Interesting Development (US)
David T. Bilek
is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
with committee chairmanships and so on.
Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut plan,
but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying on
both sides right now.
-David
Michael R Weholt
news:3b0af649...@nntp.we.mediaone.net:
And we haven't even got to the Immunity Challenge, yet.
Actually, if this really happens, I'll be stunned. I just don't see how
it's really worth it to Jeffords. Well, I mean, yeah, on one level I see
it. Or, maybe it's just something he feels like he has to do. OK, I can
see all of that even though I don't really "get it" yet. I don't expect
to have much of a response, myself, for a while, except being stunned.
I'll probably have some other responses once/if I ever understand in a
more complete manner why he really decided to do it (if he does do it).
But I'll bet the Republicans won't be shy, if it happens, about
expressing their Thoughts and Feelings on the subject. The vilification
of the Turncoat will be epic. Oddly, we didn't hear such vilification
re: Turncoats from the Repubs when guys like Turtle Senator from Texas
switched.
But even though I've been hearing about this all day today, I still
don't believe it will happen. I'm one of those guys who can't ever quite
believe the check is good until it actually clears.
--
mrw
P Nielsen Hayden
David T. Bilek <dbi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
>is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
>Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
>Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
>with committee chairmanships and so on.
Where are you getting this? The latest Reuters story makes it sound
like he's much more likely to declare himself an independent.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Weblog, second attempt: http://www.panix.com/~pnh/electrolite.html
Kris Hasson-Jones
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT,
> David T. Bilek <dbi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
> >is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
> >Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
> >Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
> >with committee chairmanships and so on.
>
> Where are you getting this? The latest Reuters story makes it sound
> like he's much more likely to declare himself an independent.
From the AP newswire (fix it all onto one line if need be)
Speculation mounts that GOP senator may switch parties
By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
5/22/01 7:50 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney
worked urgently Tuesday to prevent veteran Sen. Jim Jeffords from
leaving the Republican party and delivering control of the Senate
to the Democrats. "I'm considering a lot of things," said the
Vermont lawmaker.
"I will be making an announcement tomorrow in Washington,"
said the 67-year-old senator, fueling speculation he might
become an independent or a Democrat.
[...]
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
Okay. With a 50-50 tie, all Jeffords has to do to put the Democrats in the
majority is to stop being a Republican. This piece attributes nothing to
Jeffords, but suggests that there's speculation he might change to being
an independent or a Democrat. (Or perhaps a Monster Raving Looney.)
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
P Nielsen Hayden
I'm not sure that's true. Senate rules are weird.
>This piece attributes nothing to Jeffords
You noticed that.
However, since my last post, I've found Joshua Micah Marshall
reporting on his weblog (http://www.j-marshall.com/talk/) that "word
circulating on the Hill is that it's a done deal."
If so, it's hard to believe the GOP won't work overtime to get even.
Everyone mentions Zell Miller as an obvious target for Republican
recruitment, for instance.
Whatever happens, it's a Maalox moment for the Republican Party, and
it's hard to see a downside to that.
David T. Bilek
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT,
> David T. Bilek <dbi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
>>is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
>>Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
>>Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
>>with committee chairmanships and so on.
>
>
>Where are you getting this? The latest Reuters story makes it sound
>like he's much more likely to declare himself an independent.
>
CNN. They had "sources close to the Senator" that reported his aides
were frantically trying to get him to change his mind after he told
them he was going to announce the switch tomorrow (to the Democratic
party).
If he becomes a Democrat, he'd get to keep his chairmanship of the
Education committee, something that is apparently very important to
him. As an independent, he'd be chairman of, well, nothing.
Speculation is that Ted Kennedy, who is currently the ranking Democrat
on the education committee would move over to judiciary and become
chairman there if it happened. Any Bush nominees for, say, the
Supreme Court would probably find Ted Kennedy somewhat less
enthusiastic than a Republican.
-David
Michael R Weholt
> Speculation is that Ted Kennedy, who is currently the ranking
> Democrat on the education committee would move over to judiciary
> and become chairman there if it happened. Any Bush nominees for,
> say, the Supreme Court would probably find Ted Kennedy somewhat
> less enthusiastic than a Republican.
And then we *laffed*... oh, ho, lawdy, how we laffed...
The irony of Jeffords switching would be too exquisite, after the bully
boys in the White House thought they'd really Fix His Wagon for voting
against them on the Tax Cut. That could be the most expensive Wagon the
bully boys ever got fixed up.
--
mrw
Kate Schaefer
news:Xns90A9C9A8A38...@166.84.0.240...
I remember a great deal of irritation expressed by Democrats, including
me, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched parties some years back, but tha
t didn't shift the balance of power, as this will if it happens. I'd
expect the irritation level to be much higher.
Erik V. Olson
>
>And then we *laffed*... oh, ho, lawdy, how we laffed...
>
>The irony of Jeffords switching would be too exquisite, after the bully
>boys in the White House thought they'd really Fix His Wagon for voting
>against them on the Tax Cut. That could be the most expensive Wagon the
>bully boys ever got fixed up.
Bingo. Of course. I forgot all about that, but I'm willing to bet that Harry
Reid told Jeffords to play along, or he could forget his chair, his bills,
and any help come re-election time, and Jeffords decided that the GOP could
just kiss his ass.
--
Erik V. Olson: er...@mo.net : http://walden.mo.net/~eriko/
Erik V. Olson
And, in an amazing stroke of cluelessness, I've confused my whips. Don
Nickels is the GOP whip, and the person in charge of rounding up the votes.
Harry Ried is probably being much nicer to Sen. Jeffords.
Erik V. Olson
>I remember a great deal of irritation expressed by Democrats, including
>me, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched parties some years back, but tha
>t didn't shift the balance of power, as this will if it happens. I'd
>expect the irritation level to be much higher.
Something's going down. The Democrats stalled the Senate today, by calling
procedural votes, and stopped final passage of the tax cut bill. Telling
quote....
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/22/senate.taxes.03/index.html
"They are trying to stall, stall, stall," said an agitated Sen. Charles
Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the tax bill's
chief sponsor. "We need to get this bill passed."
Yes, you do. Because, come tommorow, you don't get to decide which bills get
votes anymore.
P Nielsen Hayden
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 00:34:42 GMT,
> Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>>Okay. With a 50-50 tie, all Jeffords has to do to put the Democrats in the
>>majority is to stop being a Republican.
>
>I'm not sure that's true. Senate rules are weird.
I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
Vermont is a good state for this sort of thing. Their other senator
is Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the better civil libertarian voices
in the Senate (we still remember his work against CDA), and of course
their single Congressman is an independent, Bernie Sanders. Evidently
Jeffords won his last election by 3 to 1, and there's no reason he
wouldn't do so again running as a Democrat.
Randolph Fritz
See <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/politics/23JEFF.html>.
Jeffords has in fact said he'll be making an announcement tomorrow,
though the content is anyone's guess.
If it happens, my god, the Republican leadership is going to go
apeshit.
Randolph
Michael R Weholt
news:slrn9gm94...@pnh-1.dsl.speakeasy.net:
> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times,
> precedents set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50
> Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control
> it.
>
> Vermont is a good state for this sort of thing. Their other
> senator is Democrat Patrick Leahy, one of the better civil
> libertarian voices in the Senate (we still remember his work
> against CDA), and of course their single Congressman is an
> independent, Bernie Sanders. Evidently Jeffords won his last
> election by 3 to 1, and there's no reason he wouldn't do so again
> running as a Democrat.
I'm reminded of my 7th grade civics class, taught by Mrs. Cherry,
wherein we learned the principles of government, for example, the checks
and balances system, and the dangers of fucking over a United States
Senator.
