Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jun-27-Sun-2004/opinion/24127406.html Sunday, June 27, 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell In Atlanta over the May 29 weekend, former movie producer, Bette Midler manager/paramour and Nevada gubernatorial candidate Aaron Russo -- who entered the Libertarian Party's national convention as the front-runner for the presidential nomination -- was doing himself no favors on the convention floor. The Libertarian Party has more than its share of dorks and dweebs, who given the chance will corner you and seek a debate on the most arcane details of anything from private space exploration to the Federal Reserve. I can understand Russo's reluctance to waste too much time on this stuff (though in fact, the Federal Reserve seems to have become one of his own favorite topics, of late). But eyewitnesses report Russo's response was to call such gadflies idiots, sometimes throwing in a few extra modifiers which I can't print in a family newspaper. On the floor, Russo had a style that some delegates from the South and Midwest fretted would not sell back home -- brash New York ethnic, comments Brian Doherty of Reason magazine (http://www.reason.com/links/links060304.shtml). Doherty observed Russo throwing around the word `baby,' cracking jokes, grabbing floating balloons and nuzzling them, then mock-complaining that one of his vocal opponents would probably call that sexual harassment ... segueing from a mention of orgasms to introducing his wife. If this is the degree of delicacy with which Aaron treated the 808 voting delegates at the very convention whose nomination he sought, who can guess what level of gravitas and aplomb he might bring to a set of tense diplomatic negotiations with, say, Jacques Chirac? I've met Aaron Russo. I believe he's sincerely concerned about the direction this country is headed. But when Aaron ran for governor of Nevada a few years back, he did so from a rented house with rented furniture. On the weekends he commuted back to visit his immediate family in Southern California -- in a fancy car with Vermont license plates. Even in a state where native-born residents are a rarity, Aaron Russo gave carpetbaggers a bad name. The majority of the LP's delegates in Atlanta concluded Aaron Russo might inject some money and some drama, but that he was a loose cannon. The delegates voted for the man who was the most like them, who presented in the most professional way the modal opinions and views and style of a Libertarian Party activist -- quiet, intense, no deviation from the catechism, more concerned with eternal ideological and philosophical verities than the political events of the day, summarizes Doherty. Michael Badnarik is no table-pounder. But the political maneuverings that landed Badnarik the LP nomination -- a tense, edge-of-your-seat process conducted in the light of day -- produced the best candidate. Michael Badnarik won the nomination, on the issues, because he won the candidates' debate. How close was it? On the first ballot, the delegates split Russo 258, Michael Badnarik 256, and 246 for syndicated radio host Gary Nolan. Then it started to get interesting. Properly covered and explained, it could have made great live television -- but of course no network but C-SPAN will cover such real political drama, any more. Too much chance the voting public might get exposed to some radical new common-sense ideas. Come November, I with perhaps 1 or 2 percent of the populace will cast my lonely vote for Michael Badnarik, an articulate, reasonable, personable freedom fighter of modest means, who lacks any discernible pathological need or expectation for brass bands, snapping flashbulbs or public adulation. I will vote for a candidate who -- if he had his way -- would end the insane war on drugs; end the income tax; restore my God-given and constitutionally guaranteed firearms rights; protect the rights of all Americans to medical privacy; end the noxious daily trampling of our Bill of Rights in the nation's airports; pull us out of the deadly, illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq; and put the U.S. military back to work tracking down the real culprits of Sept. 11. At which point, if we can find them, you think it would be OK to just kill them? I asked the candidate last week. Sure, Badnarik said. Sounds about right to me. I will cast that vote on Nov. 2, and get my ass whupped (politically speaking), and go to bed proud and justified. In contrast, 95 percent of you (if you bother going to the polls at all -- and who can blame you for your increasing sense of mortification? You must start to feel like the Eloi, shuffling in to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine) will vote for a lying politician who you know to be a lying politician -- one of two interchangeable Skull Bonesmen without any discernible political
