********************************
C) Slate/Dear Prudence: Spare the Rod, Spoil the Romance? [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court. Cette semaine : Je loge chez un couple mari qui vient de virer nudiste. / Dois-je dénoncer à la police mon mari alcoolique qui conduit ivre ? / Est-ce vrai que son premier amour est le plus beau et que toutes celles qui suivent ne peuvent s'y comparer ?]
http://slate.msn.com/id/2107400/
When Nude Is Rude
Dealing with roommates who bare it all.
Posted Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004, at 5:09 AM PT

-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I am a single young woman and have been living with a married couple for about a year and a half. I would not consider myself sheltered, and I am not easily offended, but my roommates' behavior is borderline disgusting, and I am not sure how to handle it. About a year ago, the couple joined a nudist resort. They asked me several times if I was interested, and we had lengthy conversations about why I didn't think it was right for me. My male roommate then began hanging around the house naked, but his wife has never joined him. I made comments to him a couple of times like, "Hey, I don't want to see that," but the best he will do is have a blanket nearby to toss over his lap when I come in the room, or he will wear a thong (which is not much of an improvement). To top it off, they have recently started watching porn on the TV in the living room. I have no problem with porn in the bedroom with a spouse or significant other, but I think they are disrespecting their relationship, and me, by watching it in a more public area of the house. When I went downstairs yesterday morning to find a naked man in my kitchen, I was extremely annoyed. What do I do about these people?

—Not a Prude, but Not Crude

Dear Not,
What you do is tell them either the living room porn and the birthday suits go ... or you do. Prudie's guess is that you are there because they need the extra cash from a renter. You are not a family member, you are not a nudist, and the guy in the kitchen is the last straw. Get their commitment to rediscover clothes, or find another place to live.

—Prudie, courteously

-*-*-*-
Dear Prudie,
I have one heck of a dilemma and am in sorry need of advice. My husband, who I love dearly, is drinking more and more these days. He is retired and on disability. I have suggested counseling and many other forms of help, but he believes that is for the birds, and no way is he going to talk to someone else about "problems that don't exist." But it gets worse; he has now taken up driving with his drinking. Meaning not only is he drinking and driving but drinking WHILE he is driving! Plus, his eye sight is not what it used to be. We aren't kids, Prudie; he is 50 years old, and I'm 45. I admit I consume beer and wine, but I do it at home, and there is no way I would ever get behind the wheel once I have one drink. We live in a country setting, and I fear every time he gets in his car that someone is going to be hurt or, worse, killed. I have gone so far as to talk to a local policeman I know, and he said I should talk to the county sheriff's department and tell them what he is doing. I know if I do, they will put his vehicle on a watch list and pull him over just about anytime he is on the road. And I know that would result in a fourth DUI for him and some jail time. Would I be considered a bad wife if I do this? Tell me what you think, please.

—Sincerely,
Ready To Call the Cops

Dear Red,
Since he won't go to AA, you should go to Al-Anon, the support group for family members. An old truism regarding alcoholism is that if someone close to you thinks it's a problem, it's a problem. Your husband is in denial, obviously, and his three previous DUIs underline that problem. Drunk and impaired drivers have to be kept off the road because other people's lives are at stake, so by all means bring your concerns to the county sheriff's office. You have the chance to avert catastrophe. Do not consider your action duplicitous, but rather one of tough love. A perfect addition to this plan, if they are willing, would be for someone in the sheriff's office to advise your husband that, because of his record, he is now on that list. That way he will have been forewarned, and if he should wind up with a fourth DUI citation, he will be forced to confront the issue. You are certainly not a bad wife to look out for your own husband—as well as others on the road—but, rather, a good citizen. Prudie hopes you follow through.

—Prudie, preventively

-*-*-*-
Dear Pru,
I am a 25-year-old single female with a question that neither my girlfriends nor I seem able to answer. I thought maybe your love expertise could help us. Everyone always says you will never forget your first love. My mother once told me that no love will ever be like your first and that even having been happily married for over 30 years, she still has dreams of her first high-school boyfriend. As for my single girlfriends and me, we are at the stage where some of us have experienced two or three serious relationships that for one reason or another have not resulted in marriage. Some complain that "the feeling" is just not there like it was with their first love. My question is: Does the magic that occurs with the first person you love ever repeat itself, or do we all just have Disney princess syndrome?