--
mrw
O Deus
Lately turncoats haven't fared too well at the polling booth.
David T. Bilek wrote in message <3b0af649...@nntp.we.mediaone.net>...
Rick Keir
<od...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> What are the odds of him being reelected?
>
> Lately turncoats haven't fared too well at the polling booth.
Jeffords constituency is the people of Vermont, who he
has served well, not the Republican party.
Kate Schaefer
news:9efaaf$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> What are the odds of him being reelected?
>
> Lately turncoats haven't fared too well at the polling booth.
I expect he'll do just as well as Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Strom
Thurmond, neither of whom have had any trouble winning elections since
leaving the Democratic Party for the Republican Party. Their voters say
they vote for the man, not the party, and voters in Vermont are as likely
to say that as those in Colorado and South Carolina.
Did you have some other turncoats in mind?
Douglas Berry
awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) warmed at our fire and told
this tale:
>I'm reminded of my 7th grade civics class, taught by Mrs. Cherry,
>wherein we learned the principles of government, for example, the checks
>and balances system, and the dangers of fucking over a United States
>Senator.
That must have been an interesting day in class.
Since this has come up, I;ve been reading Jerrolds' voting record. I
find that he and I are in agreement on many issues.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Hal O'Brien
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 00:34:42 GMT,
> Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >Okay. With a 50-50 tie, all Jeffords has to do to put the Democrats in the
> >majority is to stop being a Republican.
>
> I'm not sure that's true. Senate rules are weird.
I'm not sure it's a rules issue. If there are 50 of each,
Jeffords becoming independent makes the numbers 50D-49R-1I. Not
as solid as becoming Democrat, and hence 51-49, but good enough to
make the change. It would mean Jeffords, not Cheney, would
functionally cast the deciding vote in case of partisan ties.
I also point out that there isn't much the Republicans could do in
retaliation -- Vermont is famously fairly ornery. Bernie Sanders,
who's socialist but usually gets described as "independent", is
their one House member.
-- Hal
Douglas Berry
<od...@bigfoot.com> warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>What are the odds of him being reelected?
>
>Lately turncoats haven't fared too well at the polling booth.
He was re-elected by a 3 to 1 majority last time. That shows broad
approval beyond party lines. And he's always been a moderate, from
what I am reading. He's not making a major policy shift, just
expressing displeasure at the direction of the GOP.
Douglas Berry
dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
More importantly, when will this be used as a plotline on "The West
Wing"?
Kristopher
Exactly.
Never mind that he won his last election by a 3 to 1 margin.
This isn't that bad a thing. I never was that hot on the
idea of one party controlling House, Senate, and White House.
If all the moderates leave the Republican party, two things
happen:
A) I've got a lot less reason to feel any lingering loyalty.
B) Maybe it will fringe itself right out of existence, and
a party I can actually support will take its place.
Kristopher
--
There may be some discomfort as you are extracted from reality...
Hal O'Brien
I agree completely, but think it through.
The Republicans are literally a heartbeat away from losing the
majority in the Senate anyway (both Thurmond and Helms are of
fragile health, and SC and NC have Democrat governors who would
appoint their successors in the event of death). I think the
nature of the 2000 Presidential election was such that the
Democrats are going to be much more energized than the Republicans
in 2002... Which means the Republicans might well lose their
majority at the ballot box.
So. Jeffords could rely on chance... and lose his chairmanship at
any moment. He could wait for the next election... and lose it
anyway.
Or, he could switch now, and negotiate his own terms. It's a
smart play.
Even back at the election, it was sometimes mentioned that the New
England Republicans -- Jeffords, Snowe of Maine, Chafee the
younger of Rhode Island -- were all potentials to switch. Now the
penny has dropped.
-- Hal
Keith Thompson
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT,
> David T. Bilek <dbi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
> >is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
> >Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
> >Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
> >with committee chairmanships and so on.
>
> Where are you getting this? The latest Reuters story makes it sound
> like he's much more likely to declare himself an independent.
According to
<http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/22/jeffords.senate/index.html>,
he could either become a Democrat or become an independent and vote
for the Democratic leadership. Either would give control to the
Democrats.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.
Mary Kay Kare
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> He was re-elected by a 3 to 1 majority last time. That shows broad
> approval beyond party lines. And he's always been a moderate, from
> what I am reading. He's not making a major policy shift, just
> expressing displeasure at the direction of the GOP.
>
Something we should encourage to the best of our ability. I find this
nearly big enough a miracle to get me to believe in God. I seem to be
praying at any rate.
MKK
--
"Books you've bought and shelved but not yet read emit a gentle, beneficial
radiation, and when you finally do read them they're almost old friends."
--Teresa Nielsen Hayden on RASFF
Mary Kay Kare
<grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
> >is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
> >Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
> >Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
> >with committee chairmanships and so on.
> >
> >Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut plan,
> >but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
> >
> >I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying on
> >both sides right now.
>
> More importantly, when will this be used as a plotline on "The West
> Wing"?
Alas, they're done for the season, so it will have to wait until next fall.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
>is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
>Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
>Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
>with committee chairmanships and so on.
>
>Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut plan,
>but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
>
>I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying on
>both sides right now.
It's the front page of tomorrow's WashPost (assuming nothing more
exciting happens before they have to publish):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62255-2001May22.html
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Keith Thompson
> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
Fortunately, I'm not.
Johan Anglemark
<yec7kz8...@king.cts.com>:
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>[...]
>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
>
>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
>
>Fortunately, I'm not.
Patrick said precedent. If I kill my 84-year old grandmother and get jail
for that, does that only set a precedent that you get jail for killing 84-
year old grandmothers?
If the balance in the Senate in 1953 was 49 Democrats, 48 Republicans and 1
independent, the precedent is set.
-j
--
Johan Anglemark
Lejd av Upsala SF-sällskap
http://sfweb.dang.se
Keith Thompson
long-term damage to this country is by nominating Supreme Court
justices (and judges in lower courts). Nominees have to be approved
by the Senate. Maybe, just maybe, giving the Democrats control of the
Senate can alleviate some of that damage.
David T. Bilek
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>[...]
>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
>
>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
>
>Fortunately, I'm not.
>
Good, because that has no relation to what Patrick said. He simply
pointed out that precedent indicates the Democrats will control the
Senate if they *today* had 50 senators to the Republicans 49.
He said nothing about how many Senators there were in 1881 or 1953.
-David
mike weber
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT,
> David T. Bilek <dbi...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
>>is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
>>Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
>>Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
>>with committee chairmanships and so on.
>
>
>Where are you getting this? The latest Reuters story makes it sound
>like he's much more likely to declare himself an independent.
>
When i heard it on CNN Headline, the assumption seemed to be that he'd
go Dem.
Now, if J. Strom would just hurry up and have his Health Crisis...
--
=============================================================
"They put manure in his well and they made him talk to lawyers!"
-- Cat Ballou
mike weber -- kras...@mindspring.com
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Keith Thompson
> My trusted friend Keith Thompson wrote in msg
> <yec7kz8...@king.cts.com>:
> >p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
> >[...]
> >> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
> >> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
> >> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
> >
> >If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
> >Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
> >something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
> >after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
> >
> >Fortunately, I'm not.
>
> Patrick said precedent. If I kill my 84-year old grandmother and get jail
> for that, does that only set a precedent that you get jail for killing 84-
> year old grandmothers?
Of course not; only a pedantic jerk would claim that -- which, as I
said, I'm not.
> If the balance in the Senate in 1953 was 49 Democrats, 48 Republicans and 1
> independent, the precedent is set.
Well, the US only had 48 states in 1953, but again, ...
