Errors-To: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Reply-To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Sender: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Precedence: bulk From: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Subject: tmbg-list Digest #35-8 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 35, Number 8 Wednesday, 8 November 2000 Today's Topics: TMBG: M in the M TMBG: Avalon Show Nov 18 TMBG: 4 points Re: TMBG: Re: Voting, is it our responsibility??? Re: TMBG: 4 points Re:TMBG: 4 points Re: TMBG: 4 points TMBG: Re: Johns on the ballot TMBG: election things TMBG: November 2nd show Non TMBG: Election stuff, dude. RE: TMBG: 4 points Re:TMBG: 4 points Re: TMBG: Re: Johns on the ballot Re: TMBG: November 2nd show TMBG:Rochester Show RE: TMBG: 4 points Administrivia: If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing send mail to tmbg-digest-request@tmbg.org for instructions on how to be automatically removed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tmbg-list is digested with Digest 3.5b (John Relph ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Erich Cannon" Subject: TMBG: M in the M Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 02:45:24 -0800 Message-ID: This was on fox.com's Malcolm section: Erich * ---------------------------------------------- Malcolm in the Middle soundtrack coming February 6th, 2001 on Restless Records. Featuring the hit single and theme song "Boss Of Me" by They Might Be Giants Soundtrack features previously unreleased music by: Barenaked Ladies Hanson Travis Eagle Eye Cherry * ------------------------------------- I'd call it VOMIT with a few pieces you'd eat again. Erich ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:16:32 -0500 (EST) From: Jennivere Scagel Subject: TMBG: Avalon Show Nov 18 Message-ID: Anyone going to the Boston show Nov 18 at the Avalon? Anyone know how to get to the Avalon using the T? Thanks! ------------------------------ From: "Danny Jones" Subject: TMBG: 4 points Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:58:50 -0600 Message-ID: <000701c048dc$00ba7ac0$0d66dc89@umc013.bsc.edu> Hi all, Been on the list since the early 90's. Haven't posted in forever. Moved to respond to a few things. 1) Someone was mistaken about every president dying in office if they are elected in a year ending in 0. That is unless Ronald Reagan was replaced by an animatronic double after his election in 1980. Which could explain a lot, I suppose. 2) In states where the voting will be close, a vote for Nader IS a vote that helps Bush get elected. As someone else pointed out, that is why the Bush campaign is paying for Nader ads in at least three states. 3) What is evil about the electoral college? The electoral college for each state votes as the majority voters in that state wish. Is that evil? The electoral college ensures that the winner appeals to voters across the country. Look at it this way: the race is close enough that both candidates spent time near the end of the campaign in West Virginia which only has 5 electoral votes. West Virginia has less population than many cities - hardly worth bothering with in a popular vote. BTW, someone was wrong about Truman and Dewey. Truman won both the popular vote and the electoral college, as did every president in the 20th century. 4) People who clamor for a 3rd party in the U.S.A. should explain where on the political spectrum they expect that party to live. Will that party be elected if they are more conservative than Republicans (say, Pat Buchanan) or more liberal than Democrats (say, Ralph Nader)? I think we know the answer to that one. Can a 3rd party carve out ground in between Republicans and Democrats? I think we know that is not true because those two parties are so close together. Most 3rd party candidates who make any splash revolve around a single issue. They are single issue parties. (Like the Reform Party with the deficit in 1992, or the Green Party with the environment.) If the issue connects with voters to any degree at all, then the other two parties (one or both) will move to embrace that issue which kills the 3rd party. The Reform Party got 16% of the vote in 1992 on the issue of the deficit (and, to some degree, NAFTA). Well, the deficit is a non-issue now (and NAFTA was not the economy wrecker that Perot predicted), and so the Reform Party is practically dead (polling about 1%). To paraphrase the historian, 3rd parties in the U.S. are like bees, they sting and they die. If Nader makes a big enough splash then one or both of the parties will take up his causes, and the Green Party will die. Who would vote for the Green Party in 2004 if the Democrats stand for the same causes? In my humble opinion, people who clamor for a 3rd party are usually people who vote personalities rather than issues. I never hear people asking for a 3rd party during the primaries; they talk about it