—Waiting for Prince Charming the Second

Dear Wait,
Disney princess syndrome? Prudie is unfamiliar with that but hopes it does not involve wanting a life with one of those cartoon animals. In any case, here's the benefit of her "love expertise." Your mother has done you a great disservice, and trust Prudie: The world is not filled with women dreaming of some kid from 30 years ago. "The first love" ideal is one of those folkloric things that's been romanticized and overrated. While it is true that some women may always remember their first love, this in no way means that the ones to follow will not be superior. As for your direct question, the magic does repeat itself—and often with improvements on the original.

—Prudie, historically

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
2) John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address [Un classique de l'art oratoire américain, le discours prononcé par Kennedy lors de son instauration.]
John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961

Heavy snow fell the night before the inauguration, but thoughts about cancelling the plans were overruled. The election of 1960 had been close, and the Democratic Senator from Massachusetts was eager to gather support for his agenda. He attended Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Georgetown that morning before joining President Eisenhower to travel to the Capitol. The Congress had extended the East Front, and the inaugural platform spanned the new addition. The oath of office was administered by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Robert Frost read one of his poems at the ceremony.

-*-*-*-
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction. 11
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. 14
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort? 23
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. 24
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
3) SF Gate: Should a defibrillator be in your first-aid kit? [Dernier gadget à la mode, un appareil domestique pour faire revenir à la vie les cardiaques.]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/10/05/financial1111EDT0085.DTL&type=health
Should a defibrillator be in your first-aid kit?

TARA PARKER-POPE, The Wall Street Journal

Tuesday, October 5, 2004

(10-05) 08:11 PDT (AP) --

Many people buy smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and security systems for their homes. Now the question is: Should a heart defibrillator be included in a home safety kit?

The issue is being hotly debated in the medical community since the Food and Drug Administration last month approved the sale of automated external defibrillators without a prescription. The portable device shocks the heart back into the proper beat after a sudden cardiac arrest.

But an AED is expensive, costing $2,000, and typically isn't covered by insurance. Although the FDA decision allowed AEDs to be sold without a prescription, there's little guidance on who should get one. Right now, people with known risk factors for heart attack, people over 50 and those living in rural areas are likely the best candidates. But whether the expense is worth it -- or whether users will be calm enough to shock their loved ones -- simply isn't known.

Some doctors think more study is needed before recommending AEDs for home use. But proponents say AEDs should be viewed like smoke detectors, seat belts and air bags: The majority of people won't need them but the devices are lifesavers if they do. The numbers appear to favor that argument. It's estimated that as many as 450,000 people die of sudden cardiac arrest each year. By comparison, about 41,000 people die in car accidents each year. Home fires claimed the lives of 2,670 people.

A cardiac arrest occurs when the lower chambers of the heart start beating rapidly. It is sudden and unpredictable, and renders the patient unconscious. To recover, the heart must be shocked into a normal rhythm with a defibrillator. For every minute past the arrest that the victim isn't shocked, the chance of survival drops by about 10 percent. The national survival rate of a sudden cardiac arrest is only 5 percent.

We already know that AEDs in public places like airports and casinos have had a huge impact, boosting survival rates to 80 percent or better. While it's easy to argue the value of a defibrillator in a high-traffic area, it isn't yet clear whether AEDs in the home are worth the cost. Studies are under way to gauge the benefit, but results won't be known for about three years. It's estimated that 80 percent of sudden cardiac arrests occur at home.

The more difficult question is who should buy one because sudden cardiac arrest, by definition, is unpredictable most of the time. Of those who die from cardiac arrest, 50 percent of men and 64 percent of women don't have symptoms of heart disease.

Patients known to be at high risk for cardiac arrest probably don't need a home AED because they should be talking to their doctors about implantable devices that automatically shock the heart when they detect a rhythm change. Some experts think anyone over 50 who can afford it should buy a home AED. But the fact remains that most people who have an AED probably won't ever use it.