Ok, ok, I confess -- I *am* a pedantic jerk. Insert random smileys as
needed.
(Sorry, it's late, and I'm being even stranger than usual.)
Pyrephox
>The Republicans are literally a heartbeat away from losing the
>majority in the Senate anyway (both Thurmond and Helms are of
>fragile health, and SC and NC have Democrat governors who would
>appoint their successors in the event of death).
South Carolina Legislature is trying to pass a law, last time I heard, that
would force the Gov. to appoint a successor from the same party as the
deceased, should Strom die in office.
But I don't think he will. The man is a lich; who knows if he'll *ever* die.
He'll just keep getting older and more wrinkled.
Pyrephox
--
"Patriotism is largely pride, and very largely combativeness. Patriotism
generally has a chip on its shoulder."
- Charlotte Perkins Gilman
Ross Smith
>
> And we haven't even got to the Immunity Challenge, yet.
I have absolutely no idea what that phrase actually means, but having
just been reading the "Unobvious TV crossovers" thread, I saw the words
"Immunity Challenge" and immediately started imagining a crossover
between _Survivor_ and _Survivors_ :-)
Keith Thompson
[...]
> Good, because that has no relation to what Patrick said. He simply
> pointed out that precedent indicates the Democrats will control the
> Senate if they *today* had 50 senators to the Republicans 49.
>
> He said nothing about how many Senators there were in 1881 or 1953.
Yes, I know that; I was trying (and failing) to be obscurely humorous.
Since you're the second person to take me more seriously than I
intended, I'll assume it was my fault for being insufficiently clear.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Lis Carey
<Xns90A9C9A8A38...@166.84.0.240>:
>dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek) wrote in
>news:3b0af649...@nntp.we.mediaone.net:
>
>> It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that
>> he is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given
>> that the Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give
>> control over to the Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding
>> vote) and play havoc with committee chairmanships and so on.
>>
>> Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut
>> plan, but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
>>
>> I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying
>> on both sides right now.
>
>And we haven't even got to the Immunity Challenge, yet.
>
>Actually, if this really happens, I'll be stunned. I just don't see
>how it's really worth it to Jeffords. Well, I mean, yeah, on one
>level I see it. Or, maybe it's just something he feels like he has
>to do. OK, I can see all of that even though I don't really "get it"
>yet. I don't expect to have much of a response, myself, for a while,
>except being stunned. I'll probably have some other responses
>once/if I ever understand in a more complete manner why he really
>decided to do it (if he does do it).
The Republicans have been working hard on giving Jeffords all the
motivation he needs to switch. Not inviting him to the education
thingie at the White House, where the honoree was a Vermonter, as
punishment for his education-related budget votes, was just petty.
Threatening to scrap the Northeast Dairy Compact as punishment for
those votes is serious, and seriously nasty, and would hurt a lot more
than just Jeffords. (He isn't even the only Republican senator whose
constituents would be hurt.)
>But I'll bet the Republicans won't be shy, if it happens, about
>expressing their Thoughts and Feelings on the subject. The
>vilification of the Turncoat will be epic. Oddly, we didn't hear
>such vilification re: Turncoats from the Repubs when guys like
>Turtle Senator from Texas switched.
Gramm changed parties before an election, and went into the election
with his new party. That's quite respectable. The more telling
comparison, I think, is Richard Shelby, who got reelected as a Democrat
in 1994, and went to bed that night as a member of the Democratic
majority. He woke up the next morning to find out control of the Senate
had changed, and he was a member of the minority, and _then_ he
announced he was switching parties.
The Republicans saw, or said they saw, only a principled commitment to
fundamental principles in this.
(It should be noted for the record that, prior to the 1994 elections,
Shelby had voted against some bills that were important to Clinton, and
was subsequently not invited to a White House event he normally would
have been invited to, and threats were made about moving a NASA
facility from Huntsville to someplace not in Alabama. You'd think
Shelby could have explained to Bush and his Senate Republican buddies
about the useful, productive nature of such punishment, especially in a
Senate split 50-50.)
>But even though I've been hearing about this all day today, I still
>don't believe it will happen. I'm one of those guys who can't ever
>quite believe the check is good until it actually clears.
I agree; I'm waiting for a formal announcement before I really believe
it.
--
Lis Carey
Re-elect Gore in '04
Lis Carey
<MPG.1574e82d2...@news.earthlink.net>:
Since the Republicans started punishing Jeffords for his "disloyal"
votes on the budget, Jeffords' numbers have gone up in Vermont. (As you
point out, they weren't low before.) Of course, when the possibility
that Jeffords' behavior thus far could cause the loss of the Northeast
Dairy Compact is included in polling, his numbers do drop--all the way
to 62%.
Lis Carey
<kare-22050...@c797629-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com>:
>In article <a4imgtsd53a49jgqf...@4ax.com>, Douglas
>Berry
><grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
>> dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek) warmed at our fire and told
>> this tale:
>>
>> >It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides
>> >that he is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow.
>> >Given that the Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give
>> >control over to the Democrats (right now Cheney casts the
>> >deciding vote) and play havoc with committee chairmanships and so
>> >on.
>> >
>> >Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut
>> >plan, but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
>> >
>> >I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying
>> >on both sides right now.
>>
>> More importantly, when will this be used as a plotline on "The
>> West Wing"?
>
>Alas, they're done for the season, so it will have to wait until
>next fall.
That's a good thing; they'll have plenty of time to write the episode.
Michael R Weholt
news:90AA3BBAFlisca...@24.91.0.34:
> awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt) wrote in
><Xns90A9C9A8A38...@166.84.0.240>:
>
>>But I'll bet the Republicans won't be shy, if it happens, about
>>expressing their Thoughts and Feelings on the subject. The
>>vilification of the Turncoat will be epic. Oddly, we didn't hear
>>such vilification re: Turncoats from the Repubs when guys like
>>Turtle Senator from Texas switched.
>
> Gramm changed parties before an election, and went into the
> election with his new party. That's quite respectable.
True. One of the benefits of this little White House misstep is that I
have been able to read more about Famous Turncoats in American History.
It's just that Senator Turtle is the creepiest creep in the entire
Senate, in my opinion (I'm only counting the sane ones, leaving out, for
example, lunatics like Smith of NH).
--
mrw
mike weber
>If so, it's hard to believe the GOP won't work overtime to get even.
>Everyone mentions Zell Miller as an obvious target for Republican
>recruitment, for instance.
>
I seem to recall Zell saying recently that he wasn't considering it at
all.
OTOH, his opponents' favourite nickname for him in his Lieutenant
Governor/Governor days Down Here was "Zig Zag Zell".
mike weber
>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>[...]
>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
>
>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
1959 and 1960
>
>Fortunately, I'm not.
>
Me neither.
Kip Williams
> Gramm changed parties before an election, and went into the election
> with his new party. That's quite respectable. The more telling
> comparison, I think, is Richard Shelby, who got reelected as a Democrat
> in 1994, and went to bed that night as a member of the Democratic
> majority. He woke up the next morning to find out control of the Senate
> had changed, and he was a member of the minority, and _then_ he
> announced he was switching parties.
>
> The Republicans saw, or said they saw, only a principled commitment to
> fundamental principles in this.
That makes sense, as long as one remembers that "principle" seems
here to be a synonym for "money" (aka "Free Speech").
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Kip Williams
> See <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/politics/23JEFF.html>.
> Jeffords has in fact said he'll be making an announcement tomorrow,
> though the content is anyone's guess.
>
> If it happens, my god, the Republican leadership is going to go
> apeshit.
Yeah, and the Titanic will sink.
(Okay, it's a quibble on different meanings of "apeshit.")
