Volume 359 - Bandwidth on the Run

 December 15, 2000

 Pam's Tequila Taste Test Results
  from the "Spirits" section of  bartcop.com

 Click  Here

  -- President-elect Bush to nominate Colin Powell as
      secretary of state tommorrow, CNN has learned.

 If you remember, a few years ago (1996?) Colin Powell came out and said
 he was pro-choice.  An hour after he did that, the Internet was flooded with stories
 from right-wing devils that "that nigger Powell" was the top cover-up officer at the
 attrocity that became known as the Mi-Lai Massacre in Vietnam.

 For you younger kids, here's one veteran's explanation of Mi Lai:

 The Mi Lai massacre, where Lt Calley (US) ordered his men to kill everyone
 in the village (400 men, women, children and animals), simply because of the
 frustration of not being able to find and fight an enemy who constantly wounded
 and maimed his own men.

 Calley was sentenced to life in prison in the 70's, present situation unknown.

 I wonder - is Powell as guilty as the pro-lifers say he is?


 Click  Here

 Betty Bowers interviews Tony Scalia

 Click  Here

  Found this in some old mail...

 Our old friend Eugene makes the news

 Click  Here

From: cmk@mwt.net

Subject: Clinton and Gore's reaction to Bush's "win"


I know a lot of their supporters are probably upset because Clinton and Gore
have been sounding a conciliatory tone about what happened Tuesday evening.

Here's my take on it:

Do you remember the old show "Taxi"?  There was an episode starring a pre-"Cheers" Ted Danson
as a snooty celebrity hairdresser whom Elaine goes to because she needs a great new hairdo for some
function she's attending.

He ends giving her this really hideous hairstyle and so she and the rest of the cabbies go back to his salon
to confront him about it.  He basically dismisses her as being beneath his contempt and waves her off as
a whiny little wanna-be.  Elaine sees a big bowl of some sort of dark liquid, picks it up, and holds it over
his head (he's smirking the whole time).  Alex Reiger stops her, "Don't do it, Elaine, you're better than he is".

Elaine pauses, puts down the bowl and says, "You're right, Alex. I am better than he is".
But as she walks away, Louie De Palma picks up the bowl and says
"She may be better than you, but I ain't" as he dumps it over the hairdresser's head.

Clinton and Gore have to be Elaine Nardo, but the rest of us can be Louie DePalma if we want!

Incidentally, don't get too upset that Clinton said Democrats shouldn't trash Bush.  Believe me,
there'll be plenty of Democrats all over who will cheerfully and brazenly disobey that edict
with rather gleeful abandon.  Which Clinton already knows!

Tina Kramer

Tina, interesting note.
I've never seen an episode of Taxi, isn't that strange?
I know what it is, and all the stars etc., just never watched it.

But I saw the exact same skit on an old Mary Tyler Moore Show.
Some TV critic (a current soap opera guy) completely trashed Mary's news show
and when he showed up, Sue Ann was going to give him a pie in the face.

Mary gave the "You're better than that," speech, and Sue Ann finally backed off,
but just then, Ted Baxter walked by and shoved it in the guy's face.
I wonder who wrote it first?

Nobody writes anything anymore, they just steal something they've seen.
Hollywood - city of thieves, just like Washington

 Update to the following story:

 From: englands2nd@hotmail.com

 Subject: Re: something wrong...

 Good rebuttal...

"More people voted for Clinton than any other candidate."

1) So Clinton got a plurality, not a majority.
    But you cited any candidate not elected by the majority of the voters
   (which, coincidentally, Gore was not either) was a dictator.

 Sometimes I take the time to say exactly what I mean.
 I was sloppy this time, my mistake.
 See, you are a lawyer :)
 What I meant was, Clinton got the most votes, something Bush can't say.

If you, I, and Richard Pryor were running for president of the Tree House among 20 voters,
and I received 5 votes, Richard Pryor received 6 votes, and you received 9 votes, you will
have gotten more than either I or Richard Pryor. But if we break it down into who voted
for you and who voted against you, the new total is 9 to 11 (my votes plus R.P.'s votes).

If you're drawing parallels, you would've won the Treehouse because your daddy's
friends would've fixed the vote for you even though you weren't the choice of the voters.

So a majority is saying that you in fact should not be President of the Tree House.
Yet you would win based on a plurality of votes. In the end it's moot though.
The Presidential election does not consider popular votes.