That's not how Lee Curtes of Erin, Wis., sees it. Mr. Curtes purchased an AED for his home after a ski-patrol team used a portable AED to save his life on the top of a ski slope four years ago. He takes the machine with him in the car and on vacation. "I'm 59 years old and all my friends are around that age," says Mr. Curtes, a retired heating- and air-conditioning business owner. "I don't know that I bought it for myself as much as I bought it to save a life the way mine was saved."

People who live in rural communities where emergency-response times are slow should think about a home AED. One idea may be for neighborhood groups to purchase a few devices and notify residents how to get them and use them in an emergency. An AED might be useful in a church or synagogue, and some parents have purchased AEDs for schools.

The devices are surprisingly simple to use -- even by children. The Philips HeartStart AED approved for over-the-counter sale is about the size of a hardcover book. Pull a handle to activate the machine and a calm voice offers step-by-step instructions, from removing a patient's clothes to how to place two adhesive pads. The voice tells you when to press an orange button to deliver a shock. The voice will speak quickly or slow down depending on how quickly the user finishes a task.

The $2,000 Philips device can be purchased directly from the manufacturer at www.heartstarthome.com, but some Web retailers offer it for as low as $1,600. Other AED models retail for as low as $1,000 but still require a doctor's prescription. Some AED models are also sold at major pharmacies like Walgreens or medical-supply stores.

While AEDs may be easy to use, one thing to ask before buying a device: Will you have the composure to use one in an emergency? Some experts have questioned whether a distraught family member would have the wherewithal to use a defibrillator during a crisis or whether the device might make people forget to call 911. "Will it be used or will people be in too much shock?" asks Stephen Siegel, cardiologist at NYU Medical Center and clinical assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine. "I don't know how easy I could use a defibrillator on my wife or mother."

University of Washington professor Gust Bardy, who is leading a study of home defibrillators and a consultant for AED makers, says that during the past few decades, he has encountered six cardiac arrests outside the hospital. The only person who survived was a woman who collapsed in the Denver airport, near a defibrillator that he used to resuscitate her. Dr. Bardy personally owns three of the devices -- one for his home and one in each of his cars. "The healthy way to look at it is that you're just throwing away $2,000," says Dr. Bardy. "That would be the ideal use of the device."

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
4) Reuters: Cruise control issue [L'histoire de la Vel Satis folle]
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=6442270
PARIS (Reuters) - French carmaker Renault challenged a driver's statement that a fault in one of its top-of-the-range cars had embarked its panic-stricken owner on an involuntary 200 km per hour motorway dash.

Renault said its engineers had given a clean bill of health to the 40,000 euro ($49,190) Vel Satis, whose owner Hicham Dequiedt told police a malfunction in the electronic cruise control was to blame for Sunday's high-speed incident.

The company said in a statement it wanted a judge to appoint an independent expert to audit the car's systems and confirm the findings of its own engineers who inspected the vehicle. Renault said it could take legal action "without prejudice to other legal actions taken in compensation for any damage suffered by the company." A spokesman said the company had not decided whether to pursue legal action against Dequiedt personally. Dequiedt was not immediately available for comment.

Police said a panicked Dequiedt, convinced he was going to die, had called them several times on his mobile telephone on Sunday as his car tore down the A71 motorway toward a toll station. The police officer who took the calls said Dequiedt was forced to veer left and right to avoid traffic and switched to the hard shoulder reserved for rescue vehicles to avoid traffic. Police attempting to escort him along the motorway found they were quickly overtaken. Eventually the driver managed to bring his car to a halt around 20 km (12 miles) from the toll station, which had been evacuated as a precaution.

No one was injured in the incident.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
5) CBN News: John Kerry's French Connection [Une chaîne télé chrétienne réac dénonce les relations françaises de Kerry.]

http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040601a.asp
John Kerry's French Connection
By Dale Hurd
CBN News Sr. Reporter

When Kerry got into the race in 2003, the automatic assumption in the pundit class and among anyone who hadn't studied his background thoroughly, was that the man is Irish.