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Proudly using one of my best lines from high school.
Kip Williams
>
> >From: arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien)
>
> >The Republicans are literally a heartbeat away from losing the
> >majority in the Senate anyway (both Thurmond and Helms are of
> >fragile health, and SC and NC have Democrat governors who would
> >appoint their successors in the event of death).
>
> South Carolina Legislature is trying to pass a law, last time I heard, that
> would force the Gov. to appoint a successor from the same party as the
> deceased, should Strom die in office.
>
> But I don't think he will. The man is a lich; who knows if he'll *ever* die.
> He'll just keep getting older and more wrinkled.
I prefer to be optimistic. Surely we're into the final decades of
the Strom-and-Jesse Years.
Kip Williams
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT, a wanderer, known to us only as
> dbi...@mediaone.net (David T. Bilek) warmed at our fire and told this
> tale:
>
> >It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
> >is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
> >Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
> >Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
> >with committee chairmanships and so on.
> >
> >Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut plan,
> >but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
> >
> >I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying on
> >both sides right now.
>
> More importantly, when will this be used as a plotline on "The West
> Wing"?
Hang on a bit, and if someone gets shot they can use it on "Law &
Order."
Similarly, if anyone trips on a puppy dog, it can go on "America's
Funniest Home Videos."
P Nielsen Hayden
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 23 May 2001 00:36:59 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
>
>>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>>[...]
>>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
>>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
>>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
>>
>>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
>>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
>>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
>>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
>
>1959 and 1960
Wrong, and Keith Thompson is right. Alaska entered on January 3,
1959; Hawaii on August 21 of the same year.
I always remember the date of Alaska's admission, because it's the day
after I was born. (The actual news event of my birthday was Castro
entering Havana.)
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Weblog, second attempt: http://www.panix.com/~pnh/electrolite.html
Douglas Berry
Ross Smith <r-s...@ihug.co.nz> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>Michael R Weholt wrote:
Oh, now there's an image..
For your edification: On "Survivor", the cast has to vote out a
member every few days. For the first 21 days, they are divided in tow
competing "tribes." Winning the immunity challenge (usually some sort
of physical or mental obstacle course) sends the other tribe to vote
one of their own out. This is important because after 21 days, the
two tribes merge, and immunity is now an individual thing, which
prevents the winner from being voted off.
Yes, I'm an addict.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Michael R Weholt
news:3tengtkf0ql39fjn8...@4ax.com:
> For your edification: On "Survivor", the cast has to vote out a
> member every few days. For the first 21 days, they are divided in tow
> competing "tribes." Winning the immunity challenge (usually some sort
> of physical or mental obstacle course) sends the other tribe to vote
> one of their own out. This is important because after 21 days, the
> two tribes merge, and immunity is now an individual thing, which
> prevents the winner from being voted off.
>
> Yes, I'm an addict.
I made the mistake of watching the 2nd episode of the latest go-round,
and now I'm an addict too. I thought it was some of the best story-
telling on television.
I mean, come on, it's Dramaturgy 101:
Take a bunch of strong-willed characters with competing interests and
put them in a situation they cannot walk away from.
Select the right characters and the rest takes care of itself, in my
opinion.
--
mrw
Erik V. Olson
>I prefer to be optimistic. Surely we're into the final decades of
>the Strom-and-Jesse Years.
I refer back to the Newt quote, that stated, in so many words, that many
political carrers had failed waiting for Strom Thurmond to die.
--
Erik V. Olson: er...@mo.net : http://walden.mo.net/~eriko/
Kevin J. Maroney
>Something I just realized. One of the worst ways that Dubya can cause
>long-term damage to this country is by nominating Supreme Court
>justices (and judges in lower courts). Nominees have to be approved
>by the Senate. Maybe, just maybe, giving the Democrats control of the
>Senate can alleviate some of that damage.
Considering how much of what President Cheney and his cabinet want to
do to America involves the active collusion of Congress, losing
control of the Senate can theoretically screw them up a *lot*.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Avram Grumer
arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:
> I also point out that there isn't much the Republicans could do in
> retaliation -- Vermont is famously fairly ornery. Bernie Sanders,
> who's socialist but usually gets described as "independent", is their
> one House member.
Prediction: Irony-immune GOP loudmouths are going to complain that by
switching parties, Jeffords is going against the intent of the Virginia
voters who put him in office.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
P Nielsen Hayden
Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>In article <MPG.1574e82d2...@news.earthlink.net>,
> arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:
>
>> I also point out that there isn't much the Republicans could do in
>> retaliation -- Vermont is famously fairly ornery. Bernie Sanders,
>> who's socialist but usually gets described as "independent", is their
>> one House member.
>
>Prediction: Irony-immune GOP loudmouths are going to complain that by
>switching parties, Jeffords is going against the intent of the Virginia
>voters who put him in office.
Er. Vermont.
Mark Evans
: On Wed, 23 May 2001 12:04:40 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
: >I prefer to be optimistic. Surely we're into the final decades of
: >the Strom-and-Jesse Years.
: I refer back to the Newt quote, that stated, in so many words, that many
: political carrers had failed waiting for Strom Thurmond to die.
And I like to remember my father's comment that Strom died several years
ago but nobody will admit it, including Strom.
Mark Evans
--
Mark Evans
Established in 1951.
Andrew Plotkin
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 12:47:14 -0400,
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>>In article <MPG.1574e82d2...@news.earthlink.net>,
>> arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:
>>
>>> I also point out that there isn't much the Republicans could do in
>>> retaliation -- Vermont is famously fairly ornery. Bernie Sanders,
>>> who's socialist but usually gets described as "independent", is their
>>> one House member.
>>
>>Prediction: Irony-immune GOP loudmouths are going to complain that by
>>switching parties, Jeffords is going against the intent of the Virginia
>>voters who put him in office.
> Er. Vermont.
Vermont, Virginia, who can tell those midwestern states apart?
So it looks like Jeffords is delaying his announcement until tomorrow
(Thursday).
My guess (which comes only from trying to read between the lines of
CNN articles, so basically ignore it) is that the Republicans have
bribed/threatened/make a deal with him to let the tax bill go through
before he formally switches.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Doesn't matter who you vote for, if the Supreme Court votes for me.
David G. Bell
<90AA4F982lisca...@24.91.0.34>
lisc...@mediaone.net "Lis Carey" wrote:
> Since the Republicans started punishing Jeffords for his "disloyal"
> votes on the budget, Jeffords' numbers have gone up in Vermont. (As you
> point out, they weren't low before.) Of course, when the possibility
> that Jeffords' behavior thus far could cause the loss of the Northeast
> Dairy Compact is included in polling, his numbers do drop--all the way
> to 62%.
Designing the survey would be tricky, but I wonder how the generic
Republican numbers are behaving.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
If I were to go back to my schooldays, knowing what I know now, I would
pack cheese sandwiches for lunch.
Matthew Austern
> See <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/politics/23JEFF.html>.
> Jeffords has in fact said he'll be making an announcement tomorrow,
> though the content is anyone's guess.
>
> If it happens, my god, the Republican leadership is going to go
> apeshit.
What they'll probably do is try to put pressure on conservative
Southern Democratic Senators and try to get one of them to switch in
the opposite direction. There are a couple obvious candidates.
Avram Grumer
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 12:47:14 -0400,
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
> >In article <MPG.1574e82d2...@news.earthlink.net>,
> > arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien) wrote:
> >
> >> I also point out that there isn't much the Republicans could do in
> >> retaliation -- Vermont is famously fairly ornery. Bernie Sanders,
> >> who's socialist but usually gets described as "independent", is
> >> their one House member.