AFTER the nominees are chosen and they decide they don't like those personalities. Love that TMBG... Danny ------------------------------ From: MikeTheGiant@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:46:05 EST Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: Voting, is it our responsibility??? To all the people out there that have been sending me e-mail including something to the effect of voting for Senators, or congressmen: I am voting for local offices, and for amendments to the state's constitution, but I still refuse to vote for the presidency. Mike Stabile "The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' " - George Carlin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:00:25 -0500 (EST) From: Kevin Keeler Subject: Re: TMBG: 4 points Message-ID: On Tue, 7 Nov 2000, Danny Jones wrote: > 1) Someone was mistaken about every president dying in office if they are > elected in a year ending in 0. That is unless Ronald Reagan was replaced by > an animatronic double after his election in 1980. Which could explain a > lot, I suppose. Yah, no doubt. that would be a lot of presidents being killed. this didnt make any sense to me the first time i read it. Reagan was shot, tho... > 2) In states where the voting will be close, a vote for Nader IS a vote that > helps Bush get elected. I still hold that a vote for nader is a vote for nader, altho this may hurt al gore's chances. saying a vote for nader is a vote for bush is both factually erroneous and misleading. if you're against drunk driving are you for prohibition? if you vote for pat buchanan, are you voting for bush? if so how come no one cares? if people would take a few extra seconds to say "a vote for nader is not a vote for gore", i probably wouldnt even complain. sure its picky, but accuracy is a beautiful thing. > 3) What is evil about the electoral college? Maybe nothing, it sure is an outdated concept. i know of 3 reasons why the electoral college was proposed: (1) the government did not trust the population to make an informed ecision and wanted the final say. (2) the difficulty of carying out a cross-country campaign. (3) the time required to tabulate all the popular votes. clearly it is outdated and unnecessary. it may not be evil, but i dont see any good that its doing besides making millions of people feel (rightly so) like heir vote doesnt matter. > state votes as the majority voters in that state wish. "There have been at least four instances in which individula electors failed to vote fot the candidate to whom they were pledged..." > The electoral college ensures that the winner appeals to voters across > the country. and the popular ote would not do this how...? > wrong about Truman and Dewey. Truman won both the popular vote and the > electoral college, as did every president in the 20th century. yes, but this was not the case in 1800, 1824, and 1876. this year is close enough to be the fourth time. im sure that would make a lot of people happy. > Reform Party with the deficit in 1992, or the Green Party with the > environment.) yup, the green party started with an environmental platform, which they are still commited to. but in all my reading on nader i find that its mentioned less than would be expected. and as much as i love green grass and clean air, it is alomst none of my reason for supporting him. 'single issue' my bottom. > If Nader makes a big enough splash then one or both of the parties will take > up his causes, and the Green Party will die. maybe. but so far both candidates (if not their parties) have been painfully slow to move on any of them. in fact, some of them are completely anti-what they stand for. > party during the primaries; they talk about it AFTER the nominees are chosen > and they decide they don't like those personalities. 's/personalities/issues' > Love that TMBG... ha. yes, me too. --kevin ------------------------------ From: karinh@sterl.com Message-Id: <0011079736.AA973625504@smtplink.sterl.com> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 14:31:40 -0500 Subject: Re:TMBG: 4 points Danny Jones sez: >What is evil about the electoral college? The electoral college for each state votes as the majority voters in that state wish. Is that evil? The electoral college ensures that the winner appeals to voters across the country. < Ahh, innocence.... I wish I was still that innocent, I was until last night when I read NY Newsday's "Electoral College Quandary". Check this $hi+ out... The Electoral College is under NO OBLIGATION to vote the will of the majority of their respective states. The Constitution gives them no guidelines on how to vote. In three previous elections, the Electoral College has chosen one candidate, in spite of another candidate winning the most "popular" votes, and, according to Newsday, "Each time that happened, the result has been accompanied by long-lasting controversy and bitterness". EC electors are subject