>Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:01:27 EST
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Craziness, The election (md) (NJC)
>
>In a message dated 11/10/00 5:19:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
><<  I say this woman is dangerous, and if our knowledge of Bush and Cheney
> isn't enough to make us understand that we must get out the vote   for Al
> Gore and Joe Lieberman, then let's do it to stop this woman from  impacting
> further on the political scene!"
>
>   Christine Fox, Ph.D.
>   Educational Research and Measurement
>   College of Education
>   The University of Toledo    >>
>
>When you start calling people "dangerous" you reveal how either parnoid you
>are or you need to have real evidence as opposed to the diminishment of
>federal funding for junk -science political organizations masquerading as
>serious science reasearch organizations being reduced. This is yet another of
>those vicious attacks that liberals claim all the time only the conservatives
>make. Hillary can commit real crimes and coverups and shes treated like Joan
>of Arc. Lynn Cheney who has actually run a governmental department is
>"dangerous". Exhibit A, the looney left.


I respect the intelligence and sensibilities and sensitivities of everyone
on this list; there are so many human facets.
I just watched (yes the media again) Ted Koppel Nightline Town Meeting,
Friday evening, and so many things came clear.  We could be headed for a
constitutional crisis.  We're already in a political one.  This must stop
soon.  There are many dark and slippery slopes and roads we could go down.
Let's not go there.  We don't have to.  We are a nation of rationalists.
Sexist as it sounds, the Founding Fathers had some mighty high ideals and
did their best to express them and record them. (ok, there were Mothers . .
. but really... it was 1776).  They did not record anything other than the
one Election Day.  Sure we have modified, well...added to constitutions:
local and federal.  But those Originals did not intend for there to be
revotes. They didn't record that scenario.  That, and to avoid 'tumult and
disorder', caused them to create the Electoral College.  Is it a bad thing?
The ballots of that many (what's the lore now? 19,000?) people are a bad
thing.  Is this the first or only time this butterfly thing (or any ballot
thing) has happened?  No.  Has there ever been a federal re-election by a
state? No.  I can see that there will be no end, there could be endless
discord and disruption without an administration, so there must be a
softening, and a realization of what has and is happening in this country.
The guys 'in charge' have to step up and grow into the mature democracy
that we think we are on this planet.  TO live in peace.  I guess I'm a
peacenik.  But as a nation, we hold that role and it is clear, more so than
ever, that we are not perfect, nor super-organized, nor calm and mature and
orderly.  Neither are we a dictatorship/autocracy.
So? . . . democracy is messy.
Life is messy.
So?
Clean it up!
Who made the mess?
We *all* did, have been for years.  It's a time to take a step back and
re-do this election process and this-national-trust-we-call-a-country thing.
There, I just *had* to say all that.
No matter who gets the 'vote' next week or . . . whenever, he (still men
leaders) will have a challenging term of office that few, if any, American
presidents have had.  And he who doesn't get the 'vote' will have a
challenge to his integrity that few men get in life.
It *would* come to this here, in America: the country divided, one against
the other, our national karma.
Either way, it is a draw at this point in my humble oppion.  Thanks for
letting me rant.


Reply via email to