> >
> >Prediction: Irony-immune GOP loudmouths are going to complain that
> >by switching parties, Jeffords is going against the intent of the
> >Virginia voters who put him in office.
>
> Er. Vermont.
Um, them too. (I was busy fussing over whether I'd spelled Jeffords's
name right.)
Priscilla H Ballou
: >I prefer to be optimistic. Surely we're into the final decades of
: >the Strom-and-Jesse Years.
: I refer back to the Newt quote, that stated, in so many words, that many
: political carrers had failed waiting for Strom Thurmond to die.
Are we sure he's not *already* dead?
Priscilla
--
"Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God;
but only he who sees, takes off his shoes. The rest sit round it and
pluck blackberries." - Elizabeth Barrett Browning
mike weber
>>From: arg...@earthlink.net (Hal O'Brien)
>
>>The Republicans are literally a heartbeat away from losing the
>>majority in the Senate anyway (both Thurmond and Helms are of
>>fragile health, and SC and NC have Democrat governors who would
>>appoint their successors in the event of death).
>
>South Carolina Legislature is trying to pass a law, last time I heard, that
>would force the Gov. to appoint a successor from the same party as the
>deceased, should Strom die in office.
Having grown up in SC, i seem to recall that the Governor has to sign
bills into law.]
Will they be able to get a veto-override majority if the gov says "No"
to their little maneuver?
>
>But I don't think he will. The man is a lich; who knows if he'll *ever* die.
>He'll just keep getting older and more wrinkled.
>
Wooden stakes generally work.
Joshua Kronengold
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 23 May 2001 08:47:53 GMT, pyrep...@aol.com (Pyrephox) typed
>>He'll just keep getting older and more wrinkled.
>Wooden stakes generally work.
Are you sure you don't have to cut off his head and mutilate the body?
--
Joshua Kronengold (mn...@io.com) |\ _,,,--,,_ ,)
---^---- /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
/\\ "What part of "Prhrhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr" |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
-/-\\\-- didn't you understand?" '---''(_/--' (_/-'
Douglas Berry
p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 12:47:14 -0400,
> Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>>Prediction: Irony-immune GOP loudmouths are going to complain that by
>>switching parties, Jeffords is going against the intent of the Virginia
>>voters who put him in office.
>
>Er. Vermont.
After the last election, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find
that Virigina had managed to elect a senator from Vermont.
David Hansen
> mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > pyrep...@aol.com (Pyrephox) typed
> >>But I don't think he will. The man is a lich; who knows if he'll *ever*
die.
> >>He'll just keep getting older and more wrinkled.
> >Wooden stakes generally work.
>
> Are you sure you don't have to cut off his head and mutilate the body?
>
Don't know if we HAVE to , but 'tis little enough to be certain.
Besides, there are those who would do it for free....
--
-Dave /;^{D>
(Warning: Reply-to address has been changed - Death To Spam!)
PC Help needs Our HELP!! Lockdown 2000 scam^H^H^H^H Law Suit
http://www.pchelpers.org/ http://www.pc-help.org
Keith Thompson
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 11:51:26 GMT,
> mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >On 23 May 2001 00:36:59 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
> >>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
> >>[...]
> >>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
> >>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
> >>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
> >>
> >>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
> >>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
> >>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
> >>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
> >
> >1959 and 1960
>
> Wrong, and Keith Thompson is right. Alaska entered on January 3,
> 1959; Hawaii on August 21 of the same year.
>
> I always remember the date of Alaska's admission, because it's the day
> after I was born. (The actual news event of my birthday was Castro
> entering Havana.)
Interesting, it was 12 days before I was born.
New stars are added to the US flag on the July 4 following a new
state's admission. Thus we had a 49-star flag from July 4, 1959 until
July 4, 1960. <http://www.icss.com/usflag/the.49.star.flag.html>
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.
Alison Hopkins
Graydon Saunders wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 20:04:31 GMT, Joshua Kronengold <mn...@fnord.io.com>
>scripsit:
>>In article <3b0c065b...@news.alltel.net>, mike weber
>><kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On 23 May 2001 08:47:53 GMT, pyrep...@aol.com (Pyrephox) typed
>>>>But I don't think he will. The man is a lich; who knows if he'll
>>>>*ever* die. He'll just keep getting older and more wrinkled.
>>>Wooden stakes generally work.
>>
>>Are you sure you don't have to cut off his head and mutilate the body?
>
>the slow, thick struggling fire
>born of dry wood and the grease
>of cattle got from kitchens.
>
>Now the bright day dims
>six hundredweight of old magnesium
>aircraft wheels, loosely piled
>where a turbopump supplies
>
>a fuel-rich mixture of LOX
>and cryogenic propane cold
>as a false mercy and swift
>come, ten kilograms per second.
>
>Brief are shadows in burning;
>like the roaring, all shadow
>flung away, the sole smoke
>escaping what could hurl
>
>neat hand wreakings above air
>to whirl the curves of gravity
>and electromagnetic voices
>but burns and burns and burns
>
>in the breathed air blind
>with roaring, the inrush
>of air come to succor
>breath pulled from throats
>
>the fury of the fire beyond
>what the air itself can
>long bear, oxygen, nitrogen
>carbon, metal oxides, heat
>
>the thousand unnamed colours
>made by metals burning
>what was pried from rocks
>returned to stable forms.
>
>The steel stake is vanished;
>the glory given to each
>is not written to come
>of their comfortable time.
>
Stunning. Yours again?
Ali
Kip Williams
>
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 22:44:37 +0100,
> Alison Hopkins <fn...@dial.pipex.com> scripsit:
> >Graydon Saunders wrote in message ...
> >>The steel stake is vanished;
> >>the glory given to each
> >>is not written to come
> >>of their comfortable time.
> >
> >
> >Stunning. Yours again?
>
>
> I don't think I've ever posted poetry that wasn't mine without
> attributing it.
I enjoyed it.
Did you attend the "Don't try this at home" panel too?
Cally Soukup
>> I also point out that there isn't much the Republicans could do in
>> retaliation -- Vermont is famously fairly ornery. Bernie Sanders,
>> who's socialist but usually gets described as "independent", is their
>> one House member.
> Prediction: Irony-immune GOP loudmouths are going to complain that by
> switching parties, Jeffords is going against the intent of the Virginia
> voters who put him in office.
I've heard that stated in so many words by three people today. When I
pointed out that they weren't all upset when Democrats became
Republicans, they got busy doing something else.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Hal O'Brien
say...
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 12:04:40 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >I prefer to be optimistic. Surely we're into the final decades of
> >the Strom-and-Jesse Years.
>
> I refer back to the Newt quote, that stated, in so many words, that many
> political carrers had failed waiting for Strom Thurmond to die.
>
Oh, sure.
Imagine the pain of poor Fritz Hollings, who's had to be the
"junior" Senator from SC for *34 years* now... (he was elected in
1966, seated in 1967, and has the fifth longest tenure among the
current Senate)
-- Hal
mike weber
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 11:51:26 GMT,
> mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On 23 May 2001 00:36:59 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
>>
>>>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
>>>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
>>>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
>>>
>>>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
>>>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
>>>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
>>>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
>>
>>1959 and 1960
>
>
>Wrong, and Keith Thompson is right. Alaska entered on January 3,
>1959; Hawaii on August 21 of the same year.
>
>I always remember the date of Alaska's admission, because it's the day
>after I was born. (The actual news event of my birthday was Castro
>entering Havana.)
>
No -- that's when their admissions were ratified, etc. A State
formally enters the Union -- new star on flag, etc. -- on the first
4th July after the entry is ratified.