to politicking, arm-twisting, and whatever tactics politicians are likely to use. And we Know how ugly they can get..... And get this, if the Electoral College vote is tied (neither side getting 270 out of 538 delegates), then the decision is sent to the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. Can we all say "Serious Partisan Politics", kiddies? So, in the end, Good ol' American politics has more say over who we elect president than we do. Hope may be on the horizon, a lot of people in power realize that this whole Electoral College business is a giant waste of time and credibility. Maybe someday soon people will have a reason to believe what they hear about their votes counting. Till then: Linnell / Flansburgh in '04 !!!!!!!! or Flansburgh / Linnell, we're flexible.... Karin H ** FREE THE EXPO 67 ** ------------------------------ Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20001107143458.00a41258@oscar.cc.gatech.edu> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 14:48:33 -0500 From: the hanged man Subject: Re: TMBG: 4 points >4) People who clamor for a 3rd party in the U.S.A. should explain where on >the political spectrum they expect that party to live. Will that party be >elected if they are more conservative than Republicans (say, Pat Buchanan) >or more liberal than Democrats (say, Ralph Nader)? I think we know the >answer to that one. Can a 3rd party carve out ground in between Republicans >and Democrats? I think we know that is not true because those two parties >are so close together. Most 3rd party candidates who make any splash >revolve around a single issue. They are single issue parties. (Like the >Reform Party with the deficit in 1992, or the Green Party with the >environment.) If the issue connects with voters to any degree at all, then >the other two parties (one or both) will move to embrace that issue which >kills the 3rd party. The Reform Party got 16% of the vote in 1992 on the >issue of the deficit (and, to some degree, NAFTA). Well, the deficit is a >non-issue now (and NAFTA was not the economy wrecker that Perot predicted), >and so the Reform Party is practically dead (polling about 1%). To >paraphrase the historian, 3rd parties in the U.S. are like bees, they sting >and they die. > >If Nader makes a big enough splash then one or both of the parties will take >up his causes, and the Green Party will die. Who would vote for the Green >Party in 2004 if the Democrats stand for the same causes? In my humble >opinion, people who clamor for a 3rd party are usually people who vote >personalities rather than issues. I never hear people asking for a 3rd >party during the primaries; they talk about it AFTER the nominees are chosen >and they decide they don't like those personalities. So, basically, the two major parties attempt to cover all the positions, on all the issues, turning into the mediocrity of pleasing the most number of people, but not pleasing much of anyone very much. The much-underrated Libertarian party covers a third ground that a great number of people actually fall into: social liberal & economic conservative. Most of these people just vote republican if the economic issue is more important, or democrat if the social part is more important, not realizing just how well the libertarians fit their views. Granted, since the major parties sacrifice idealism to gather up as many votes from as many groups as possible, only extremist groups tend to form 3rd parties. The Republicans have tried to capture the libertarian vote repeatedly, just as the democrats are trying to do to the green party, with their "A Vote for Nader is a Vote for Gore" propaganda. No matter what the major parties *say* they stand for, what they really stand for Republican/Democrat job security, first and foremost. They stand for keeping themselves in government, and for keeping the independents out. Its built in to the way our election system works, and the corrupt politicians won't change it. Currently, no party, not even the offered third parties, represents my views very well, I'd say not even within 60% of the mark. That's just sad. And look at the completely mediocre candidates we're being thrown this election. Its an awful system, and it must be fought. So I say, when you can, vote independent, and when you can't, vote non-incumbent, because at least they'll be more willing to bring about positive change. -- -=Matt Brown=- GaTech cs/phys undergrad | web: http://thehangedman.digitaldriveway.com | "Every Day is a Good Day" email: thehangedman@death-star.com | -Zen Proverb AIM: THM42 ICQ: 10933909 | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:26:52 -0500 From: "Bryce" Message-ID: <8u9ojk$1764$1@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: TMBG: Re: Johns on the ballot Karin : > Linnell / Flansburgh in '04 !!!!!!!! > or Flansburgh / Linnell, we're flexible.... I'd have to say Flansburgh is more presidential. He