CBN.com – SAINT-BRIAC-SUR-MER, France -- This is Kerry Country. No, it is not Massachusetts. And it is not Ireland. It is Brittany, on the coast of France, where John Forbes Kerry's French roots go through this pretty seaside village called Saint Briac-by-the-Sea.

It was here in 1908 that the wealthy Forbes family came over from England to buy a cliff-top mansion. It is where his American dad met his mother, and where a first cousin is still the mayor.

If you missed the media revelations earlier this year about Kerry's newly discovered French roots, and you still assumed he was Irish, you are not alone. The senator, who is actually half-Jewish and half-English with a lot of French relatives, is accused of being less than forthcoming about his heritage.

As a boy, Kerry spent many a summer at the Forbes family mansion called Les Essarts. One resident says he remembers playing with the Forbes children on the playgrounds of Saint Briac. The woman says she played many games of "hide and seek" with "Johnny," as she calls him.

Family friend Dominique Durocher says everyone in Saint Briac is very proud of Kerry, and they are hopeful that he will be the next president, so that relations between France and the U.S. can improve. Durocher says Johnny was already interested in politics as a teenager.

It really is a wonderful story, about summers spent at a lovely seaside resort. But it hasn't been a story the Kerry campaign has wanted to talk about.

We discovered that the mayor of Saint Briac, Brice Lalonde, did not want to talk to us about his famous American cousin. Apparently, the Kerry campaign is nervous about the 'French connection,' as well as news photos showing Lalonde's obvious pride in Kerry.

Durocher said, "Nobody talks anymore much, you know, because they said they have decided not to talk about John Kerry, and France and Saint Briac. Because maybe it could be bad for, not bad, but you know somebody in America will say you are too French or too, you know."

The two cousins are said to remain in regular contact, so we asked the Kerry campaign if it or the senator asked Lalonde to stop talking to reporters. They did not respond.

Lalonde once ran for president in France as well, in 1993, on the Ecology ticket, and he served as the environmental minister in the cabinet of Socialist President Francois Mitterand. Lalonde is known as a committed environmentalist, but apparently not committed enough for some.

In Paris, French political analyst Florin Aftalion told us that Lalonde was kicked out of the Green Party because they thought he wasn't radical enough.

Meanwhile, here is Kerry wearing the green at a St. Patricks Day breakfast in Boston in 1995, when most of his Massachusetts voter base still thought he was Irish. Kerry told the Boston Globe that he has always been "clear as a bell" about not being Irish.

But in 1984, Kerry is quoted as saying, "As some of you may know, I am part-English and part-Irish." And in 1986, a Kerry speech in the Senate reads, ''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions (of) Irish-Americans…"

The Kerry campaign has said those speeches were submitted for the record and never actually read by Kerry, and in fact were written for him by his staff, who also were apparently in the dark about their boss not being Irish.

When Kerry got into the race in 2003, the automatic assumption in the pundit class and among anyone who hadn't studied his background thoroughly, was that the man is Irish.

Newspapers often described him that way, and media-digging has not turned up a single letter to the editor from Kerry explaining that he was Austrian-Jewish on his father's side. The Jewish name was Kohn, later changed to Kerry, and English-French, the Forbes, on his mother's side.

Massachusetts has more Irish-Americans than any other state. And Mike Gilleran, the former deputy chief of the Massachusetts Republican party, told the media that, "If it were understood by the population that (Kerry) was not Irish, he would never have risen in Massachusetts politics."

"Politically speaking, in a presidential sense, it pays to be Irish," says CBN News Political Editor John Waage. "There are undecided, independent, blue-collar, ethnic Reagan Democrat voters to be had, in vote-rich electoral states. Now, if your ancestry is French, where you gonna go? Quebec doesn't have electoral votes to offer."

If Kerry were running against Bush in France, he would win, hands down. The French love his style, and the fact that he speaks French fluently.

Most French hate George W. Bush. But the French won't be voting in this election. And with some Americans viewing France as an adversary these days, it is support that Monsieur Kerry doesn't need, and the reason his campaign would like to change the subject.