Thus, Alaska voted in in January '59 entered formally on 4 July 1959;
Hawaii entered formally on 4 July 1960, having been ratified *after* 4
July '59.
For one year we had a 49-star flag.
I was in the fourth and fifth grades at the time and that's the way i
remember it, anyway.
Lis Carey
<Xns90AA486FD43...@166.84.0.240>:
>lisc...@mediaone.net (Lis Carey) wrote in
>news:90AA3BBAFlisca...@24.91.0.34:
<snip>
>> Gramm changed parties before an election, and went into the
>> election with his new party. That's quite respectable.
>
>True. One of the benefits of this little White House misstep is that
>I have been able to read more about Famous Turncoats in American
>History. It's just that Senator Turtle is the creepiest creep in the
>entire Senate, in my opinion (I'm only counting the sane ones,
>leaving out, for example, lunatics like Smith of NH).
I don't disagree with you about Smith, but one of the things I find
scariest about him is that he has proved to be quite startlingly good
on environmental issues, since he got that chairmanship. I found this
to be an entirely unexpected development, even with this being one of
the issues on which conservatives are not infrequently fairly good. I
thought Smith replacing Chafee in that chairmanship would be an
unmitigated disaster, and really, it hasn't been.
--
Lis Carey
Re-elect Gore in '04
mike weber
>New stars are added to the US flag on the July 4 following a new
>state's admission. Thus we had a 49-star flag from July 4, 1959 until
>July 4, 1960. <http://www.icss.com/usflag/the.49.star.flag.html>
>
Right, and those were regarded as the formal dates of admission of the
States in question; the dates Patrick cites were thei ratification.
Since Hawaii's frll after 4 july, they didn't get in formally till the
next year.
P Nielsen Hayden
I've heard the business about the 4th of July and the stars on the
flag, but I think you're off about the rest of it. Britannica says,
for instance, simply that Alaska "became a state" on January 3, 1959.
P Nielsen Hayden
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 23 May 2001 15:01:06 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
>
>
>>New stars are added to the US flag on the July 4 following a new
>>state's admission. Thus we had a 49-star flag from July 4, 1959 until
>>July 4, 1960. <http://www.icss.com/usflag/the.49.star.flag.html>
>>
>Right, and those were regarded as the formal dates of admission of the
>States in question; the dates Patrick cites were thei ratification.
>Since Hawaii's frll after 4 july, they didn't get in formally till the
>next year.
No, you're wrong. Here's the New York Times article from January 4,
1959, reporting on how Alaska "became a state" the previous day. As
the article makes clear, the 49-star flag became official the
following July 4. But January 3 was the day that Alaska's statehood
itself fully, formally, and officially began. Contrary to what you
assert, it appears that Congressional ratification happened the
previous summer.
Washington, Jan. 3 -- Alaska became a state today.
By the clock on the mantel in the Cabinet Room at the White House,
it was two minutes past noon. In Juneau, capital of the forty-ninth
state, it was 9:02 A.M., Pacific Standard Time.
President Eisenhower signed the document of proclamation at the
long table at which he meets his Cabinet. He used six pens to
inscribe his name and the date. Then he took another handful of
pens from the drawer in front of him and signed an Executive order
setting a new design of forty-nine stars for the official flag of
the United States.
The new design has seven staggered rows of stars, with seven stars
in each row, and the traditional thirteen stripes. It was chosen a
week or so ago by a four-man selection commission and formally
approved by the President yesterday. It will become official on
July 4.
[...]
Today's proclamation came almost as an anti-climactic end to a
forty-two-year struggle for statehood. The true climax came one hot
night last June, when the Senate approved the statehood bill, 64 to
20.
The proclamation noted the action of Congress, the acceptance of
statehood by Alaska voters on Aug. 26, and the certification of the
election of her state and national officers on Nov. 25 and concluded
that:
"The procedural requirements imposed by the Congress on the State
of Alaska to entitle that state to admission into the Union have
been complied with in all respects, and that admission of the State
of Alaska into the Union on an equal footing with the other States
of the Union is accomplished."
Full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0103.html#article
O Deus
>> What are the odds of him being reelected?
>>
>> Lately turncoats haven't fared too well at the polling booth.
>
>Jeffords constituency is the people of Vermont, who he
>has served well, not the Republican party.
Those people elected a Republican, if he wanted to switch parties he should
have been honest to his constituency before the election
O Deus
>Something we should encourage to the best of our ability. I find this
>nearly big enough a miracle to get me to believe in God. I seem to be
>praying at any rate.
Ideological victories are the only thing that can make liberals get religion
LAFF
(David T. Bilek) wrote:
> It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
> is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
> Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
> Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
> with committee chairmanships and so on.
>
> Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut plan,
> but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
>
> I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying on
> both sides right now.
THIS JUST IN: Conan O'Brien says, "the Democrats offered him a $50
rebate and 100 minutes of free long distance calls."
--
Lois Fundis lfu...@weir.net
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/9377/handy-dandy.html
"I wanted to be a writer-performer like the Pythons. In
fact I wanted to be John Cleese and it took me some time to
realise that the job was, in fact, taken."
-- Douglas Adams (1952-2001)
mike weber
>I've heard the business about the 4th of July and the stars on the
>flag, but I think you're off about the rest of it. Britannica says,
>for instance, simply that Alaska "became a state" on January 3, 1959.
>
I was there at the time and the Britannica was in England.
mike weber
<aus...@research.att.com> typed
Zell swears he isn't going to.
He also swore he wouldn't run for a second term as Governor.
Even his friends called him "Zig Zag Zell".
mike weber
Kronengold) typed
>In article <3b0c065b...@news.alltel.net>,
>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On 23 May 2001 08:47:53 GMT, pyrep...@aol.com (Pyrephox) typed
>>>But I don't think he will. The man is a lich; who knows if he'll *ever* die.
>>>He'll just keep getting older and more wrinkled.
>>Wooden stakes generally work.
>
>Are you sure you don't have to cut off his head and mutilate the body?
>
The stake is to slow him down while you do the rest.
Doug Wickstrom
<90AA4F982lisca...@24.91.0.34>
lisc...@mediaone.net (Lis Carey) excited the ether to say:
>Since the Republicans started punishing Jeffords for his "disloyal"
>votes on the budget, Jeffords' numbers have gone up in Vermont. (As you
>point out, they weren't low before.) Of course, when the possibility
>that Jeffords' behavior thus far could cause the loss of the Northeast
>Dairy Compact is included in polling, his numbers do drop--all the way
>to 62%.
The Northeast Dairy Compact ought to be abolished on principle.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"I don't think editors are any crueller than the general populace, they just
have more opportunity." --Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet
Doug Wickstrom
<3b0ba429...@news.alltel.net>
kras...@mindspring.com (mike weber) excited the ether to say:
>On 23 May 2001 00:36:59 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
>
>>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>>[...]
>>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
>>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
>>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
>>
>>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
>>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
>>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
>>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
>
>1959 and 1960
Both in 1959, several months apart, instead of, as was usual,
both on July 4th.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"ISO 9000 is an attempt to turn everyone into bureaucrats. This works about
as well as attempts to turn bureaucrats into people." -- Samuel S. Paik
Marilee J. Layman
>'tis said that on Tue, 22 May 2001 23:34:10 GMT, dbi...@mediaone.net
>(David T. Bilek) wrote:
>
>> It seems that James Jeffords (R - Vermont) has told his aides that he
>> is likely to switch to the Democratic party tomorrow. Given that the
>> Senate is split 50 - 50 right now, that would give control over to the
>> Democrats (right now Cheney casts the deciding vote) and play havoc
>> with committee chairmanships and so on.