But what if Gore won the Florida popular vote? All we ever asked for
was a count that wasn't quick-certified by Bush's campaign manager.

 From: englands2nd@hotmail.com

 Subject: something wrong...

 BartCop wrote:
 >So, a dictator is a person APPOINTED by crooked politicians?
 >Rather than a person the majority of voters wanted?

 1) Clinton failed to gain a majority of the popular vote (majority = 50% plus 1)
 in either 1992 or 1996. Therefore, it could easily be said that the majority
 of the voters (Bush and Perot supporters, including obscure 3rd party folks)
 did not want Clinton in either 1992 or 1996.

 2) Applying the definition the way you did, every President has been a dictator.
 No candidate was ever awarded the Presidency on the basis of the popular vote.

 Brian, are you a lawyer?
 I ask, because you have selected very specific words in order to float your argument.
 My rebuttal:

 1. More people voted for Clinton than any other candidate.
     President-Select Smirk cannot say the same.

 2. No president has ever lost the popular vote and used trickery by his father's allies
     to prevent an accurate count to determine the real winner, like Smirk did.

 3. Bush was so certain he lost Florida, he was afraid to count the votes.

     ...and you think that's "just like" Clinton and the other elected presidents?

 A new web site has appeared


 They are selling bumper stickers.

 Bumper Stickers (3 X 11) are $3.50 each or 3 for $9.00


 I have recommended they sign up with PayPal.
 If you, the customer, sign up with PayPal, PayPal will give you $5.
 Isn't that the deal of a lifetime?

 The bumper sticker costs you $3.50, but PayPal gives you $5.
 And if you tell PayPal   bartcop@bartcop.com   sent you,
 those crazy PayPal people will send me $5, too, which I will use to
 increase the size of the BIG hammer to use on President-Select Smirk.

 So, you get the bumper sticker FREE plus $1.50 in change,
 and PayPal makes a hammer donation to  bartcop.com

 What a country!

 It may take them a day or two to get the PayPal deal working,
 but when they do, getting your FREE bumper sticker and an
 extra $1.50 in change will just be a click away - and, and,
 and they are donating the proceeds to  bartcop.com

From: skipmartin@mediaone.net

Subject: "B-Chip"


Do you think there might be a good business opportunity for someone to develop,
following in the technological footsteps of the V-Chip, a "B-Chip?"

This technology would filter out B(ush)'s smirking, clueless, deer-in-the-headlights face
before it appears on my TV screen.  I can stomach a recession or even a Pickles tour
of the White House but the thought of having to listen to this shallow, vapid, moron
who has the intellectual capacity of a breadcrumb for the next four years is more
than my personal constitution will allow without chemical intervention.

ha ha
I like the sound of that, but you're looking at this all wrong.
Smirk's press conferences are going to be great television!

Say he holds a press conference with Barak:

The press will ask him something about the West Bank and Smirk will say,
"The only west bank I use is First National of Midland," and then he'll smirk.

 Eric Zorn has some good comments

 To those who now warn angry Democrats not to let lingering acrimony destroy them,
 as happened with the Republicans during their extended orgy of Clinton hatred, I ask,
 "Oh, you mean the Republicans who now control the House and the Senate and
 the presidency, the majority of state governments, talk radio and the U.S. Supreme Court?
 Those self-destructive Republicans?"

 Click  Here

 Meet Tina

 Click  Here

From: dr.bomb@usa.net

Subject: Appointed Dictator George W. Bush

It isn't the fact that Bush won which leaves me disgusted (extremists) and it isn't
the fact that Gore conceded in light of the facts which left me betrayed (cowards.)

It is the fact that the media is LYING about "President Elect" Bush and
that ALL the sheep who buy into the media for "news" missed a point
which I was quick to glom upon. The fact is he never was "Elected."

My right-wing conservative family started rubbing it in about how "President" Bush won.
I just had to being up the fact that over 50,000,000 people VOTED for Gore. I asked
them how many voted for Bush?  They couldn't give an answer short of stating that I
was a sore loser as they went upon one ad hominem attack after another
(conservatives don't think but react with loud volume.)

I asked them that are they totally behind Bush?
They said yes. I asked, "Do you believe in free elections?"
They said yes.
I then whipped out my stinging rebuke: "If you believe in free elections
then how can you be for five people within big government telling you
who your leader is despite the majority of the people?"