^RETURN TO TOP^

********************************
6) All declared presidential candidates [Voici les candidats à la présidentielle. Je pense qu'il s'agit de candidats régulièrement inscrits auprès de la Federal Elections Commission. Cette commission ne s'occupe que des questions du respect des lois fédérales en matière de financement des campagnes présidentielles. Elle ne gère rien au niveau de la tenue des élections elles-même, qui sont la perogative des divers Etats. Cette inscription auprès de la FEC est gratuite, et la plupart de ces candidats sont plus ou moins frivoles. Pour être présent au bulletin de vote d'un Etat, il faut suivre la procédure de cet Etat. Les partis établis comme les Démocrates ou Républicains n'ont aucun problème pour ce faire (bien que Bush a failli être invalidé dans un Etat pour non respect d'un délai) et recevront la quasi totalité des voix. D'autres partis établis et pérennes (Libertarian, Socialist Workers, Green...) seront présents d'office au même titre, mais leurs candidats recevront peu de voix: les Américains sont pragmatiques et ne s'amusent pas comme certains à jeter leur voix à la poubelle. D'autres candidats feront l'effort d'être présent dans un maximum d'Etats, mais lors de ces élections 2004, le troisième candidat des sondages, Ralph Nader, troublion de 2000, ne sera présent que dans une trentaine d'Etats, malgré l'appui financier et logistique des Républicains qui veulent exploiter le fait qu'à défaut de Nader, ses électeur voteraient très largément pour Kerry. Ca ressemble au phénomène des 500 signatures en France, où les partis les plus forts ordonnent à leurs maires de donner leur signature au petit candidat le plus susceptible de nuire à leur adversaire.

Je joins aussi le bulletin de vote type pour le comté de Denver dans le Colorado. Vous verrez que la liste des candidats diffère sensiblement, et que certains candidats agréés pour le Colorado ne sont pas inscrits auprès de la FEC.]

Presidential Candidates

Mr. Sterling David Allan
Providential - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Gene Amondson
Prohibition - No NPAT

Mr. Michael J. Badnarik
Libertarian - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Michael W. 'Mike' Bay
National Barking Spider Resurgence - 2004

Mr. Jacques Yves 'Chief Jack' Boulerice
Native American - 2004 NPAT

J. Boydston
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. Harry William Braun
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Walter F. 'Walt' Brown
Socialist - 2004 NPAT

President George W. Bush
Republican - No NPAT

Mr. Jerry Leon Carroll
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. David Keith Cobb
Green Party - 2004 NPAT Ms. Patricia H. LaMarche
Green

Mr. Kenneth R. Crippen
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. HRM Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte
No Party Affiliation - No NPAT

Mr. James Louis 'Watchman' Dezort
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Earl F. Dodge
Prohibition - 2004 NPAT

Earnest Lee Easton
Veteran's Industrial - No NPAT

Mr. Max Englerius
American Tradition - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Christopher G. Fenner
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Ronald E. 'John Galt, Jr' Gascon
Write-In - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Hoover Mark Gee
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Jackson Kirk Grimes
United Fascist Union - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Max Hacker
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. William A. 'Bill' Hall
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Michael J. Halpin
Write-In - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Clay Oliver Hill
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Samuel B. Hoff
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Ms. Georgia L. Hough
Write-In - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Michael Idrogo
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. Keith Russell Judd
Write-In - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Darren Eugene Karr
Party X - Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Andrew J. Kensington
United States Justice Party Americale - 2004 NPAT

Senator John Forbes Kerry
Democrat - No NPAT

Mr. Matthew Jon Klemmensen
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Ms. Temperance Alesha Lance-Council
Anti-Hypocrisy - 2004 NPAT

Mr. William Kevin Lowry
Constitution - 2004 NPAT

John E. Maffi
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. Joseph Martyniuk
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. Andrew George Merritt
Independent - 2004 NPAT

David John Morascini
Human Being - No NPAT

Mr. Leon Motor
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. Muadin
E-Democratic Party - No NPAT

Mr. Ralph Nader
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. George C. Nelson
United Veterans Rights - No NPAT

Mr. Joseph W. Organist
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Michael A. Peroutka
Constitution - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Charles Anton Phillips
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Kevin Sean Polk
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Samuel Lyndell Powell
Independent - No NPAT