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: Bush has never won an election. Let's keep it that way. My feeling is that Kerry won't be really any different, Accepted. Kerry is possibly the single worst candidate the dems had to offer - and I don't think it's any accident that he made it through. Nevertheless, I'll take the evil untested over the evil well known and thoroughly despised at this point. BTW - I just got back from F9/11: good movie, regardless of your stance on shrub. I find it interesting that (a) Although it is raking in money like crazy (my performance was close to 100% full, no passes are being accepted, etc.), (b) only a single theater within 50 miles of St. Louis, yes, you saw that right, a major city, has booked this show, and, (c) the movie plays only through tonight - a three day run. You close a movie thats making money? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them. Osama Bin Laden
RE: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
And the return on my investment of time for voting is ... what? The cost is exposure to compulsory jury duty. Sounds like a negative ROI to me. Bill Sitting it out on election day and proud of it. -Original Message- From: R. A. Hettinga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 5:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jun-27-Sun-2004/opinion/241 27406.html Sunday, June 27, 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: snip In contrast, 95 percent of you (if you bother going to the polls at all -- and who can blame you for your increasing sense of mortification? You must start to feel like the Eloi, shuffling in to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine) will vote for a lying politician who you know to be a lying politician -- one of two interchangeable Skull Bonesmen without any discernible political principles, who (no matter which wins) will proceed to raise your taxes, take away more of your freedoms, and continue frittering away whatever remains of America's reputation for decency by continuing the violent military occupation of scores of foreign countries that have never attacked nor declared war upon us. All this in hopes of temporarily propping up the bottom lines of sundry well-heeled banks, oil companies and federally subsidized engineering and construction firms. All because you don't want to throw away your vote -- and register your disapproval with that state of affairs -- by voting for a guy who would make you feel decent and clean. In *any* election other than the one we face this November, I would agree with this 100%. But this time, I just can't. I fear the re-appointment of Bush more than any other political event. That the author of this is willing to overlook that he is knowingly helping to keep Bush in office, trampling those rights he claims to so cherish, totally negates his argument. Bush has never won an election. Let's keep it that way. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them. Osama Bin Laden
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
Bush is so evil I'll have to vote for the lesser evil I felt that way about Reagan in 1984, and the Libertarians were too disorganized to convince me otherwise. Too bad the Democrats couldn't find a better candidate than Mondale. My vote didn't change that landslide any, but it seems to have helped the Democrats come up with a strategy for 1988, which was to find the lamest available candidate and run against someone other than Reagan, but voting for Dukakis seemed to be throwing away my vote compared to voting for Ron Paul. Fortunately, California will presumably be voting solidly Democrat, though they'll probably still be using untrustable computerized voting machines which only Republicans know how to steal instead of the traditional Democrat-friendly versions. At 05:38 PM 6/27/2004, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Harmon Seaver wrote: My feeling is that Kerry won't be really any different, Accepted. Kerry is possibly the single worst candidate the dems had to offer - and I don't think it's any accident that he made it through. Nevertheless, I'll take the evil untested over the evil well known and thoroughly despised at this point. I'd say Jonathan Edwards was marginally worse, but he'll probably be the VP candidate. Howard Dean threatened to turn the Democrats back into an actual political party again, so the Democrats, Republicans, and so-called liberal pro-establishment press made sure to stomp on him (and if that didn't look well-coordinated, you weren't paying attention.) Joe Lieberman was the best Republican running, but he's out too. But yeah, Kerry's best feature is that he's mostly evil on his own, rather than Bush who had his father's old cronies pushing him, who are frankly a lot more creatively evil than Kerry or Bush. Also, while I don't understand the reality distortion effect that makes Republicans and conservatives believe everything Bush says deep down in their reptile brains even when their eyes are telling them something different, I don't think Kerry has it, and that's a Good Thing.