They were clueless. I kept the pressure on:
"You go to the voting booth and register your choice. If you feel you have the right to vote
and exercise it then why still vote if you know your vote may be overturned one day?"

They wound up dazed by that as I pummeled hard:
"If it was Gore who was decided in this fashion would you agree to the results?"
Bloodied, they tried to call me names (Communist, Socialist, etc.) which led me to
counter hard, bloodying them further: "In fact you propose a government more along
the lines of the former Soviet Union, much less Communist Cuba.
Are you pro-democracy or a Communist dictatorship sympathizer?"

In short they were downright infuriated by the truth. I summed up my position:
"In essence we have the death of democracy. It died on December 12, 2000 as
the dictatorship was confirmed by five members of the supreme court and NOT the
people by ruling that a count of the ballots would be inconvenient. I pity anyone who
voted 'Freedom First' and wound up voting for a Castro-esque government that
you propose and fully endorse. Bush is not my president. Bush is an appointed dictator."

Still they tried to counter but I had one ace up my sleeve which shut them up:
"IF you feel that he won they let's manually count those ballots in Florida before
your side seals them or, worse, destroys them. Surely you're confident that they'll
confirm that fact, right? If there is no proof then how can you prove that he was
elected by the will of the people?"

In short all three of my family members were stymied worse than Slappy
Thomas being accepted at a KKK gathering. To this day they still don't
want to fess up to the facts.

Yes, I've learned a lot during this election cycle concerning Republican politics:

Big government is a no-no unless it involves a woman's vagina.

Big government is a no-no unless it involves mandating which religions are "cool" in school.

Big government is a no-no unless it involves intruding upon ones' choice
to smoke whatever plants within their possession.

Big government is a no-no unless it involves two people making love in a
way that Republicans don't like.

Finally, big government is a no-no unless it involves blocking a state-mandated recount
which may swing to the Democratic opposition and therefore the need to overturn states' rights
just because a Democratic victory is a threat to a Republican victory, bi-partisanship,
fair play and good sportsmanship be damned!

In short, Republicans LOVE big government making those big decisions making them all the
more socialistic through their own intents and actions than any liberal that I'm currently aware of.
The free will of the people?
Fuck 'em!

President elect?
Try Appointed Bush Dictatorship!
Acknowledging anything less is an insult to the will of the people who want the truth first.

Bush is not a President Elect. Bush is an Appointed Dictator by the Supreme Court of Republicans,
by and for the minority of Republicans. My gunloon brother was right:
This IS a Socialist Republic after all!

I'll concede but only through my own form of bi-partisanship: I'll be as gracious to Appointed
Dictator George W. Bush as much as Republicans were to President Elect William Jefferson
Clinton during these last eight years. No more, no less, with fairness being the cornerstone
of my beliefs. I'll be just as fair as they have been.


Bad News, Smirk

Someone, in an e-mail, suggested the term, "dictator."
What is a dictator?
According to  http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: dic·ta·tor

Pronunciation: 'dik-"tA-t&r,  dik-' (that last "dik" is Cheney)

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin, from dictare

Date: 14th century

1 a : a person granted absolute emergency power; especially :
        one  appointed  by the senate of ancient Rome

So, a dictator is a person APPOINTED by crooked politicians?
Rather than a person the majority of voters wanted?
Yep, that's our unelected Smirk.

...given absolute power by daddy's allies in the Supreme Court.

...as a dictator!

 From: Papabear

 Subject:   Christmas

 Merry X-Mas, W,

 "Only the finest presidency that money can buy."

 Love, Junta Claus

The Discarded Supreme Court Decision Unveiled
  By Joel Achenbach    Washington Post Staff Writer  December  13, 2000

The following is a draft of the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, discovered in a dumpster on Capitol Hill.

Per Curiam
In keeping with the Court's ambition to provide an unambiguous and unanimous decision
in Bush v. Gore, and thereby legitimate the outcome of the 2000 presidential election,
we present herein a majority opinion signed by Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas,
O'Connor and Kennedy, with a partial dissent to the majority by Justices Rehnquist,
Scalia and Thomas, a full dissent by Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg,
a partial dissent to the full dissent by Justices Breyer and Souter, a needling, invective-filled
dissent to the partial dissent to the majority opinion from Scalia, a spitwad [attached] from
Justice Stevens and a chunk of hair [attached] ripped from the head of Justice O'Connor
by Justice Ginsburg during final deliberations.