>>
>> Speculation is it wouldn't affect the about-to-be-passed tax cut plan,
>> but this is quite a blow to the GOP.
>>
>> I'd love to know what kind of brib... err inducements are flying on
>> both sides right now.
>
>THIS JUST IN: Conan O'Brien says, "the Democrats offered him a $50
>rebate and 100 minutes of free long distance calls."
They actually offered him Chair of the Education Committee.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
David T. Bilek
I'm reading that what they're actually offering is the chairmanship of
the Environment committee, not Education. (I'd originally read
Education, too).
And it sounds like Patrick was right... the most recent reports I've
seen are that he's leaning independent but will vote with the
Democrats when designating the committee chairs and so forth.
Guess we'll find out tomorrow.
-David
Doug Wickstrom
<3b0ca064...@news.alltel.net>
kras...@mindspring.com (mike weber) excited the ether to say:
>On 24 May 2001 02:52:35 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) typed
>
>
>>I've heard the business about the 4th of July and the stars on the
>>flag, but I think you're off about the rest of it. Britannica says,
>>for instance, simply that Alaska "became a state" on January 3, 1959.
>>
>I was there at the time and the Britannica was in England.
President Eisenhower was in Washington, DC.
--
Doug Wickstrom
"I must say that I find television very educational. Every time someone
switches it on I go into another room and read a good book." --Groucho Marx
Keith Thompson
[... admission of Alaska and Hawaii ...]
> Both in 1959, several months apart, instead of, as was usual,
> both on July 4th.
Actually, it's not usual for states to be admitted on July 4th; that's
just when the flag is updated. I don't think any state has ever been
admitted on July 4 (unless you count the first 13, and that's
debatable).
Lis Carey
<3b0ca064...@news.alltel.net>:
>On 24 May 2001 02:52:35 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) typed
>
>
>>I've heard the business about the 4th of July and the stars on the
>>flag, but I think you're off about the rest of it. Britannica says,
>>for instance, simply that Alaska "became a state" on January 3, 1959.
>>
>I was there at the time and the Britannica was in England.
The Hawaii state website says, "Under the leadership of Hawaii's last
delegate to Congress, John A. Burns, the 86th Congress approved
statehood and the bill was signed into law by President Dwight D.
Eisenhower on March 18, 1959. Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state of
the union on August 21, 1959." http://www.state.hi.us/about/history.htm
The Alaska state website says, "1958 - Statehood measure passes;
President Eisenhower signs statehood bill. 1959 - Statehood proclaimed"
state constitution in effect;"
http://sled.alaska.edu/akfaq/akchron.html
Neither seems to think that the date that their star was added to the
flag has any legal or constitutional, or even particularly historic,
significance.
Lis Carey
<8k9pgtks99tlreibf...@4ax.com>:
Or Environment, apparently. Kennedy, currently the ranking Democratic
member on Education, would like to be the chairman. OTOH, he probably
doesn't value that particular chairmanship above getting Jeffords, and
getting effective Democratic control of the Senate.
Lis Carey
<cs8pgtov2ssphq1pa...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 10:17:32 GMT, in message
><90AA4F982lisca...@24.91.0.34>
> lisc...@mediaone.net (Lis Carey) excited the ether to say:
>
>>Since the Republicans started punishing Jeffords for his "disloyal"
>>votes on the budget, Jeffords' numbers have gone up in Vermont. (As
>>you point out, they weren't low before.) Of course, when the
>>possibility that Jeffords' behavior thus far could cause the loss
>>of the Northeast Dairy Compact is included in polling, his numbers
>>do drop--all the way to 62%.
>
>The Northeast Dairy Compact ought to be abolished on principle.
Maybe, but that's not why the Republicans are threatening to trash it.
It's not directly responsive to the fact that dairy farmers in Vermont
and elsewhere in New England value it highly. It doesn't at all address
the fact that many people in New England, especially in Vermont, which
is still almost entirely rural, do not consider abstract principle to
be a good reason to lose the dairy industry in New England and have
_all_ our dairy products trucked in from far away. Many people, in
fact, value different principles, and disagree with your belief that
the Northeast Dairy Compact ought to be abolished "on principle".
In any case, the evidence that the current Republican leadership does
_anything_ "on principle" is somewhere between slight and nonexistent.
The Republicans have lately been threatening not to reauthorize it, not
on principle, but to punish a difficult Republican senator in an evenly
divided Senate--even though this will hurt other Republican senators,
as well, and even though this is an evenly divided Senate where the
loss of one Republican vote will shift control to the Democrats. Is
this smart?
mike weber
<nims...@uswest.net> typed
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 11:51:26 GMT, in message
><3b0ba429...@news.alltel.net>
> kras...@mindspring.com (mike weber) excited the ether to say:
>
>>On 23 May 2001 00:36:59 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
>>
>>>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) writes:
>>>[...]
>>>> I was wrong, it appears. According to the New York Times, precedents
>>>> set in 1881 and 1953 guarantee that if the Senate is 50 Democrats, 49
>>>> Republicans, and 1 independent, the Democrats control it.
>>>
>>>If I were a pedantic jerk, I'd point out that if the Senate had 50
>>>Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 independent in 1881 or 1953,
>>>something was seriously wrong. (We didn't have 100 Senators until
>>>after Alaska and Hawaii were admitted in 1959.)
>>
>>1959 and 1960
>
>Both in 1959, several months apart, instead of, as was usual,
>both on July 4th.
>
Well, apparently yes and no. The flag was changed on July 4 1959 and
again on July 4 1960 (49 stars from 4 July 1959 until 4 July 1960);
the formal admssions wre apparently the dates Patrick quotes, but the
4 july custom was also honoured.
Avedon Carol
Yes, those people elected a Republican, not a guy who was supposed to
be an obedient puppet of a bunch of right-wing loonies. Leaving the
Republican party is therefore the appropriate choice.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Jo Walton
grid...@mindspring.com "Douglas Berry" writes:
> He was re-elected by a 3 to 1 majority last time. That shows broad
> approval beyond party lines. And he's always been a moderate, from
> what I am reading. He's not making a major policy shift, just
> expressing displeasure at the direction of the GOP.
It is very cheering to consider that there is someone like that left.
The world's a better place for his existence.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Michael R Weholt
news:slrn9gq64m....@localhost.localdomain:
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 13:40:43 +0100,
> Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> scripsit:
>>Yes, those people elected a Republican, not a guy who was supposed
>>to be an obedient puppet of a bunch of right-wing loonies. Leaving
>>the Republican party is therefore the appropriate choice.
>
> Saw a bit of his speech on a stock-reports public TV in a bank
> lobby, coming in to work this morning.
>
> Bit I saw supported a between-the-lines reading that's remarkably
> similar to your criticisms of the Republican party.
The interesting part was that he pretty much said the trouble started
when the Republicans took the White House. He said that before then,
when there was a Democrat in the White House, there was room for
moderates like himself in the workings of the Republican party. Deals
had to be struck, his vote and support was needed and so some
consideration was given to the moderate point of view.
But once the Republicans got their mitts on the whole she-bang, they
figured they no longer had to pay much attention to the moderates in
their party. The right-wingers thought they could just steamroll to
their heart's content.
Guess not. (Tee-hee.)
--
mrw
Mike Kozlowski
Graydon Saunders <gra...@dsl.ca> wrote:
>Don't get too pleased until people don't start dying, I'd say.
We have to wait for immortality to be pleased? Aw, man...
