response 83 of 406:

Sep 26 23:21 UTC 2000

Scott Adams (author of the "Dilbert" comic strip) came up with a theory for
gravitation which he claimed nobody he talked to could actually refute.  His
theory was that everything was constantly getting larger, and because of
inertia we end up sticking to large objects as if there really was gravity.
Since everything grows at the same rate, we can't perceive the change.

response 85 of 406:

Sep 26 23:49 UTC 2000

  Years ago, as part of my humanities sequence at U of M, I took a bunch of
  Philosophy classes, one of which was Professor Sklar's perennially popular
  "Space, Time, and Space-Time."

  Along with a lot of stuff about counterintuitive implications of general
  and special relativity and a bunch of quibbling about what it means for
  events to occur "simulatenously" at different points in space, I remember
  discussing a fair number of ideas similar to that "expanding universe"
  theory (although I don't understand what you mean by the "inertia" part of
  the theory..) and how to deduce whether a universe was undergoing some
  motion or transformation (rotating, expanding, contracting) that would be
  undetectable or at least not directly observable by someone whose frame
  of reference was inside the universe in question.

  I should go back and see if I've still got the texts around somewhere and
  refresh my recollection of the class material -- I'm afraid I've forgotten
  a great deal of it at this point.  If it's still being taught, though, I
  would recommend the class to anyone at U of M looking for a class where they
  can stretch their brains around some unusual questions..

response 87 of 406:

Sep 27 01:30 UTC 2000

Re 81.  Unlike some of the other folks here, I'm not saying that you're
wasting your vote, etc.; voting for one candidate or another is something
only you can decide based on your personal priorities.  However, I do
disagree with your choice, and I take issue with some of your reasoning. 

> But if Nader is able to get 15% (I think that's the number) of the
> popular vote, the Green Party will be included in debates during the
> next race.

Nope, the commission debates are based on poll numbers, not votes in past
elections.  You get invited if you're at 15% or better in the polls. 
Doesn't matter what you got when you ran before. 

As to the Green platform, I think what was meant by "bullshit" was stuff
that you might not savor your candidate supporting.  The Greens have
gotten into some very strange stuff at times.  On the other hand, it must
be said that Nader is not a party member and has been careful not to
endorse the platform, last I heard. 

> I'm sick of having to settle for voting for the lesser of two evils

Then you need to move to a country with a parliamentary system.  The U.S. 
is set up in such a way that "third" parties cannot survive; they can
quickly become one of the Big Two, or they can quickly sink into
irrelevance.  This is fundamental to the way our government is structured. 
Regardless who you vote for, yes, in the U.S. you will have to "settle
for" being governed by someone nominated by the Big Two, with rare
exceptions. 

Example: within the last three decades or so, I can think of three states
-- Maine, Connecticut, and Minnesota -- which elected governors running on
third party tickets.  However, they had to deal with legislatures
completely dominated by the Big Two.  Jesse Ventura remains in office, but
alienated from his party; when the other two left office, they were
immediately replaced with Big Two successors.  So, all these movements
were very short-lived.

> He wouldn't have a chance in the Democratic primary, and he knew it.
> Bradley was a better candidate than Gore in most ways, but everyone knew
> Gore would win the primary because he has name recognition.

Nader would not have had a chance in the primaries because he has
non-mainstream views.  Note that Nader's name recognition is excellent,
but it would not have helped him.  Name recognition, anyway, is an issue
for lower-level elections, not presidential campaigns, which get tons of
media attention. 

As to Bradley, he was doing quite well.  He was leading in New Hampshire,
and had he won there, he might well have toppled Gore.  But then he
exasperated us all with his lack of presidential candidate qualities. 
"SHOW SOME HUMOR, BILL! SMILE!" we all shouted, but he just glowered at
the cameras and acted like he wanted to be someplace else.  You can't
expect to get elected president if you won't show some interest in
winning. 

> You can't win a primary if you're trying to buck the party machinery. 

Oh, come on.  Read some history.  Do the names "George McGovern" and
"Barry Goldwater" ring a bell?  Both of them deliberately *wrecked* the
pre-existing party machinery.

> Nader's criticisms of campaign funding would also ring pretty
> hollow if he were a member of *either* major party -- McCain suffered
> that credibility problem.  He was basically saying, "I don't think
> it's right to do what I've just been doing."