can do the necessary schmoozing. Linnell would make a fine president, but that's not what gets you elected. If they won the election, they'd have less time for making new music. Heck, they wouldn't even be able to tour together, since the secret service frowns on the pres and veep riding in the same car. Maybe we should vote for N'Sync instead. By the way, I rocked the vote today. Woo hoo! Democracy in action! Bryce I asked old whats-his-name. ------------------------------ From: "Christina Rockwell" Subject: TMBG: election things Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:32:02 -0500 Message-ID: it cracks me up when around election time people all the sudden become political scientists and spouting whatever rhetoric they read online or see on tv. It really makes you think "oh shit do we really want EVERYONE voting?!?!?!" I can't wait till the election is over and my inbox can get to normal size ------------------------------ Message-ID: <000801c04916$90770040$10450241@wall1.pa.home.com> From: "Jon" Subject: TMBG: November 2nd show Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:58:01 -0800 Did anyone go to last weeks show, November 2nd? They said that they would be playing new songs, so I was looking to see what people though of the concert. If anyone has a set list, you should post it on the list. Thanks. Jon "I fell down while making some toast"-Mark McKinney [Attachment omitted, unknown MIME type or encoding (text/html)] ------------------------------ From: "Samantha Skinner" Subject: Non TMBG: Election stuff, dude. Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:04:20 GMT Message-ID: Electoral College: Say a candidate gets 51% of the vote in a state. He therefore *supposedly* gets 100% of the electoral votes from the college. Does this make sense to you? Please, let's use the popular vote! Bush, the Paradox: Pro-death penalty, pro-life. Go figure. Hoping Gore gets Missouri, Samantha _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ From: "Danny Jones" Subject: RE: TMBG: 4 points Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:25:05 -0600 Message-ID: <000201c04901$32750a60$0d66dc89@umc013.bsc.edu> Kevin Keeler wrote: > > 2) In states where the voting will be close, a vote for Nader > > IS a vote that helps Bush get elected. > I still hold that a vote for nader is a vote for nader, altho this may > hurt al gore's chances. saying a vote for nader is a vote for bush is > both factually erroneous and misleading. I did not say that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I said that in states where the voting will be close, a vote for Nader is a vote that helps Bush get elected. That is not misleading or factually erroneous. Not sure why the hair-splitting though. But as you say, accuracy is a beautiful thing. > if people would take a few extra > seconds to say "a vote for nader is not a vote for gore", i probably > wouldnt even complain. sure its picky, but accuracy is a beautiful thing. I hold by my original statement: in states where voting will be close, a vote for Nader IS a vote that helps Bush get elected. The Bush campaign knows this to be true; why else would they spend precious campaign money to air tv ads for Nader in at least three states (as they have done)? > > The electoral college ensures that the winner appeals to voters across > > the country. > and the popular ote would not do this how...? This is an easy one. The popular vote does NOT ensure that the winner appeals to voters across the country. If the winner were selected by popular vote, a candidate could (and probably would) try to appeal to the most populous urban areas. Campaigns would appeal to urban voters in the most populous states. For example, Gore did not campaign hard in California because he believed (rightly or wrongly) that he would win those electoral votes. However, without the electoral college, Gore campaigns HARD in California to pick up the extra popular votes. He can afford to blow off small states, if he believes that he will more than make it up in margin of victory in California. If he wins big enough in California, New York, etc., he doesn't need to appeal to, say, West Virginia. Plus, if we elect by popular vote, candidates will probably come from the states with most population. (Those extra "favorite-son" votes will mean more from a large state than if the candidate is from Arkansas or Tennessee.) I am not saying that an electoral college is ideal. I am saying that its evils are often overstated, and any advantages usually ignored. > > If Nader makes a big enough splash then one or both of the > > parties will take > > up his causes, and the Green Party will die. > maybe. but so far both candidates (if not their parties) have been > painfully slow to move on any of them. in fact, some of them are > completely anti-what they stand for. The Green Party will never be a major party under the current structure (unless they completely supplant one of the other two). If it endures (that is, continues to connect with voters over time), then one or both of the other parties, will in time take over its issues. Still love that TMBG. Danny ------------------------------ From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re:TMBG: 4 points Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:31:23 GMT Message-ID: Karin: >Linnell / Flansburgh in '04 !!!!!!!! >or Flansburgh / Linnell, we're flexible.... Just hope no one starts up a campaign for Scott Cohen, or Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf. -- Eat your broccoli, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/fablesto/ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG: Re: Johns on the ballot Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:35:07 GMT Message-ID: Bryce: >If they won the election, they'd have less time for making new music. >Heck, >they wouldn't even be able to tour together, since the secret service >frowns >on the pres and veep riding in the same car. Maybe we should vote for >N'Sync instead. But they're not old enough, are they? >By the way, I rocked the vote today. Woo hoo! Democracy in action! You rocked the vote? Are you one of the electors for your state, perhaps? > I asked old whats-his-name. Ronald Reagan? -- Eat your broccoli, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/fablesto/ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ From: "Nathan Mulac DeHoff" Subject: Re: TMBG: November 2nd show Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:37:14 GMT Message-ID: Jon: > Did anyone go to last weeks show, November 2nd? > They said that they would be playing new songs, so I was looking to >see what people though of the concert. > If anyone has a set list, you should post it on the list. What? This doesn't have anything to do with the election! How DARE you post it here? Seriously, though, I don't really mind the election stuff (although I'm glad that abortion debate never had a chance to get out of hand), and I'd like to remind everyone who has the chance to vote and hasn't yet to do so immediately. (Vote for John Flansburgh if you have to.) -- Eat your broccoli, Nathan DinnerBell@tmbg.org http://www.geocities.com/fablesto/ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ From: Alterian@aol.com Message-ID: <55.cf63800.2739d0a1@aol.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:39:45 EST Subject: TMBG:Rochester Show Ok,I asked before, now I am asking again... Who is going to the Rochester show this friday!! I got my ticket a while back..and if you haven't, I unforunately have to tell you they are out of floor tickets and only bleacher tickets remain... -Amber the Transcendent Mistress of the Known Cosmos, Empress for Eternity "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"-Homer Simpson [Attachment omitted, unknown MIME type or encoding (text/html)] Karin wrote: > The Electoral College is under NO OBLIGATION to vote the will of > the majority of > their respective states. The Constitution gives them no > guidelines on how to > vote. Members of the electoral college ARE required by state law in some states to vote the will of the majority of those states. I agree with you (I think) that members in ALL states (not just some) should be bound by law to vote the will of the majority of their respective states. However, on the rare occasion that a member of the electoral college has voted differently than what the his or her state majority wishes, it has NOT affected the outcome of the presidential election. For example, somebody might win 400 to 128 instead of 401 to 127. A renegade electoral college voter has not changed who was elected president. > In three previous elections, the Electoral College has chosen one > candidate, in spite of another candidate winning the most > "popular" votes It has never happened that Electoral College members have whimsically changed their votes to alter the outcome of the election. On 2 (or some argue 3) occasions, there has been a statistically anomaly where one candidate properly won the electoral college's vote, and the opponent won the nation's popular vote (but did not win, obviously, the popular vote in enough states to win the electoral college). Look at it this way: Candidate A wins California with 70% of the vote. Candidate B wins every other state with 51% of each state's vote. Which candidate do you think represents the will of the whole country? Candidate A would easily win the popular vote. But Candidate B easily wins the electoral college. Personally, I think Candidate B represents the whole country better (winning 49 states with 51% of vote in each) than the guy who won just one state large enough to give him the overall popular vote. Wonder how the Johns feel about the Electoral College. Danny ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #35-8 *****************************