The Court will note that it did manage on Tuesday afternoon to assemble a respectable
6-3 majority in favor of the Chinese take-out.

This Court acknowledges that, under the Constitution, a presidential election is truly a series
of state elections, all procedures of which are presumed governed by state legislators and judges.
We hereby void that presumption in states whose configuration can be described as "peninsular."
This ruling, though admittedly unusual, is grounded in our belief that Florida is a rogue state whose
judicial apparatus is facially null per 3 USC Section 5 Chapter 11 Verse 21 Footnote 8.

None of the justices in the majority have actually read that clause recently but we vaguely recall it
from law school. The accounting of an election must submit to the conjoined priorities of accuracy
and finality. Obviously this election will achieve neither. No one will ever know the "real" vote, and
this will continue to be a subject of fierce argument even as the Sun begins to cool and gradually
expand and turn into what astronomers refer to as a Red Giant. We encourage the public to avoid
conspiracy theories, and hereby reject the suggestion in the Gore brief that, if you examine the
Zapruder film closely, it appears that James A. Baker is the "umbrella man."

Deadlines in elections must be respected. There is clearly not enough time to complete the recount
of ballots in Florida, expose that recount to legal challenge and judicial review, and remain faithful
to the Dec. 12 "Safe Harbor" provision under which electors cannot be challenged in Congress.
In retrospect it might be argued that this Court did not speed up the process by halting the vote
count on Saturday: Castigating public officials for taking too long in a process that we have stopped
altogether is something this Court finds amusing.

Moreover, this Court is extremely concerned that the Florida election has resulted in violence to
the Equal Protection Clause  –  specifically, the recount is unfair to those voters whose
unfair advantage had already been in place before the election. We stipulate that, speaking very
generally, affluent citizens in precincts using optical-scanning equipment enjoy a significant advantage
over the votes of poor and minority citizens in precincts using antiquated punch-card balloting.
On the other hand, the Framers didn't think that blacks and women and poor people should be
allowed to vote, period. Let's keep this in perspective.

We confess that it requires a certain intellectual finesse to declare that the real victims in the Florida
recount were the Bush voters, but we will remind the public that we have lifetime appointments and
cannot be fired. At times, we feel like gods. Chief Justice Rehnquist can report with authority that
there is no greater pleasure in life than killing ants in one's kitchen with a Supreme Court gavel.

Inevitably, this ruling will be criticized as "political." Cynics, unfamiliar with the historic independence
of the nation's highest court, will point out that the majority is comprised entirely of justices appointed
by Republican presidents, and that two of the justices in the majority were explicitly criticized during
the campaign by the vice president. This ruling, however, is not the slightest bit political.
It's personal.

Several of us on this court are desperate to retire. We don't want some liberal Democrat to appoint
our successor. If Bush becomes president, for example, Justice O'Connor can step down and spend
the spring playing tennis in Scottsdale. She is reputed to be unforgiving and obstinate in her line calls.
Justice Rehnquist will also retire, and Justice Scalia will be appointed the Chief Justice, from which
perch he can rain terror upon the sodomites and connivers and mushy-brained liberals who have
brought this once-great nation to the edge of ruin.

Let us finally address the defendant directly. Mr. Vice President, we have you surrounded.
Come out with your hands up. You will not be harmed. You still have a great future ahead of you.
Think of your family.  It is so ordered.

(Rough Draft appears periodically at washingtonpost.com but, as we speak, is preparing its concession speech.)

Our First Report from Nick Barlow
 International Correspondent

 From: piratecorps@onetel.net.uk

Subject:  Hail to the thief

Here's a few pieces from The Guradian today

 Opinion piece from Jonathan Freedland
'Can a system that allows the winner to lose go unreformed?'


Opinion piece from Hugo Young
'Democracy was poisoned to give Bush the Presidency'


From G2, a guide to the rest of the world to help Dubya understand us all:


Nick Barlow, reporting from the UK

 Nick - good stuff!
 Send more like that.

 The Eve of Destruction

 Click  Here

 Read the  Previous Issue
 It was the last issue written in a democracy.

 Go Home to  bartcop.com

e u

Privacy Policy
. .