Imagine a city which allows untreated sewage to flow directly into the
river.  A politician in that city runs for mayor, saying, this practice is
polluting the river and needs to be changed.  Would you say he has no
credibility because his OWN body wastes are flowing into the river and
adding to that pollution?  How could this ever be changed if outsiders to
the city were the only ones who had the right to intervene?

response 89 of 406:

Sep 27 01:56 UTC 2000

ralph nader has never held political office, he's a consumer advocate--
he's a very intelligent man whohasbee3n an effectiveadvocate,but that
doesnt make him remotely qualified to be president.  What experience
does he have in making comprises, of representing varied and sometimes
conflictinginterests of a constituency?  I think it is highly 
irresponsible to vote for someone for presidentwho has never held 
public office, who doesnt have a voting record, and for whom you donthave
a fair method of measuring how he'd do in office. (do you even know who
Nader's vp candidate is and what his views are or does it matter inNader's
case?)

mary if you vote for nader, and bush get elected, how is your vote more
meaningful?  will you feel that way when bush appoints conservative
justices who might uphold cda and grex ceases to exist?  or that pass a
constitutional amendment banning your right to have a legal abortion?
the bush people LOVED the factthat people like you might passupvoting for
Gore and vote for Nader,because they know it puts them one vote closer to
election.  And I stilldont see how you expect any candidate to hold 100%
of your views.  

response 91 of 406:

Sep 27 03:27 UTC 2000

Re #89: Bush has held only one public office that I know of.  He's been
governor of a state that gives very little power to its governor.  I don't
think that makes him particularly qualified, either.  I think Gore is by far
the most qualified person in the race, and if I were voting purely on that
I'd vote for him.

response 93 of 406:

Sep 27 04:05 UTC 2000

From what I saw in the AANews a week or so ago, that may not help:  Some
Canadians half expect it to be absorbed into the US before much longer.

response 95 of 406:

Sep 27 04:36 UTC 2000

Marcus seems to think Nader will be at least an OK President; you may want
to re-read his responses on the subject.

response 97 of 406:

Sep 27 05:09 UTC 2000

I remember a situation where there were two candidates for an important
office.

    Candidate A was a reasonable, well-intentioned guy, middle of the
    road, not super bright, with a positive outlook, very personable, and
    a Republican. 

    Candidate B was a brilliant, dark, cynical guy, an extremely heavy
    drinker, calculating, involved in many feuds, and a liberal Democrat.

Candidate A was the incumbent and the assumed easy winner.

Janice and I knew both of these guys pretty well.  At the outset of the
campaign, she was supporting Candidate A, and I was supporing Candidate B.

Then a poll came out that suggested that Candidate B might have a chance
of being elected.  Somehow, that had an impact on the way we saw the race.

When Election Day came along, I voted for Candidate A, and Janice voted
for Candidate B.

response 99 of 406:

Sep 27 08:14 UTC 2000

re#97: You shoulda voted for Koster.

response 101 of 406:

Sep 27 13:42 UTC 2000

i believe mr. nader is appearing on late night with david letterman, tomorrow
nite (thurs)

response 103 of 406:

Sep 27 17:20 UTC 2000

(Since this item is dangerously close to losing its drift content...)

re resp:82 - Yes, I would dispute that heliocentricity is a fact.  
The heliocentric *theory*, based on mechanics, predicts where the
observed locations of planets and such will be w.r.t. various fixed 
stars, other planets, etc.  The only *facts* in the case are the 
actual observed locations of said planets and such.  Since these
observations tend to be in very good agreement to the predictions,
scientists quite correctly conclude that it is a very good theory.  
  Here's my key point, in this and several similar arguments:  just 
because there are no observations which contradict a theory, does not
mean the theory is "correct".  Consider what you would think if
someone had told you in 1990 that Fermat's last theorem was a fact.
"But it's never been proved", you might say, to which your informant 
might respond, "Oh, they've shown it to be true for all n less than
200,000; it must be true."  Science does not have access to the 
kinds of that can produce *facts*.  It's not possible.  All of the
conclusions of science, all the great discoveries, are just theories.
The business of science is the evaluation of the predictive value 
of theories, and no more.  To call scientific theories "facts" is 
explicitly to deny the most fundamental truth of science: that we can
never, ever, be completely sure that we're right.  

response 105 of 406:

Sep 27 17:38 UTC 2000

Joining Canada is a bad idea, although I think a parliamentary system of
representation would do a good job of distributing idealogies better *and*
getting people to vote.  

response 107 of 406:

Sep 27 18:05 UTC 2000

The parliamentary system also has some very big negatives, which include
having to form coalitions of numerous parties, the defection of some
of which can bring down a government. It is a question of the respective
merits of that kind of chaos, which is actually more representive,
versus a stable but time-limited, "winner take almost all", government,
such as we have. Maybe it is a matter of whether the people want to be
entertained as well as served by their government. 8^}