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
mike weber
>On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:48:12 GMT,
> mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On 23 May 2001 15:01:06 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
>>
>>
>>>New stars are added to the US flag on the July 4 following a new
>>>state's admission. Thus we had a 49-star flag from July 4, 1959 until
>>>July 4, 1960. <http://www.icss.com/usflag/the.49.star.flag.html>
>>>
>>Right, and those were regarded as the formal dates of admission of the
>>States in question; the dates Patrick cites were thei ratification.
>>Since Hawaii's frll after 4 july, they didn't get in formally till the
>>next year.
>
>
>No, you're wrong. Here's the New York Times article from January 4,
>1959, reporting on how Alaska "became a state" the previous day.
Well, okay.
I *specifically* remember it the other way from my Civics classes at
the time.
Another thing i remember is that a law doesn't necessarily take effect
from the the instant it's signed -- in fact, most laws have a later
effective date built in.
And the 4th July-after-ratification thing *had* been standard up till
then.
mike weber
typed
>The Republicans have lately been threatening not to reauthorize it, not
>on principle, but to punish a difficult Republican senator in an evenly
>divided Senate--even though this will hurt other Republican senators,
>as well, and even though this is an evenly divided Senate where the
>loss of one Republican vote will shift control to the Democrats. Is
>this smart?
>
Pretty damn bush, if you ask me.
mike weber
> The new design has seven staggered rows of stars, with seven stars
> in each row, and the traditional thirteen stripes. It was chosen a
> week or so ago by a four-man selection commission and formally
> approved by the President yesterday. It will become official on
> July 4.
>
49-Star Flag: On January 3rd,1959 Alaska was formally granted
statehood placing the 49th star on our Flag. The first 49-star flag
was made in the Army Quartermaster Depot at Philadelphia, and was used
in the White House ceremony when President Eisenhower signed the
proclamation admitting Alaska to the Union. Subsequently, this flag
was carried to Philadelphia by Senator Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, who
gave it to the mayor of Philadelphia to raise over Independence Hall
on July 4th, 1959. After these ceremonies Scott gave the flag to his
colleague, Senator Earnest Gruening of Alaska, who, in turn, delivered
it to Governor William A. Eagan to be flown over the state capitol at
Juneau. This flag was later given to the Alaskan State Mueseum for
preservation.
The 49-Star flag was official for only one year, until July 4, 1960,
when Hawaii achieved its Statehood and the 50-Star flag was born.
<http://www.usis.usemb.se/usflag/the.49.star.flag.html>
So, this phrasing sounds as if Alaska and Hawaii were treated
differently...
P Nielsen Hayden
>On 24 May 2001 03:04:37 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) typed
>
>>On Thu, 24 May 2001 02:48:12 GMT,
>> mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On 23 May 2001 15:01:06 -0700, Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> typed
>>>
>>>
>>>>New stars are added to the US flag on the July 4 following a new
>>>>state's admission. Thus we had a 49-star flag from July 4, 1959 until
>>>>July 4, 1960. <http://www.icss.com/usflag/the.49.star.flag.html>
>>>>
>>>Right, and those were regarded as the formal dates of admission of the
>>>States in question; the dates Patrick cites were thei ratification.
>>>Since Hawaii's frll after 4 july, they didn't get in formally till the
>>>next year.
>>
>>
>>No, you're wrong. Here's the New York Times article from January 4,
>>1959, reporting on how Alaska "became a state" the previous day.
>
>Well, okay.
>
>I *specifically* remember it the other way from my Civics classes at
>the time.
>
>Another thing i remember is that a law doesn't necessarily take effect
>from the the instant it's signed -- in fact, most laws have a later
>effective date built in.
The New York Times story (which you clipped) quoted the legal
proclamation quite precisely. Alaska became a state fully and
completely on January 3, 1959.
>And the 4th July-after-ratification thing *had* been standard up till
>then.
Okay, let's go back to the previous states to enter the Union
together: Arizona and New Mexico. I spent a big chunk of my childhood
in Arizona, so let's focus on it.
In 1910 Congress passed the enabling legislation for a
constitutional convention for Arizona. Election Day, September 12,
1910, saw 41 Democrats elected delegates to the convention out of a
total of 52 delegates.
The constitution created by these delegates included a bicameral
legislature with legislators of both houses being elected every two
years, a two-year term and low pay for the Governor, and the
popular election of judges. It also specified that all officials,
including judges, were subject to recall. The voters overwhelmingly
approved the new constitution on February 9, 1911. The following
August, Congress passed a joint resolution calling for statehood
for both Arizona and New Mexico, however, President William Howard
Taft vetoed the measure because he strongly opposed the recall of
judges. He refused to allow admission of Arizona as a state until
that provision was stricken from its constitution.
Within a week Congress passed another joint resolution excluding
judges from recall. On December 12, 1911, voters in Arizona
exempted judges from recall and elected a slate of officials,
including George W.P. Hunt as Governor; Sidney P. Osborn as
Secretary of State; Marcus A. Smith and Henry F. Ashurst as
U.S. Senators; and Carl Hayden as the U.S. Representative. On
February 14, 1912, President Taft signed the proclamation making
Arizona the 48th state. The signing ceremony was recorded by movie
cameras for the first time. Shortly after officially becoming a
state, the voters of Arizona showed their independence by amending
their constitution to once again make judges subject to recall.
That's from:
http://www.sos.state.az.us/public_services/Arizona_Blue_Book/1999_2000/ch02.htm
Now tell me, where in that does it say that Arizona became a state on
the following 4th of July? It does not. Enabling legislation was
passed by Congress in both 1910 and 1911; a squabble ensued with
President Taft refusing to approve Arizona's statehood until Arizona
removed direct recall of judges from its Constitution. Arizona did
so; and "On February 14, 1912, President Taft signed the proclamation
making Arizona the 48th state." After which, Arizona put direct
recall right back in. Nothing about waiting until the 4th of July.
Nothing, in fact, about the 4th of July at all.
I really think you've taken this interesting fact about stars on the
flag and inflated into something more consequential. I've now cited
quite a bit of documentary evidence; I think it's time for you to cite
some back.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Weblog: http://www.panix.com/~pnh/electrolite.html
Anthologies: http://www.panix.com/~pnh/anthologies.html
Music: http://www.panix.com/~pnh/trouble.html
P Nielsen Hayden
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 24 May 2001 02:52:35 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) typed
>
>
>>I've heard the business about the 4th of July and the stars on the
>>flag, but I think you're off about the rest of it. Britannica says,
>>for instance, simply that Alaska "became a state" on January 3, 1959.
>>
>I was there at the time and the Britannica was in England.
So far you've been consistently wrong; now you're just being rude.
The Encyclopedia Britannica that I went and referred to is the current
version; the modern Britannica is headquartered in Chicago.
Would you like to display ignorance on any more subjects? Jeez, Mike.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> On 24 May 2001 02:52:35 GMT, p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) typed
>
>
> >I've heard the business about the 4th of July and the stars on the
> >flag, but I think you're off about the rest of it. Britannica says,
> >for instance, simply that Alaska "became a state" on January 3, 1959.
> >
> I was there at the time and the Britannica was in England.
*Bzzt!* Wrong, but thank you for playing.
Though it began in Scotland in 1768, *Encyclopedia Brittanica* has been
based in Chicago for 67 years.
--
GONE: Cabbage Patch Kids, Glasnost, Max | Bill Higgins
Headroom, "Baby On Board," Afghanistan, Smurfs, | Fermi National
the Falklands War, Alf, "Excellence" mania | Accelerator Laboratory
STILL WITH US: Post-it Notes, Space Shuttle, |
synthesized drums, AIDS, Macintoshes, CDs, |
Jolt, fax, and the Walkman | Internet:
Miss the Eighties yet? | hig...@fnal.gov
[I really should make up one of these for the Nineties.]