim: She did, after all, say that she asked Nader about these reports (that he was either living in the house or actually owned it -- damn article!). That's not at all the same as just asking Nader in passing about the house, maybe even in the context of how lucky his brother was or something. So Nader would have been well aware of the suspicion he was being asked to address. Instead, however, unless the woman's simply lying, he didn't address the report that it was his house or that he at least lived there but rather talked about what a great deal it was. Am I the only one who sees this as suspicious? It is possible she didn't spell out what she meant because the notion that he was living there is a little tough to take. How much enjoyment could you get living in a place you had to sneak in and out of? The name of the game for a gossip columnist is to suggest impropriety without actually saying anything. Barry Commoner probably isn't a saint either, but it doesn't exactly keep me up at night. There aren't any saints in Washington, DC... with the possible exception of Sox the Cat. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:36:38 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Sure, Scott, or maybe she's just lying altogether Message:

It is possible she didn't spell out what she meant because the notion that he was living there is a little tough to take. Yeah, sure. It's also true, as I've said all along, that she's just plain lying. But if she isn't lying or mistaken then she did confront Nader with the allegations and his answer, in the circumstances, is suspicious. Agreed?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:26:32 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Sure, Scott, or maybe she's just lying altogether Message:

OK, if those conditions are true then his responses are suspicious, but the explanation that he was living in the house he bought for himself and covered by having his brother live there just doesn't sound very plausible. It'd be a really goofy arrangement. So given that the specific allegation is conspicuous in it's absence, and that there isn't a very plausible explanation for why the implication might be true, then for the time being I'm going to assume that it's not.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:24:13 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Yeah, but now YOU'RE assuming something Message:

OK, if those conditions are true then his responses are suspicious Thank you! but the explanation that he was living in the house he bought for himself and covered by having his brother live there just doesn't sound very plausible. It'd be a really goofy arrangement. Sure it'd be goofy. I guess. But maybe not. Maybe Nader bought it and let his brother live there as well but claim that it was his house for p.r. purposes. Or maybe his brother didn't live there at all, ever. And I'll say this again right now to try to reassure Joe that I'm not putting any great reliance on either possibility: MAYBE NONE OF ITS TRUE AND THE WEBSITE'S LYING. So given that the specific allegation is conspicuous in it's absence Well, that's where we disagree. I think there's most certainly a specific allegation as previously discussed. and that there isn't a very plausible explanation for why the implication might be true, then for the time being I'm going to assume that it's not. I've looked around trying to find something more on this but, strangely enough, all the original players died from various mysterious causes over the past few years. :) No, seriously, Scott, you used to work for Nader? What do you know about where and how he lived? How would YOU try to ferret out the truth here?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 03:46:47 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Yeah, but now YOU'RE assuming something Message:

Jim: It wasn't as if I actually knew Nader. I worked as a canvass director for Citizen Action, one of the groups Nader helped to found. I recognize there are a lot of problems and inconsistencies with Nader's approach to policy. The positions he takes frequently hurt, rather than help, the poor people he's trying to benefit. Stair step energy billing, for instance, is no boon if you don't have money for insulation, etc. And until I and a few others made a big stink about it canvassers did not have collective bargaining representation. In the final analysis it's not very important to me what the truth is about Nader, because it's not really a personality cult. The organization has gone far beyond that. I expect Nader is as full of foibles as anyone else, but he's had a very unique family upbringing to produce two people like Laura and Ralph. And the orginazations he has started have been tremendous training grounds for many of us. I feel as though I've seen both sides of the ideological divide, and have come to suspect that there may be two roots to this equation. One root may be more appropriate in certain situations than the other, but neither is optimal by itself. And, there may yet be a fourth way... --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:47:30 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: Jim Subject: Fair enough .... BUT Message:

Jim - First, it is not even clear it was a published report in the Post - it might have been in her memoirs or something she told to someone else. Second, who knows if Nader was 'well aware of what he was being asked to address?'. As I said, I don't like what the guy is doing, but I still think this piece of evidence is pretty nebulous at best.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:58:40 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Katie Subject: Fair enough .... BUT Message:

Yes, Katie, you're right. Maybe it was just her memoires. But your second concern, that Nader might not have known what he was being asked about, doesn't cut it. Again, Chesire supposedly asked him about the reports. So either that's a lie or he knew exactly what he was being asked about. So?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:42:20 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Fair enough .... BUT Message:

Jim: But your second concern, that Nader might not have known what he was being asked about, doesn't cut it. Again, Chesire supposedly asked him about the reports. So either that's a lie or he knew exactly what he was being asked about. Gotta love the naivete of an outside the beltway perspective. We have lots of parties, and people mill around and ask lots of questions, some of which are either ignored or simply not heard in the first place. So, she still gets to report that she asked him and that he didn't answer. Never mind whether he actually *heard* the question... at least she's not lying. The Post, while a good paper, is not exactly a peer reviewed journal... especially the Style section. Personally, I wouldn't even consider voting for a saint, an the basis that they'd probably be a lousy executive. And as I said above, the whole story about the house doesn't add up. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:37:42 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Yes, yes, yes ... see my answer above (nt) Message:

dddddddd

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:13:24 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Huh? Message:

Are you suggesting she lied? That she never met with Nader, never interviewed him? That he didn't boast about buying the house? What? Come on Jim, be honest here. Where in Maxine Chesire's article does she say Ralph boasted about buying that house? Where?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:45:33 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Huh? Message:

The 'boast' is my way of characterizing his obvious sense of satisfaction (vicarious, for his brother perhaps?) in the purchase: When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. 'He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla.' Are you saying that you DON'T get that from the above? How would YOU characterize his response then? Indifferent? Bemused? Straight-forward and analytical? I don't know. He sounds a little proud to me -- again, assuming that Chesire's not simply lying.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:52:27 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Maybe he's proud for his brother.... Message:

The simple fact remains, that article says she asked Nader about 'the reports' but it doesn't say she even asked him if he bought the house and it doesn't say he either admitted or denied that he bought that house. Now, does it, Jim? Clearly, Chesire is trying to IMPLY something, but that's apparenlty all she can say, and I say again, if you are going to accuse somebody of lying, there ought to be a clear allegation and some proof. I don't see either, so I am not persuaded to think he's a liar. Maybe you are, but you shouldn't be.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:06:58 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Nwo who's obfuscating? Message:

The simple fact remains, that article says she asked Nader about 'the reports' but it doesn't say she even asked him if he bought the house and it doesn't say he either admitted or denied that he bought that house. Now, does it, Jim? This makes no sense. This part of Chesire's story isn't implying anything. She's apparently come right out and said that she asked Nader about the 'reports.' And they are no more nor less than the stories described in the paragraph above the one about Chesire, namely that Nader was the actual owner of the house. That is the only fair interpretation here, Joe, and you know it. So either Chesire's lying or Nader was asked about allegations that he, not his brother, owns the house.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:18:21 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Why don't you answer the question...... Message:

Where, in the Chesire article, does it say Nader lied about owning a house. Fucking where? Nowhere. After asking about 'the reports' there is nothing but implication, and you fucking know it because you can read, I think.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:38:57 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Implication can be enough Message:

Joe, If something is clearly implied it's the same as stating it explicitly. Example: You were supposed to be here for a business meeting five hours ago. You didn't show up, you didn't call and our clients are talking about firing us. Now, from this you can safely infer several things never specifically said: We do business together and thus have at least one set of common clients. I'm pissed off that you didn't show up or call. The clients are pissed off as a result. Same thing with the website. The part about the house inescapably implies -- which is the same thing as spelling it all out -- that Nader lied about buying and living in the house. It explains how his brother couldn't afford it, how Nader could, how Nader turned down one perfectly good opportunity to deny that he lived there and another perfectly good opportunity to deny that he was the guy who bought it. Maybe the website's suspicions won't be confirmed ultimately but that's another story. At this point, I think it's fair to say that the website is alleging -- yes, without coming right out and spelling it all word-by-word -- that Nader lied.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:11:59 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Maybe for you, not for me.... Message:

Missing a business meeting is not analagous to something like suggesting that a presidential candidate is lying. It just isn't. Don't you see that? It's on a whole different level and requires a more careful reading into what is actually being said, and what supports it. The stakes are just too high, and if someone actually has some reason to allege that a presidential candidate lied, which could affect the lives of millions of people, they should at least actually say it, rather than just imply it, or I don't give it credence. The stakes are too high, and the motivations to undermine a candidate too great, to start believing something on such incredibly thin reasoning. I think that's just common sense. Unless, of course, you hate the candidate and want to believe ANYTHING negative said about them, on the flimsiest of evidence, which I'm beginning to believe is what is going on with you. I don't have any other explanation.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 14:54:07 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Poorly written... NOT Message:

Unless, of course, you hate the candidate and want to believe ANYTHING negative said about them, on the flimsiest of evidence, which I'm beginning to believe is what is going on with you. I don't have any other explanation. Or you're a gossip columnist who makes her living by implying things that are never explicitly stated, playing the numbers and stirring up controversy, so that in the event anyone takes issue you'll always have an avenue of escape/defense. The explicitly stated accusation is conspicuous in it's absence. It's not a matter of a 'poorly written article' but, rather, a matter of a well written one according to the standards and purpose of that sort of article. You have to assume that she didn't make an explicit accusation because it would have been implausible on it's face. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:32:14 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Absolutely right, Scott (nt) Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:53:28 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Wrong, Scott Message:

Scott, I take your point that the clever gossip columnist can get mucho mileage out of vagueness and ambiguity. But, in this case, the website specifically says that Nader was 'asked about the reports' which reports could only be that he either owned or lived in the house (both of which he'd earlier denied), or both.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 18:41:14 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: You're not taking the point far enough. Message:

For one thing I'm not clear about whether the wedsite is quoting the author of a story that ran in the WP or that it's an extracurricular assertion. Either way, it could be true (though clearly deceptive) *and* Nader is completely innocent of the charge. As I said, if Nader were asked the question during a typical Washingon party and he either didn't hear it or didn't consider it worthy of response then it's perfectly true to say he was asked the question and didn't respond. Indeed, the way the statement is worded suggests precisely this interpretation. Again, the absence of the specific allegation is conspicous. Or do you think pols in the US above such deception, or too dull to see the possibility? It looks quite deliberate to me. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 00:17:12 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: And you're taking it where it just don't go Message:

The website says: When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports .... Now, unless the website's trying to trick people here (possible), the clear implication is that his words about the house were uttered in reply to her 'ask[ing] about the reports'. That's all there is to that particular piece of the puzzle. The website says that there were reports. About what? About him lying about living in and / or owning the house. Chisre asked him about those 'reports'. In response, the website would clearly have you believe, he said 'x'. That's it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:16:19 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Joe Subject: By the way, Jim Message:

Nader HAS released his tax returns, so if he WHERE taking a tax deduction for that house it would be on that tax return. Have we heard anyone suggest such, even though the returns have been made public? This is getting even stoopider, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:18:01 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Katie Subject: Jim? Message:

Still stand by your supposed 'evidence?' Thanks, Katie.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:04:09 (GMT) From: P-man Email: None To: Katie Subject: Maxine Cheshire Message:

Katie, How come you're not a fan of Nader? Are you an un-fan? Is there a wrinkle in his sheen?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:28:23 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: P-man Subject: why I'm not a Nader fan Message:

Hi Powerman - I think that Nader is going to take votes away from Gore and I am NOT sure (as Nader seems to be) that 'Gore is going to win.' I cannot believe he is even saying this! I think Nader is taking a real risk of having Bush get elected (with subsequent consequences for the environment, women's rights, and gun control legislation) in order to make his statement. I don't respect this - it seems quite selfish to me. Also I think Nader's attitude towards Roe vs. Wade sucks - he is probably right that it is not going to get overturned, but, as Joe pointed out, there can be a lot of other restrictive anti-choice legislation passed in four years. It's already much harder for women to get abortions now than it was ten years ago and I'd hate to see the situation get any worse. I think that if Nader was serious about making changes, he would run on a local or even state level first. IMHO, what he is doing is trying to pull the Democratic party to the left. I agree that the Democratic party is too centrist, but don't agree that it's worth losing this election over, especially with the consequences I mentioned earlier. I think Nader DOES believe it's worth it, and I don't respect that. Well, you asked!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:56:54 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Katie Subject: why I'm not a Nader fan Message:

Katie: I think that Nader is going to take votes away from Gore and I am NOT sure (as Nader seems to be) that 'Gore is going to win.' I cannot believe he is even saying this! I think Nader is taking a real risk of having Bush get elected (with subsequent consequences for the environment, women's rights, and gun control legislation) in order to make his statement. I don't respect this - it seems quite selfish to me. The only real power an independent movement can have comes if they spoil the election for the party that's closest to their position. There isn't any ambiguity about this, so if Gore wins in spite of Nader he can effectively ignore Nader's supporters and issues. I think Gore would be the far better president of the two, but my career will be much better served if Bush is elected (and I bear a grudge against Gore for his campaign against Bradley anyway)... so the only way I can really feel good about the election is to cast a vote for Nader in the hope that it'll eventually have some impact on the healthcare issue. Definitely a long term strategy. BTW, presidents have been notoriously unsuccessful at nominating supreme court candidates on the basis of ideology. This is especially true of the Ds win back control of Congress, and the electorate has a history of ticket-splitting that goes back to the Civil War. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 20:05:59 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Oh come on, Scott Message:

BTW, presidents have been notoriously unsuccessful at nominating supreme court candidates on the basis of ideology. Well, what about Thomas and Scalia, who are about the most radically conservative judges you could find, and Bush has said they are models for the kind of judges he would nominate. Both were confirmed when the Democrats controlled the Senate. Scalia was confirmed 98-0, (including Al Gore, by the way)with two Republicans absent. Thomas, even after the whole Anita Hill debacle, was confirmed 52-48, with 11 democrats supporting him, again, when the Democrats controlled the Senate. Seuter was a shock for Bush, but think of the other Republican nominees who have been confirmed. By the way, it's extremely unlikely the Democrats will win back the Senate this year, especially now that the candidate in Missouri was just killed in a plane crash. The Democrats might net a couple of seats (winning Georgia, Minnesota, Delaware, maybe Michigan (but unlikely), maybe Florida, while losing seats in Nebraska, Nevada, and maybe Virginia -- they had a shot at Missouri, but that's now gone and it looks like Hillary may hold on to Moynihan's seat, although that's very close.) Anyhow, it's likely if Bush wins he will have a Republican senate which hasn't happened since the Reagan's first term, and the next President may get to nominate as many as FOUR justices. No, the threat is very real, and that's why I wouldn't vote for Nader if it is at all close in the state I am living in. But Gore is pretty safe in Maryland, right?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:07:29 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Oh come on, Scott Message:

I think Gore is safe here in MD. Lots of professional wonks, you know. Concerning the court makeup, the issue is really not the Supreme Court since I don't think the behavior of nominees is as predictable as you say, either for Rs or Ds. Not many judges fit the profile of Scalia. He's almost a one-of-a-kind. Thomas's appointment was highly politicized, and the Ds just lost that battle because they played their cards wrong. The issue is really what happens in the lower federal courts, where a very large percentage may be replaced. Clinton is working furiously to make as many of those appointments as possible before he leaves office, but there will still be a lot of vacancies left. This was also one of Pat Moynihan's pet issues, lobbying for a non-partisan commission to make the appointments and to fill a huge backlog of vacancies, and it's not clear that Hillary will take up the cudgel should she win. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 22:39:47 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Oh come on, Scott Message:

Concerning the court makeup, the issue is really not the Supreme Court since I don't think the behavior of nominees is as predictable as you say, either for Rs or Ds. I completely disagree with this. You can tell pretty well from a lower judge's decisions where he is going to stand on issues. Not everything, but it isn't rocket science to figure out whether someone is going to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example, or where they stand on civil rights, affirmative action, and voting rights. And there are plently more Scalia's out there, and plenty more Thomas's too, who wasn't even qualified (he got the ABA's lowest possible rating) but got confirmed anyway. In the past 32 years, nominations of the Supreme Court have been made principly by Nixon, Reagan and Bush the elder, who would have made the situation much worse had he known what he was doing when he nominated David Souter. With that choice, Bush senior didn't get the conservative promised him by John Sununu but suffered the biggest court surprise since Eisenhower picked Earl Warren to be chief justice. But the rest were real conservatives, and have moved the Court way to the right, to the point where one vote separates on a number of key issues. So, I think the question is, who would you rather be making nominations to the court, Bush, or Gore, especially since Bush has specifically promised the christian right that more Scalias are on the way, and he may get three, and if he's successful Roe v. Wade is gone for sure? And you are right, the lower courts are also important and two-thirds of those judges were packed with conservative judges by Reagan and Bush Senior. Today, there are no more blacks on the appellate courts than there were under Carter. Long confirmation delays of Clinton's appointees in the republican senate have been bluntly focused on Clinton's minority nominees -- for example Richard Perez had to wait 4 YEARS before the senate confirmed him to the 9th circuit. Together with Clinton's cautious approach to judicial selection -- a republican senate gives him little choice -- these delays have helped prevent racial, gender, or ideological balance on the appellate bench. It's not likely that judicial selections by George W. Bush, to be confirmed in a process dominated by Orrin Hatch (judiciary comm) and Trent Lott are going to change any of that. At least with Al Gore, there is a chance that the bench might look more like America.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:00:22 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Oh come on, Scott Message:

Joe: I seem to recall a fairly impressive argument to the effect that the behavior of judges appointed to the Supreme Court over the past century often does not reflect their lower court rulings, or the ideology of the executives who appointed them. Clearly it does in the case of Scalia and Thomas, but probably not in the case of Suder or O'Connor. I admit, however, that this is not my area of expertise. Regarding the lower courts, I wonder why there was never any support from the executive or legislature for Moynihan's reforms? They would seem to be almost a no-brainer. I have a laundry list of issues the Ds *ought* to be working on, but few seem interested. I contend that we have mediocre leadership in this country... and that's what really interests me. The ideological churning seems to be a perennial cost, like death and taxes. I wonder if there's a way out? --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 23:32:06 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Scott T. Subject: Oh come on, Scott Message:

. Clearly it does in the case of Scalia and Thomas, but probably not in the case of Suder or O'Connor. I admit, however, that this is not my area of expertise. David Souter was a STATE judge in New Hampshire. Not a lot of action there, so there wasn't much to see, which was the strategy. Sununu convinced Bush that Souter was a real conservative, but with not much of a record, there would be no controversy, and he would get confirmed, which is what happened, but he didn't get the conservative. Most nominees, however, come from the federal bench and have a pretty good track record. It's pretty easy to see where they stand. It isn't a guarantee, just a very good indication. O'Connor was also a bit of an exception because Reagan wanted to appoint a woman, and there weren't as many choices, but O'Connor is and was a conservative, and she appears to be moving more to the right in her old age. She is just very 'on the fence' on reproductive choice. She kind of will do everything BUT overrule Roe v. Wade, for example. No, if you look at the nominees of republicans v. the nominees of democrats, it's very clear that there is a clear ideological difference. There are exceptions, but then there's the rule they are an exception to.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 04:22:25 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Joe Subject: Oh come on, Scott Message:

Joe: Thanks for the observations. I wish I knew a bit more about the SC. I began studying Stare Decisis and the Rule of Law, but sort of drifted away as I became more involved in electoral politics. Amy Poole, one of my co-conspirators and classmates, has kept up with it though. I think she's now at Florida State, and wrote her dissertation on the evolution of 'rights.' I also know a bit about 'constitutional legitimacy' which is a very troubling subject if you know too much. It's one of those topics that's better left alone until there's no turning back. Speaking of predicting the behavior of powerful figures I have a friend at Stanford who wrote her dissertation on a statistical model that predicts how the members of the Federal Reserve Board will vote on interest rates. Man, did her career take off! I'm thinking there's a strong likelihood the Ds will retake the Congress, or at least the House. I'm also not entirely convinced that Gore will lose, though I think he's in serious trouble. If he can succeed in binding himself to the Clinton economic legacy while building the perception of the possibility that Bush might not know enough to keep the gravy train rolling then people just might have a final change of heart as they enter the voting booth. It's a long shot, and he sure doesn't seem adept enough to carry it off right now, but he's done some surprising things in the past so I'm not counting him out. Incidentally, listening to Gore's performance in the most recent debate do you now know what I mean by 'babbling?' It's not as though he's talking nonesense, but he might as well be for all the sense that gets through to the public. Clinton sort of did the same thing for awhile, until he simplified his message. The only time he tries to cram the whole policy universe into a matchbox nowadays is during the State of the Union message. But Clinton also had the virtue of being a LOT more personable than Gore, which meant that his rambling and wonkishness wasn't usually fatal. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 15:16:39 (GMT) From: Rick Email: None To: Katie Subject: why I'm not a Nader fan Message:

Thanks, Katie. That's a reasonable explanation. I'm also scared of Bush being elected, and I think Nader's reading of that possibility and its consequences, is distorted. But on basic issues and sincerity, I think Nader's the best candidate. I believe Nader when he says he's running because he believes he had a real chance of winning. His attempt to be included in the debates could have made that possible, even if it was a longshot. He cited Jesse Ventura's election to office after being included in the debates in Michigan. The person I really wish was running was Mario Cuomo. If Cuomo could debate Bush, I think more people would see through Bush as being unintelligent, adolescent and insincere.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 19:35:49 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Rick Subject: why I'm not a Nader fan Message:

That's a reasonable explanation. I'm also scared of Bush being elected, and I think Nader's reading of that possibility and its consequences, is distorted. But on basic issues and sincerity, I think Nader's the best candidate. I think Nader's 'opinion' is clearly influenced by the fact that he can't say anything else to his constituents. I have no doubt that he knows the reality of the situation, however. He's not dumb. The more he's able to spoil the election for Gore the greater his subsequent leverage within the Democratic Party. If Bush wins by a plurality, and Nader gets anything close to 10%, he simply can't be ignored... period. Frankly I don't see that there's any alternative for anyone who seriously has Nader's views on healthcare. If that issue is important to you then you have to think in terms of decades, not elections. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:12:19 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Get a life, Jim in the SOCIETY PAGES Message:

Don't play the fool Jim. You know a meant a story that he lied about the house. Don't play dumb.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:20:59 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: What? That's a nonsequitor Message:

Are you saying that the story ISN'T about him lying about the house? I don't get that at all from the article. In fact, it sounds as if the woman was definitely challenging him about reports that he, and not his brother, bought and lived in the house. But, before we go further, do you agree that he'd be quite the snake if he did, in fact, lie about the house and still pretended to live as claimed? Because we could look into this further. But first I'm curious if you'd agree that that kind of deceit -- if proven, of course -- would be very troubling indeed in terms of his credibility.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:24:59 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Then you didn't read the article, as usual.. Message:

The website doesn't say Nader LIED about ANYTHING. Tell me, Jim, WHAT do even that website claim he LIED about? That article from the society pages says Nader knew about what the inside of his brother's house looked like. Period. So? From that, they IMPLY that he lives there sometimes. So? They don't even say he bought it, or that he lied about ANYTHING. You would never let a premie get away with saying such dumb stuff, Jim. This isn't like you.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 00:44:25 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: No, Joe, YOU didn't read it Message:

This is rather funny, isn't it? Having an off-topic argument (including gratuitous insults, thank you very much) while Rome burns around us? Ooops! Watch out for that falling piece of Spam! Anyway, I think you're getting a little emotional here and losing your usual clarity, not to mention appreciation and gratitude. The article is not well-written. On that I think we agree. But it DOES imply, at least, that Nader's lying about the house: Nader issued a statement 'that he does not live in his brother's Bancroft Place house', but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him privately, he wouldn't deny it. Assuming that what he wouldn't deny privately is what he denied publically, well, there's your lie. No? But that's just about LIVING there. This part, again needlessly vague, implies that he also lied about BUYING it, i.e. suggesting that he actually bought it for himself: When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. 'He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla.' So there're two lies alleged. If I could get back into the website, which I can't right now, I'd see if there are any others.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 05:38:23 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Is that it -- 'needlessly vague?' Indeed Message:

Your point, and the website's point is SOO STOOPID. First, you say there is a website with 'skeletons.' When I say there is nothing there, you make some statement that Nader LIED about BUYING a house. When I show you that's wrong, you are now reduced to arguing about whether or not Nader refused to deny, on the absolutely total hearsay statement of a former employee, living in his brother's house, about which there is not even allegation that he bought it. And sorry, Jim, that stooopid statement from the society columnist does NOT even allege a lie. You are just wrong, admit it. Talk about nothing. Talk about less than nothing. Talk about Jim trying to scramble because he didn't bother to look into a stooopid amatuerish website, the kind of thing you jump all over Gerry for believing. Well, you just did the same thing, I'm afraid. So, tell me again, Jim, what terrible thing did Nader do that should disqualify him from getting my vote?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:15:38 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Quit screeching Message:

Your point, and the website's point is SOO STOOPID. First, you say there is a website with 'skeletons.' When I say there is nothing there, you make some statement that Nader LIED about BUYING a house. Sorry, Joe, but from my perspective you're the one who's getting a little mixed up here. For one thing, I never said there is a 'website with skeletons.' Rather, I said: Did you read the Closet Skeletons stuff on him? What do you think of them? It sounds like he's just another snake although, as is often the case with the self-righteous, a particularly sneaky one. Without looking it up, I remembered that the website in general was called something like that (in fact it's called 'Skeleton Closet') and was just referring to it. Whether you agree with anything on the site or not, I'm sure you'd agree that it has a name, wouldn't you? And I'm sure you'd agree that it's name is 'Skeleton Closet' too, right? Well all I said was that there was 'stuff' on Nader there that made him look like a 'snake ....etc'. Yeah, I stand by that. And I'd ask you to be more accurate when you're quoting me (especially when your point is that I'm stoopid.) I never said -- at least I don't THINK I said -- that 'Nader LIED about BUYING a house.' The closest I came was to say (in the prior post): ...I read that stuff and it DOES appear that he's lied about his wealth and assests including the house. I'm qualifying my opinion, aren't I? Like, as if I know if Nader really lied about this! I don't. But, at the same time, I thought -- and still think -- that it pretty much LOOKS like he did. Stoopid? Maybe. Maybe not. When I show you that's wrong, you are now reduced to arguing about whether or not Nader refused to deny, on the absolutely total hearsay statement of a former employee, living in his brother's house, about which there is not even allegation that he bought it. If I understand what we're talking about, you showed me no such thing. You're saying that you showed me that Nader did NOT lie about the house? When did you do that? You've got to show me because I actually read your posts this time before responding. I even went back and read it (and them) again. I never saw you showing me anything of the sort. What you DID do was say that the article doesn't even ALLEGE any lies. And that's where I tried to show how it does indeed do that, however unclearly. Okay, I stand by that too. The article does indeed insinuate, at the very minimum, that Nader has lied both about living there and also owning it. I've already explained where and how it does that. Frankly, Joe, it looks like you're confused here. You say that I'm 'reduced to arguing ....' Let's not be ridiculous, huh? You asked me, very specifically, how and where the article accuses Nader of lying and I showed you. I wasn't 'reduced' to anything. But I think you're confusing the fact that the article accuses Nader of lying with the way that it does so and the evidence it offers to support its claim. The 'total hearsay' ('Declaration against Interest'?) of the former employee might not be very compelling in your view but it IS evidence nonetheless. Evidence of what? That Nader lied because, like I say, that's what the article alleges. And yes it does allege that, by innuendo, in its discussion about his brother's unlikely ability to buy the house himself thus leaving the inescapable impression that Nader, in fact, was the true owner: 'Some investigation showed that Nader's brother purchased the house -- worth $100,000 even back in 1972 -- though he was an underemployed educational 'consultant' and had no education beyond high school.' In the context of the next sentences: 'Nader issued a statement 'that he does not live in his brother's Bancroft Place house', but when a now-former worker (Lowell Dodge) asked him privately, he wouldn't deny it. When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was. 'He talks about that real estate investment the way some men talk about sex. He's so excited about the whole idea of tax write-offs and all that. I mean, did I realize that that's the greatest investment you can make, the biggest tax advantage, bla bla bla bla bla bla.'' it's clear that the article is indeed alleging -- by inuendo -- that Nader bought the house and lives in it and thus lied about both. And sorry, Jim, that stooopid statement from the society columnist does NOT even allege a lie. You are just wrong, admit it. Sorry, Joe, I can't agree with you. She apparently claims (in one of her columns, I presume) that she 'asked Nader about the reports.' What reports? Obviously that he, and not his brother, bought and lived in the house. Well, don't you see how she has Nader bragging about BUYING it?: 'When the Washington Post's then-society columnist Maxine Cheshire asked Nader about the reports, he knew every detail of the house's financing and couldn't resist rhapsodizing about what a great tax break buying a house was.' Granted, as I've always said, the article isn't tight. After all, maybe, just maybe, Nader was talking about what a 'great tax break buying a house was' for his brother. We don't know. But it does look like the article's suggesting, at minimum, that Nader was talking about buying it for himself. Or am I just being stupid? Talk about nothing. Talk about less than nothing. Talk about Jim trying to scramble because he didn't bother to look into a stooopid amatuerish website, the kind of thing you jump all over Gerry for believing. Well, you just did the same thing, I'm afraid. No, no, no, no, no! I don't say for a minute that the website is the final word on this. I admit that I find that there's something of a prima facie case that Nader's lying about the house. After all, you've got his own words, supposedly, bragging about it. But sure, I admit, it could all be bullshit. Nader might never have issued a statement denying that he lives there. That part could be a lie. Or the former employee might never have talked to him about it. Or the gossip columnist might be lying. Or maybe she really was twisting his words to set up the innuendo. Okay, the most I'll grant you here is that maybe I'm being a bit hasty saying even that 'it APPEARS' that he's lying about it all. Maybe that's a bit strong. But you're wrong about the article not alleging any lies. It does. Whether the case is made out would depend on the accuracy of the evidence but, Joe, there is evidence there, like it or not. Call it 'hearsay' if you will (it's not just that, by the way), it's still evidence. There's still an allegation as ridiculous or irrelevant as you might think. So, tell me again, Jim, what terrible thing did Nader do that should disqualify him from getting my vote? Okay, I will. Nader might -- let's just say 'might' for now -- have lied about buying the house and living in it. If he did, I think he's a snake and would never vote for him. How about you?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 18:01:18 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Talk about screeching.... Message:

Don't give me that crap that you didn't think the whole thing about Nader was that he bought a house and then lied about it. In fact, Jim, you said in your orignal post, which you conveniently failed to re-quote in your above post, the following: To me, if he really did buy that house for himself and lie about it, he's less trustworthy than anyone I'd ever vote for. That was your accusation of Nader, that there was at least an accustion that the bought a house when there isn't one. And you have to admit, as I think you do with lots of obfuscation, that there is ZERO evidence that Nader ever bought any house, or that he lied about ANYTHING. A prima facia case at LEAST requires an allegation, and there isn't one here. There are implications, mostly from you and not from the website, that maybe, if you read real closely between the lines, that somebody might be INSINUATING a lie, but even that stoOOPID website, doesn't even allege that, all you have is your opinon on what the INNUENDO of what they are saying is. That is not evidence of anything Nader did wrong and that is the bottom line Jim so just admit you are wrong. And you admit there is no evidence Nader lied about anything, and the burden of proof is on those who make the accusations, right? Isn't that what you always say, Jim? So, Jim, WHERE is the evidence? In fact, WHERE did somebody actually even make a direct allegation (whether true or not) that he lied, and I mean by more that your subjective interpretation of and INNUENDO, on some website, that is. Again, what is the reason I shouldn't vote for Nader? Again, Nader MIGHT have committed murder, or MIGHT have lied sometime, but things require some kind of allegation and proof, Jim. I would think you would know that before you start making decisions about people based, not even on allegations, but merely insinuations of allegations, and with no proof whatsoever. You are usually better than that, Jim.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:30:53 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: You're not reading me carefully Message:

I'm really surprised with how you're arguing this, quite frankly. You wrote: Don't give me that crap that you didn't think the whole thing about Nader was that he bought a house and then lied about it. In fact, Jim, you said in your orignal post, which you conveniently failed to re-quote in your above post, the following: To me, if he really did buy that house for himself and lie about it, he's less trustworthy than anyone I'd ever vote for. That was your accusation of Nader, that there was at least an accustion that the bought a house when there isn't one. Rather than call me a liar why not look at this fairly? I'm not accusing Nader of nothing. My words above are conditional. And, again, I stand by them. IF he bought the house for himself and lied about it, I would never vote for him. By the way, I'll ask you again: would you? Are is this question beneath contempt and entirely unworthy of your consideration? I know, there are questions like that. 'Joe, if you discovered that your parents cut up all the other little kids that you used to fight with at school and fed them to your sister, would you still spend Christmas with them?' A question like that doesn't deserve an answer. Maybe you think the question about Nader's the same. Personally, I don't. And you have to admit, as I think you do with lots of obfuscation, that there is ZERO evidence that Nader ever bought any house, or that he lied about ANYTHING. A prima facia case at LEAST requires an allegation, and there isn't one here. There are implications, mostly from you and not from the website, that maybe, if you read real closely between the lines, that somebody might be INSINUATING a lie, but even that stoOOPID website, doesn't even allege that, all you have is your opinon on what the INNUENDO of what they are saying is. That is not evidence of anything Nader did wrong and that is the bottom line Jim so just admit you are wrong. How many ways can I explain this? The article does indeed present some evidence -- however incomplete or questionable -- that Nader lied about the house: Nader's brother apparently lacked the means to purchase it. Although he issued a statement categorically denying that he lives there, a former 'worker' asked Nader (presumably if he did, in fact, live there) and he didn't deny it. When confronted about the 'reports' (again, presumably that he at least lived in the house and maybe, I assume, that he owned it), Nader's familiarity with the financial details and apparent pride over the transaction raises some question, given the other two points, as to whether he's just talking about an acquisition of his brothers. So, sorry Joe, that is indeed some evidence to support the website's allegation that Nader is lying about who owns the house. Now am I saying that the case is made out? No. But I am saying that there's an allegation there that well might be true. After all, assuming that the website isn't simply lying -- which, I realize, is possible as well -- aren't you troubled by the following: Why did Nader not deny to his employee that he lived in the house when privately and directly asked? How did Nader's brother buy it if he didn't have any apparent means to do so? Why didn't Nader categorically deny that it was his house when the WP columnist asked him about it but instead waxed on about what a great deal it was? Look, Joe, I'm trying to be fair about this but you're making it hard. I think maybe it was rash of me to go even so far as to say that 'it APPEARS' that Nader was lying. After all, the website or its sources could all be liars. Again, maybe neither the foremr employee or the columnist are telling the truth about their conversations with Nader or maybe they just misconstrued what he said. But I can only back up so much and the fact remains that, if they're NOT lying or mistaken, Nader does look like he might be lying. Don't you agree? You laugh at my take on these various discussions but what's yours? Assuming, for argument's sake, that they were fairly reported, what do you make of them?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 20:47:59 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: You're not reading me carefully Message:

Jim: When confronted about the 'reports' (again, presumably that he at least lived in the house and maybe, I assume, that he owned it), Nader's familiarity with the financial details and apparent pride over the transaction raises some question, given the other two points, as to whether he's just talking about an acquisition of his brothers. Famous people are sometimes hard pressed to find a topic of common interest for conversations they can share with others. So he might have decided to talk about his brother's acquisition and rather than expressing pride he was simply overemphasizing his interest. I was at an afternoon party put on by a friend who owns a vineyard, and my friend was giving walking tours to groups of guests. One old fellow who was very famous looked over at his neighbor and with a perfectly straight face expressed some curiosity as to exactly why the family dog was going along on the tour since he had obviously seen the vineyard before. He even fooled his wife, who thought he seriously had difficulty understanding the behavior of dogs because he had grown up in the city. I'm giggling about it now as I write. Obviously he was just trying to be friendly, but someone who didn't know him might well conclude that he was either senile or deprecating. I've seen this sort of thing a lot. These folks are simply making an effort to find an area of common interest, instead of 'talking shop,' and the effort is often misinterpreted. Of course, the implications still might be accurate... but if so the explanation that he was living in a house for which he was denying ownership or residence just doesn't seem very plausible. A very public person could never get away with such a thing, especially someone like Nader, *nor would they want to*. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:43:48 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: You're not reading that website carefully Message:

Rather than call me a liar why not look at this fairly? I'm not accusing Nader of nothing. My words above are conditional. And, again, I stand by them. IF he bought the house for himself and lied about it, I would never vote for him. Get ahold of yourself Jim. I didn't call you a liar, but let's remember where this all started, before you started backpeddling to save your life, that is. You said how could I vote for Nader when there was an issue about whether he bought a house and lied about it. I keep asking for where you see either the accusation, or more importantly, the proof, and you don't have any. That is the bottom line, and the rest of this discussion is kind of ridiculous. You lost, Jim, get over it. You have the non-accusation of a gossip columnist. And again, I ask you, if there was one shread of credible evidence than the INSINUATION (which isn't even an allegation until YOU make it one) was true, don't you think there would be an article in the Washington Post directly raising that issue? I asked you this before and you responded that some INSINUATION appeared in a gossip column in the Post. You know damn well that wasn't what I was asking. I was asking about a real news article which raised the issue and actually investigated it if there was any truth to it. Can you find one? Don't you think if there was one it would be on that anti-Nader website? I frankly can't believe you are even trying to argue such an incredibly weak position. This is silly.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 19:55:58 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: So I don't deserve an answer, I guess Message:

I'm getting a little frustrated here. Yes, I know I've 'lost'. You've told me that how many times now? But before I pick up all my marbles and go home I would like to know, just for the hell of it, would you, in fact, vote for the guy if he'd lied about the house? Plain and simple question, Joe. Well? You then offer that if Nader really had lied about this it'd be a much bigger story and not just a bit of vague innuendo on the Society page. Hell, I don't know. Maybe, sure, but maybe not. I guess now that he's a presidential candidate, however marginal, you'd expect that kind of thorough examination. Good point there, Joe, and all the more reason to think that maybe there's nothing to the story. But Joe, you're wrong about a few things. The website DOES accuse Nader of lying and does so on the basis of the evidence I've already explained. I guess you just don't understand me. Fine. That happens. And maybe I'm wrong. But I'm pretty satisfied that I'm not. I've already explained my argument in detail but you're not dealing with the specifics. I've set out what evidence the website offers and I think it proves my point that the website, at least, is indeed accusing Nader of lying. Maybe someone else sees what I'm saying, maybe not. But I'm confident in the reasoning.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:04:25 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: So I don't deserve an answer, I guess Message:

Jim if Nader bought a house and lied about it, I wouldn't vote for him. But that's kind of irrelevent since there is zero proof he did, nor is there even an allegation he did. So that's just a kind of interesting hypothectical question, I guess. So, there's the answer. Does that help you out? And given that he has now released his tax returns, if he was taking that deduction he liked so much, we would know about it. Correction, Jim. I think if you read the website carefully, you will find that it alleges that Nader was living in his brother's house and didn't deny it to somebody. There is an actual allegation there, I think, although no credible proof, and frankly I think it's meaningless. I think the 'allegation' that he even bought that house, let alone lie about it, only becomes an allegation when you, in your own head, piece together a couple of insinuations. Isn't that true Jim? Please, quote me the statement from that website that says Nader lied about buying that house, I mean, without going through 11 paragraphs of insinuations and then interpreting it like you did in your post above. It just isn't there, although I know you think it is. I think you are in a minority of one there.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:24:34 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: Can I tell you something? Message:

You can make fun of me and my head all you want but: Fact is -- if Dodge isn't lying -- Nader was directly asked if he lived in the house Nader didn't deny it. Fact is, as well -- if Chesire isn't lying (and if I understand the story correctly) -- Nader was directly asked about reports that he lived in and / or owned the house and again Nader denied nothing. In fact, he spoke with some apparent enthusiasm about what a great purchase it was. Read nothing into this if you don't want to. I smell smoke.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:18:28 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Smoke, or smoke rings Message:

Suspicion is a different animal than allegations and proof. Now that you have suspicion, I'm sure you will investigate further to find out whether there is any support for your suspicion, if there really is fire where you smell smoke. Maybe you could start by reading up on Nader's tax returns which have been made public. That might clear it up for you. But one would think we would have heard about it if there was anything there. But hey, maybe they just missed it and you need to tell the Post and the Times to get onto it because this is all really suspicious.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 21:15:03 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: Smelling smoke or making rings...... Message:

Suspicion is entirely different than allegation and proof. So, since you are suspicious, I'm sure you will investigate further to see if there is fire where you smell smoke. That way, you can put your suspicions to rest one way or another.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:06:47 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Joe Subject: There's less than nothing there, Jim Message:

I just got into that stupid website. It says that Nader's brother owns the house and the IMPLY, IMPLY, maybe, it's hard to tell that maybe Nader bought it for him, although they don't even say THAT. Read it Jim. You tell me, what the hell ARE they saying?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:14:38 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Joe Subject: No, it's just not really clear Message:

Joe, I agree that the article could have been clearer. For example, did the WP actually publish something about the house? And did Nader ever specifically deny buying it? But I'll say this much again -- if Nader really did buy the house secretly for himself and continue to pretend to live a much simpler, nay spartan existence for public relations purposes, I, for one, would never vote for him. Never.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:18:55 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Jim Subject: No, it's very clear Message:

I agree that the article could have been clearer. For example, did the WP actually publish something about the house? And did Nader ever specifically deny buying it? No, he didn't. If you are making accusations like that, just like the website, you ought to have some proof, which neither you nor the website do. That website is a stupid anti-Nader screed. If there was some proof, don't you think they might put it there, instead of quoting the society pages, and implying Nader did something wrong, when there isn't any proof he did? And Nader hasn't PRETENDED to be living in a boarding house or a spartan existence for 25 years. Gee, Jim, you would never get away with this in court. If he was a MURDERER I wouldn't vote for him, but there isn't any evidence of THAT either.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 23:10:21 (GMT) From: Joe Email: None To: Joe Subject: And a correction Message:

Nader HAS released all his tax returns, in contradiction of that website. He didn't release them in 1996, because you don't have to if you spend less than $5,000 on a campaign. But he HAS released them this time around. So, Jim, would you not vote for someone because he might sometimes live in his brother's house? Terrible deceit, isn't it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:32:23 (GMT) From: cq Email: None To: Everyone Subject: Who ever thought the tobacco companies ... Message:

... would get sued and have to pay up? As 'un'likely as the Maha getting sued for false representation? I wonder.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:14:37 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: fitzroy@liverpool.ac.uk To: Everyone Subject: Liverpool's First Latvian night... (ot) Message:

Hammy hamzen will be in town on Thursday, so there will be at least three exes on Merseyside (including myself and 'hammy' Loaf-ji). And, as they say, two's company - three's a crowd, so we'll be hitting the town for a modest celebratory event. Any other UK exes happening to be nearby and fancying a bit of liquid participation might like to either email me or ring me on (0)151 734 0420 (evening).

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:16:26 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Nigel Subject: Liverpool's Next Latvian night... (ot) Message:

Nigel: Maybe next year when I'm in Cork again, you'll be able to put another Latvian night together.... Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:56:21 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Marianne Subject: I came back, how are you? Message:

Dear Marianne, I came back about a week ago. I haven't seen your name but have been wondering how you are. Hope you're well, Best, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 21:42:26 (GMT) From: Marianne Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: Hey there, Cynthia (ot) Message:

Hi Cynthia. I've been totally inundated with work on my death penalty cases, and just have not had any time to devote to the forum. I do keep an eye on what's happening though. I did see that you were back. Nice to see you again. How are things back east? What's autumn like this year? Take care, Marianne

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:25:14 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Marianne Subject: Autumn has been great(ot) Message:

Hi Marianne, It was a cool, wet summer, and now that the leaves peaked out in wonderful colors, they are falling so fast it sounds like a hard rain sometimes. I've been here for 14 years and every year the fall colors are absolutely breathtaking. This was a particularly bright season and sometimes it's actually hard to drive around, because from mountainside to hillside those colors are so striking it's hard to keep your eye on the road. It's especially hard to drive with the literally millions of folks who come up here during the peak times, and haven't a clue how to drive on the mountain roads. We still have had some warm sunny days, but soon we'll enter what we call 'stick season,' when all the leaves are gone, the tourists are gone, hunters disappear into the woods, and everyone prays for snow. Up here, snow is very, very good. Snow makes everyone very happy, and we've actually had some already! Good to hear from you, Best, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:08:19 (GMT) From: bill Email: None To: Cynthia Subject: Autumn has been great(ot) Message:

Hi Cynthia! Good to see your name again. As you know, M dettmers is about. Maybe you could post to him in a couple days when he gets back. You did have some direct involvement days. Jar a little data out of him. This autumn IS better than usual it seems!

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Thurs, Oct 19, 2000 at 13:22:08 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: bill Subject: Hi Bill.... Message:

How are you? I'm hanging in there. Actually, I never had any interaction with Michael, but do have questions. I have to say his posts have given me a lot of relief and validation. It seems all that programming and indoctrination has creeped up on me and I've been feeling very sad lately, especially about my personal issues surrounding spirituality. It's quite momentous to have someone like Michael finally come forward and not only answer questions, but offer his own feelings about the cult. I have to add something re: Bob Mishler. When I went back in 1998, I asked an old premie what ever happened to Bob Mishler and the answer was 'Oh he just flipped out, left Maharaji, and he died anyway, so it doesn't matter.' When I came here and read his interview, I realized that is probably what's being said about Michael, too. When the truth is told about the cult by an expremie, they're 'freaking out.' Typical party line... Be well, Love, Cynthia

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:36:51 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: I volunteer participating coordinating volunteers Message:

This was the add on EV's site: Job# POP011 Functional Area Participation Job Title Coordinator for NAM Volunteer Care, Participation Team Job Description Excellent volunteer position for someone who is interested in the field of Human Resources or Organizational Development. The ideal candidate will assist volunteer care function by organizing feedback, managing communication and coordinating and assisting with administrative functions as the NAM participation team evolves. Will work closely with the National and global participation team as well as Visions, Elan Vital, Web Master, Event Team etc. Must be well-organized and have the ability to handle sensitive information. Skills required Previous experience preferred but not essential. Applicants must possess a professional demeanor, excellent communication skills and be computer literate. Must be comfortable with data base or excel, word processing and email applications. Time needed 10 hours a week Location Telecommute Click to Apply or email participation@elanvital.org with Job#POP0011 in the subject. And this was my email: Hi, I'm inquiring about the above-referenced position as a coordinator for NAM Volunteer Care, Participation Team. One of my most cherished cult memories was that of serving as on-site coordinator for all the Premie Assistance booths at the two Kissimee festivals. The year that Maharaji threw a tantrum was especially satisfying as I had the opportunity to assist many premies who were turned back at the gate after starting to leave. There was so much confusion and fear then and I found that service very rewarding. Indeed, Tim Gallwey himself came by one of our booths at two or three one morning, wrapped in a blanket and barely intelligible. No one, large or small, was immune to the Grace at that event. I would like this participation opportunity because I realized then that I have a real talent for dealing with confusion. Confusion, you might say, is my middle name. I believe that there will be much confusion in the months ahead and I would sincerely like to be involved in coordinating and caring for it, if that's possible. Please contact me to discuss this further. Sincerely, Jim Heller

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:43:04 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Jim Subject: I volunteer participating coordinating volunteers Message:

Just checked the EV website out. Aren't those poops all so juicy! Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 19:20:30 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Jim Subject: I volunteer participating coordinating volunteers Message:

Guess what, Jim, you were my boss in Kissimee 1978. Do you want to go there? Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:23:45 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Steven Quint Subject: This is hilarious Message:

Yes, by all means. What do you remember?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 16:24:35 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Jim Subject: This is hilarious Message:

I'll have to call you about this one. It's a long story. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 08:38:33 (GMT) From: janet of venice Email: None To: Steven Quintand Jim helle Subject: kissimmee 78 Message:

i think if there are bad feelings from that time, i think steve is within his recovery rights to bring out his long suppressed issues from that time and confront you Jim. its a part of the healing. you--and we all- may have damaged each other thoughtlessly in the name of majaraji. we are here to get straight from those days. its time to listen honestly and to make amends among each other,. if he succeeds in keeping us at each others throats, we are still victims and prisoners of that time. silence kills. i say bring it out. lets hear it. we did terrble things ot one another in the name of that fat fuck. living better since, is the best revenge. to claim our humanity back again, after he robbed us of it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 15:24:45 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: janet of venice Subject: Relax, janet, relax Message:

You're pretty funny too, janet. What do you think Steve's talking about?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:33:38 (GMT) From: Selene Email: None To: Jim Subject: hahahaha! I think I'll apply. Message:

And how much does it pay. Did I miss that part?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:28:16 (GMT) From: Tonette Email: None To: Jim Subject: LMAO!!!! Message:

NAM rhymes with PAM. Maybe there's hope here yet.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:12:15 (GMT) From: Cynthia Email: None To: Jim Subject: Great post! But...I think I want that job! (not)nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:41:18 (GMT) From: Daneane Email: None To: Jim Subject: It's about time you showed a little iniative(nt) Message:

slacker

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:08:23 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Everyone Subject: OK, I'm convinced (OT -- Tonette, keep out!) Message:

From U.S. News and World Report: Hunting for good Will Will the real Shakespeare please stand up? BY MICHAEL SATCHELL LONDON–Among the crowds enjoying the summer productions of Hamlet and The Tempest at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, few are likely to question who wrote the 38 plays, two long poems, and 154 sonnets that make up the West's greatest canon of literary genius. Conventional wisdom points to the Stratford merchant and supposed Globe actor, born to an illiterate glove maker in 1564 and baptized Gulielmus Shakspere. But there is growing circumstantial evidence that the Bard may be an Elizabethan courtier and author, the Earl of Oxford. The authorship question has been pondered since the 1780s, when the Rev. James Wilmot spent four fruitless years trying to link the Stratford man to the works attributed to him. Today, those who believe that Shakspere was the author have no definitive proof but instead point to Hamlet's declaration: 'The play's the thing.' Disbelievers, borrowing from The Rape of Lucrece, are eager 'to unmask falsehood and bring truth to light.' Charles Francis Topham de Vere Beauclerk, the Earl of Burford and direct descendant of Edward de Vere (1550-1604), the 17th Earl of Oxford, believes his ancestor wrote the plays under the hyphenated pseudonym 'William Shake-speare.' Declares his lordship, curator of the de Vere library and a leading Oxford proponent: 'Academics have an enormous vested interest in Shakespeare: For them, the issue is not literary or historical, but political. Their man is a flimsy cardboard cutout.' The debate hums on both sides of the Atlantic, and over the years many have expressed doubt in Shakespeare's authorship. Skeptics range from Walt Whitman, Henry James, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Orson Welles, and John Gielgud to current entertainment luminaries such as Mark Rylance, artistic director of the Globe, and leading Shakespearean actors Michael York, Kenneth Branagh, and Derek Jacobi. Even Keanu Reeves has gotten into the act. The Matrix star, who appeared in Branagh's 1993 Much Ado About Nothing, is described by the de Vere camp as a dedicated Oxford supporter. Several Elizabethan writers, including Francis Bacon, Ben Jonson, and Christopher Marlowe, are proffered as possible authors, but the weight of evidence anoints de Vere as the leading candidate. Despite more than two centuries of research beginning with Wilmot, there isn't a scrap of documentation that Shakspere, the Warwickshire merchant, ever wrote anything in his life. There are no manuscripts, poems, letters, diaries, or records in his own hand. His will, dictated to a lawyer, makes no mention of a literary legacy and who should inherit it. Shakspere at best had only a grammar school education, and he is not known to have traveled beyond Stratford and London. He probably left the capital in his early to middle 40s, when his writing career presumably would have been at its zenith, and returned to the humdrum life of a provincial grain and property dealer. How, say skeptics, could he have accumulated the vast knowledge of royalty, court life, politics, and foreign lands–particularly of Italy, where several plays are set–woven through such a sophisticated body of work? Whoever wrote the plays and sonnets had a rare breadth of knowledge in numerous disciplines, including physical sciences, medicine, the law, astronomy, and the Bible. Grain man. Shakspere died in obscurity and was buried anonymously. Six years after his death in 1616, the first edition of Henry Peacham's The Compleat Gentleman was published, listing the Elizabethan era's greatest poets. Heading the list: Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. In this and three succeeding editions, there is no mention of Shakespeare by any spelling. Eighteen years after Shakspere's death, an engraved monument in a Stratford church shows him holding what appears to be a sack of grain. A century later, the sack became pen and paper. Stratfordians cherish their orthodoxy but have scant evidence to bolster their case. In 1623, the so-called First Folio of the complete works of 'William Shake-speare' was published, and the dedications include the phrases 'thy Stratford moniment' and 'sweet swan of Avon,' apparent references to the author's home. And presuming young Will attended grammar school, he most likely would have received a first-class education. Gail Kern Paster, editor of The Shakespeare Quarterly, calls the attack on the Bard a snobbish doctrine that rejects the idea of brilliance flowering in humble circumstances and that underestimates Elizabethan classical schooling. 'The only proof necessary is that Shakespeare could have written the plays and sonnets, not that he did,'' she says. But did de Vere? The 17th Earl of Oxford died in 1604, before a third of the plays were published, but his supporters argue that they could have been written and kept under wraps or that the publication dates are inaccurate. He earned two master's degrees, studied law for three years, traveled extensively throughout Italy, and had an intimate view of court life and politics. A playwright and author of sonnets, he ceased publishing under his own name in 1593–the same year that the name William Shake-speare appeared on a manuscript. It's probably a pseudonym, because hyphenation was rarely used then. And the name points to de Vere. His family crest contains a lion shaking a spear, and, at court, says Lord Burford, he was known as 'spear shaker.' (Although some believe that he knew the real Will Shakespeare and simply borrowed his name.) What's in a name? The pen name was almost certainly for protection. Many of the plays deal with court intrigue and political corruption and contain thinly veiled satires and parodies of politicians and courtiers. During the Elizabethan era, writers were imprisoned and mutilated for committing literary excesses or violating political correctness, and many wrote anonymously. Playwrights were also held in low esteem because public theaters like the Globe were the rowdy province of commoners, the audiences laced with prostitutes, cutpurses, drunkards, and scoundrels of every stripe. There may be an even more urgent reason. The 1623 First Folio of collected works is dedicated to the young Earl of Southampton, de Vere's son-in-law, with whom he is reputed to have had a homosexual affair. Scholars also see strong homoerotic threads in many of the sonnets–a dangerous business at a time when such affairs were a high crime. Mounting evidence appears to strengthen de Vere's candidacy. None is more persuasive than an eight-year study, completed in 1999, of the heavily marked and annotated Geneva Bible, owned by de Vere. More than one fourth of the 1,066 highlighted passages appear in Shakespeare's writings–phrases like 'weaver's beam' and 'I am that I am' and unusual names like 'Achitophel.' In addition, 29 of the playwright's 66 most prominent biblical allusions are also marked. Prof. Daniel Wright directs the annual Edward de Vere Studies Conference at Oregon's Concordia University and harbors no doubts that Oxford is the anonymous author. Says Wright: 'These works are the mature achievements of a worldly and urbane littérateur who could not tell the world his name.' And there's the rub, as Hamlet says–at least for the Shakespearean traditionalists.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 18:25:53 (GMT) From: Nigel Email: None To: Jim Subject: Not that old chestnut... Message:

'Academics have an enormous vested interest in Shakespeare: For them, the issue is not literary or historical, but political. Their man is a flimsy cardboard cutout.' While the Aristos have a not considerable interest in uncovering creative genius among their own...? (Apart from Lord Byron, they have nobody.) Personally, I'd be very disappointed to discover WS's plays were not written by a mysterious gent from the Tudor period about whom we know little, but were, instead, written by an another mysterious gent from the Tudor period about whom we know little. That would be so awful...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:32:30 (GMT) From: Tonette Email: None To: Jim Subject: I read it anyway. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Message:

haha

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 22:04:06 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Fuck off, Tonette Message:

I'm sorry if this isn't quite as interesting as what you were thinking about last night. But a lot of people do find the Shakespeare question intriguing. You have something really interesting to say? Go ahead, say it.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 07:31:38 (GMT) From: Tonette Email: None To: Jim Subject: Nice guy eh? Message:

No humor in you today I see.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 14:18:02 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Tonette Subject: Sorry, there was a joke there? Message:

Sorry Tonette, I must have missed the joke. What was it?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 14:10:14 (GMT) From: Paul Email: None To: Jim Subject: de vere is Shakespeare Message:

I agree. After hearing all the evidence several years ago at the local, annual Shakespeare festival I was convinced. Other 'evidence': One of Shakespeare's plays was based on an Italian play of the time that had not been translated or done in English. De Vere had spent much tiome in Italy and was fluent in Italian. The De Vere bible turned up a few years back at an American university (can't remember which one). The bible had been marked by de Vere indicating lines/passages that were used in various Shakespeare plays. It goes on and on. Welcome to the club. Paul

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 14:27:53 (GMT) From: Steven Quint Email: sequint@home.com To: Everyone Subject: de vere is Shakespeare Message:

Dante fence me in. Steve

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 08:47:56 (GMT) From: janet of venice Email: None To: the globe Subject: Fred være, de vere Message:

med dære

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 06:47:38 (GMT) From: will suchabananeare Email: None To: Jim Subject: Coming soon: A kingdom for a horse Message:

not

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:30:02 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: Jim Subject: Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture.... TOT Message:

Grain Main Keanu's endorsement seals it for me. Of course, he'll play de Vere and Dustin Hoffman will play the Grain Man. de Vere was one busy dude. Playrights are still held in low esteem as far as I can tell.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:02:53 (GMT) From: Jim Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Ha ha -- but really, wldn't this be a great film? Message:

Come on, this would be an amazing film. Much better than that other boring piece of fluff that won the Oscar last year.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:21:53 (GMT) From: Scott T. Email: None To: Jim Subject: Ha ha -- but really, wldn't this be a great film? Message:

Hasn't there already been a movie mystery on this them, with Christopher Plummer? Can't recall the name. The Shakespeare controversy was not the central plot though. --Scott

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:34:19 (GMT) From: Monmot Email: None To: Monmot Subject: Ooops..... TOT Message:

Shoulda been Grain Man Can't even tell a joke right.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 21:49:02 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Everyone Subject: EPO fund-raising Message:

I've received the yearly invoice from the server for the cost of another year's site fees. While we have a credit beyond what was required last year, we've also been charged with the cost of being over our 5-Gig monthly bandwidth limit for the last few months. I suspect that trend will continue. Since Forum 5 went online here last New Years Eve, there have been over 1.1 million messages read from it. In addition to the English pages and Journeys, the site also hosts French and Spanish forums, a few Spanish pages but many French ones, and the EV/DLM Papers in both English and French. If you want to contribute to the cost of keeping the site online, you can email me for details. As in the past, checks sent need to be payable in US dollars (USD), and made out to the server.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 22:26:36 (GMT) From: Forum Administrator Email: None To: Brian Subject: Terrific traffic report: the figures march upwards Message:

Average posts per day for October, and the trend over previous months predict a three-fold increase in site activity before the end of the year. And what might 2001 bring if this incremental pattern continues - or 2002? (Or perhaps the curve is more exponential than incremental…?) Oct 2000 5705 Sep 2000 4671 Aug 2000 4383 Jul 2000 4479 Jun 2000 4913 May 2000 4598 Apr 2000 3800 Mar 2000 3354 Feb 2000 3127 Jan 2000 2429

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:24:02 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Forum Administrator Subject: the figures march upwards Message:

Average posts per day for October, and the trend over previous months predict a three-fold increase in site activity before the end of the year. I put a counter on Forum 3, and in the first few months I watched the numbers rise. Simple math projected that by the end of the first year there would be over 10 million posts read!! I was ecstatic... but... didn't quite happen. Only reached a measly 1 million :) Of course, EV wasn't monitoring it back then, so...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 04:50:49 (GMT) From: Daneane Email: None To: Brian Subject: Rest of the stuff Message:

Do you guys have a way to track what pages are read? Are there a lot of people who read the stuff on the site, but don't visit the Forum? Do you get a lot of mail from people who read stuff they felt obliged to comment on, or to ask questions about? Since J-M has been around, is it possible to see a difference?

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 15:56:56 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Daneane Subject: Site stats Message:

Do you guys have a way to track what pages are read? Are there a lot of people who read the stuff on the site, but don't visit the Forum? We started using the server's statistics feature in early 1999. I've temporarily put a partial and edited version of the stats for September online here so you can see for yourself. The first 2 categories reflect site usage since early 1999, and the rest relate to September 2000. The editing applies to removing IP addresses and some browser information to preserve users' privacy. Some statistical categories that the server tracks were omitted from this released page (most notably which IP's access the site most). None of the figures are altered though. You'll see the BIG drop in overall site activity during the time that Forum 4 was located off-site, so that tells you a lot about the english forum's use compared to the rest of the website. Also, there seem to be a lot of Mr. Natural fans out there... Also note that the server uses the terms 'hits' and 'accesses', but doesn't define the difference (if any). Assume that they mean the same thing, although accesses may refer to single users asking for a single page, while hits ALWAYS refers to the number of pages AND image files requested from the site. If someone fetches a page with a graphic background and 3 other graphics on it, they count as 5 hits: The HTML page The background graphic the other 3 pictures This is different from the forum numbers released by the FA. The forum software does its own counting of the number of messages actually requested, and doesn't count (and isn't even aware of) any requests to the server for forum graphics. Keep in mind that the numbers shown also reflect the accuracy of the software that the server is using to track them, so don't view these figures as coming from the Burning Bush. I've noticed numeric discrepencies, but don't recall where, and they might only appear in categories I've left out. Anyway, they do give you a ballpark idea of how and when the site is being used. Do you get a lot of mail from people who read stuff they felt obliged to comment on, or to ask questions about? Yes, email from premies and ex's. Rawat hasn't written yet, so he must be having trouble learning to email. Could someone out there please help the guy?? Since J-M has been around, is it possible to see a difference? He's been around since before Forum 2, and he's made a difference in my life for sure. He's been taking on page building/editing on the site recently, and that's certainly allowed me to breath easier. The presence of his EV/DLM Papers on the site certainly adds to traffic, but there is no way to track his personal effect on traffic. He refuses to submit to being wired into the server...

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 16:41:13 (GMT) From: Jean-Michel Email: None To: Brian Subject: I DON'T WANT BEING WIRED TO THIS WEBSITE! Message:

Not that I'm particularly paranoid like you Yanks seeing plants and plots everywhere ....

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:47:59 (GMT) From: Salam Email: None To: Brian Subject: I DON'T WANT BEING WIRED TO THIS WEBSITE! Message:

Very nice figures. indeed. Good work.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 21:33:04 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Everyone Subject: Help re: Empty Posts Message:

I've finally gotten through to Tech Support regarding the posts that are not being read by the system properly. The problem seems to be caused by some other process that is running periodically on the server. They (and I) need your help to track it down. If you find a post that comes up empty, please reply to it with 'Empty Post' in the subject field. I realize that your reply may also fall into the same limbo as the one you're responding to, but your 'flag post' will be visible in the index then. I'll be monitoring the forum more closely over the next few days, and would like to be able to supply them with multiple instances of this occurring. They'll cross-check the times that the messages were posted with the server logs to determine if there is a particular process that is always running at those times. Thanks much.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 20:57:56 (GMT) From: Lotus Eater Email: None To: Brian Subject: Help re: Empty Posts 2 Message:

I posted my first one to you, then went back to the active index, it had disappeared, and then I came back and opened up this post of yours again, there is my post in the index, but when i go back to the active index, it disappears again.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 04:55:32 (GMT) From: Brian Email: brian@ex-premie.org To: Lotus Eater Subject: Help re: Empty Posts 2 Message:

Since you are seeing the message listed in the thread index on the 'Read Message' page, I'm assuming that you are using the non-frames version of the forum. I hope you don't mean you 'go back' to the index page via the BACK button, or you'll just be returning to a page that had no listing for your new post. Otherwise, you may be experiencing a completely different problem that happens with Australian versions of MSIE (believe it or not). Sometimes an earlier version (prior to 5.0 anyway) of IE doesn't correctly reload the index page after a post. Instead, it reloads a cached index page. The fact that you see the message listed in the thread list indicates that it is actually being output correctly if you only were to get a real updated page of the entire index. After you post and the index page loads, click on 'Refresh' with the control key pressed. See if that gets you and updated index page.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 20:19:05 (GMT) From: Lotus Eater Email: None To: Brian Subject: tks, i'll try that with this post, nt Message:

ntntn

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 12:39:05 (GMT) From: Katie Email: None To: LE Subject: Help re: Empty Posts 2 Message:

Hi Lesley - I just wanted to say that I have had real problems with Internet Explorer retrieving a cached (earlier) version of the forum even when I DON'T click on the back button. I have version 5.0 too. Apparently, if IE can't get the current version of the active index to load really quickly, it substitutes a cached version, and naturally new posts don't show up on this version. (You can figure out if you are getting a cached version by comparing the time at the top of the active index with the current time on your computer.) Anyway, I switched to Netscape - for this and a few other reasons! - and I don't have this problem anymore. IE has some advantages over Netscape, but this was a real problem for me. Hope this helps! Katie

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 20:44:05 (GMT) From: Lotus eater Email: None To: Brian Subject: Help re: Empty Posts Message:

Dear Brian, I post from Australia, and every one of my posts disappears, then some time later they re-appear. I submit it, and can see it appear and then when I click back to the active index, it disappears, in total, not just the contents.

Return to Index -:- Top of Index

Date: Tues, Oct 17, 2000 at 01:06:48 (GMT) From: suchabanana Email: None To: Brian Subject: Precisely: and curiously deleted text on posts! nt Message:

nt

Return to Index -:- Top of Index