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
On Sun, 2004-06-27 at 20:38, J.A. Terranson wrote: BTW - I just got back from F9/11: good movie, regardless of your stance on shrub. I just saw it, as well, and I have to agree with you. I find it interesting that (a) Although it is raking in money like crazy (my performance was close to 100% full, no passes are being accepted, etc.), (b) only a single theater within 50 miles of St. Louis, yes, you saw that right, a major city, has booked this show, and, (c) the movie plays only through tonight - a three day run. You close a movie thats making money? There are three theaters around Cincinnati running it, which considering the Republican slant of the state I found interesting. Don't know how long it's scheduled to play, though. I didn't see any final performance posters (and of course. moviefone.com doesn't show closing dates). -- Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not Progress, like reality, is not optional. - R. A. Hettinga SpamAssassin-procmail-/dev/null-bliss http://www.rant-central.com
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 06:26:05PM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: snip In contrast, 95 percent of you (if you bother going to the polls at all -- and who can blame you for your increasing sense of mortification? You must start to feel like the Eloi, shuffling in to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell in H.G. Wells' The Time Machine) will vote for a lying politician who you know to be a lying politician -- one of two interchangeable Skull Bonesmen without any discernible political principles, who (no matter which wins) will proceed to raise your taxes, take away more of your freedoms, and continue frittering away whatever remains of America's reputation for decency by continuing the violent military occupation of scores of foreign countries that have never attacked nor declared war upon us. All this in hopes of temporarily propping up the bottom lines of sundry well-heeled banks, oil companies and federally subsidized engineering and construction firms. All because you don't want to throw away your vote -- and register your disapproval with that state of affairs -- by voting for a guy who would make you feel decent and clean. In *any* election other than the one we face this November, I would agree with this 100%. But this time, I just can't. I fear the re-appointment of Bush more than any other political event. That the author of this is willing to overlook that he is knowingly helping to keep Bush in office, trampling those rights he claims to so cherish, totally negates his argument. Bush has never won an election. Let's keep it that way. My feeling is that Kerry won't be really any different, except possibly in the areas of environment and education. He'll be about like Klinton, maybe worse. And like Klinton, he's a lot smarter, so a lot more people will be fooled. One thing about Dubbya, et al, is they make a lot of really dumb mistakes. Look at Cheney telling Sen. Leahy to fuck himself -- these morons even turn off a lot of Republicans. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
On 2004-06-27T18:26:05-0500, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, R. A. Hettinga wrote: snip All because you don't want to throw away your vote -- and register your disapproval with that state of affairs -- by voting for a guy who would make you feel decent and clean. In *any* election other than the one we face this November, I would agree with this 100%. But this time, I just can't. I fear the re-appointment of Bush more than any other political event. That the author of this is willing to overlook that he is knowingly helping to keep Bush in office, trampling those rights he claims to so cherish, totally negates his argument. But your vote will never make a difference in a presidential election. No such election has ever turned on one vote in any state, and it's not likely to. Trying to convince everyone to vote for Kerry is your prerogative, but if _you_ vote for Kerry in November while believing Badnarik is the best choice, you are wasting your vote. When it comes down to you and the ballot, vote your conscience. There's no quantum entanglement between your ballot and anyone else's. Obviously you may already believe all that and you may be agitating for Kerry precisely for those reasons. However, I don't like either Kerry or Bush so I have no problem explaining why you're stated position is wrong. -- Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that. Not your decision to make. Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. She deserved to be born with a clean slate. - Beatrix; Bill; Kill Bill V.2
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
On 2004-06-27T17:53:05-0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jun-27-Sun-2004/opinion/24127406.html I will vote for a candidate who -- if he had his way -- would [...] pull us out of the deadly, illegal and unconstitutional war in Iraq; and put the U.S. military back to work tracking down the real culprits of Sept. 11. Just because it's a deadly (what war isn't?) and illegal (Bush's lawyers would take issue with that) doesn't mean the proper course of action is to leave. Right or wrong, we created this mess. We now bear some responsibility for cleaning it up. Once everything is cleaned up, he's right: we should leave immediately. Have we yet fixed the pipelines that terrorists have blown up because of our presence in Iraq? At which point, if we can find them, you think it would be OK to just kill them? I asked the candidate last week. Sure, Badnarik said. Sounds about right to me. For some strange value of real culprits, perhaps. 19 of the real culprits are already dead, and who knows how many with some knowledge of the attacks are already in prison. From what I've heard about the way the cells operated, Atta had primary control over the details of the plan. Osama just had to approve it. Osama probably deserves to die for his role in various attacks, but is he a real culprit of 9/11? -- Once you knew, you'd claim her, and I didn't want that. Not your decision to make. Yes, but it's the right decision, and I made it for my daughter. - Beatrix; Bill ...Kill Bill Vol. 2
Re: Shuffling to the sound of the Morlocks' dinner bell
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 12:25:02AM -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: (snip) Howard Dean threatened to turn the Democrats back into an actual political party again, so the Democrats, Republicans, and so-called liberal pro-establishment press made sure to stomp on him (and if that didn't look well-coordinated, you weren't paying attention.) John Stauber spoke at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair this last Solstice weekend, and talked a good bit about the myth of liberal media -- there is none. At least not in the corporate media world, and not even at NPR. He had a pretty good rant. http://www.prwatch.org/ So did Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. http://democracynow.org/ -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Hoka hey!