Ms. Melanie G. Pridgen
Unknown - 2004 NPAT

Ms. Diana Ramsey-Rasmussen-Kennedy
Fair Representation - 2004 NPAT

Reality
Write-In - No NPAT

Mr. Thomas K. 'Major Tom' Reed
21st Century Prohibition - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Arthur Joseph Regan
Write-In - 2004 NPAT

Russell A. Romagna
Unknown - No NPAT

Mr. Andrew Mark Rotramel
Independent - No NPAT

Klayton Chadwick Rutherford
Independent - No NPAT

George Louis Rutten
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Joseph Charles Schriner
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Steven Wayne Schrom
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. Larry J. Schuetter
Turtle - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Freddy Irwin 'Messiah' Sitnick
Independent - No NPAT

Mr. Daniel L. Snow
Write-In - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Brian Baker Springfield
Menorah-Thor - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Michael Ross Tunick Strauss
Mike's Party - No NPAT

Mr. Randy Wayne Sutherland
United Christian - 2004 NPAT

Ms. Diane Beall Templin
American - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Charles 'Jock F. Kennedy' Vick
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Da Vid
Write-In - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Hugh Wallace
American Independence - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Ted C. Weill
Reform - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Timothy Rexford Wilson
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Robert B. Winn
Independent - 2004 NPAT

Mr. Michael T. Witort
Health - 2004 NPAT

Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Laura Welch Bush
2 Children: Jenna, Barbara.
Birthdate: 07/06/1946
Birthplace: New Haven, CT
Home City: Crawford, TX
Religion: Methodist

Education:
MBA, Harvard University, 1975
BA, History, Yale University, 1968.

Professional Experience:
Former Board Member, Tom Brown Inc.
Pilot, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-1973
Founder/CEO, Bush Exploration, 1975-1986
General Partner, Texas Rangers Baseball Organization, 1989-1994.

Political Experience:
President, United States of America, 2000-present
Governor of Texas, 1994-2000
Candidate, United States House of Representatives, 1978.

Organizations:
Tarrytown Methodist Church, Austin
Highland Park United Methodist Church, Dallas
First United Methodist Church, Midland
Past Board Member, National Paralysis Committee
Chair, Hearts and Hammers Housing Rehabilitation Group, 1990-1994.

-*-*-*-*-

Senator John Forbes Kerry (MA)
Current Office: U.S. Senator
Current District: Junior Seat
Office Seeking: President
First Elected: 11/06/1984
Last Elected: 11/05/2002
Next Election: 2008
Party: Democrat

Committees:
Commerce, Science & Transportation [Senate]
Finance [Senate]
Foreign Relations [Senate]
Small Business and Entrepreneurship [Senate], Ranking Member

Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Teresa Heinz
2 Daughters: Alexandra, Vanessa
3 Stepsons: John, Andre, Christopher.
Birthdate: 12/11/1943
Birthplace: Aurora, CO
Home City: Boston, MA
Religion: Roman Catholic

Education:
JD, Boston College Law School, 1976
BA, Political Science, Yale University, 1966.

Professional Experience:
First Assistant District Attorney, Middlesex County, MA, 1977-1982
Attorney, Admitted Massachusetts Bar, 1976
Lieutenant, United States Navy, 1966-1970
Received Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts, 2 Presidential Unit Citations and a National Defense Medal.

Political Experience:
Senator, United States Senate, 1984-present
Lieutenant Governor, Massachusetts, 1983-1985
Democratic Nominee, United States House of Representatives, 1972.

Organizations:
Leader, Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Co-Founder, Vietnam Veterans of America.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Co-Chair, Congressional Vietnam-Era Veterans Caucus
Chair, Democratic Steering Committee
Chair, Hispanic Task Force
Senate New Democrat Coalition
-*-*-*-*-
Mr. Walter F. 'Walt' Brown
Current Office: Challenger
Office Seeking: President
Party: Socialist

Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Wife: Mary
6 Children: Jeffrey, Kendall, David, Joshua, Gabriel, Shyann.
Birthdate: 07/28/1926
Birthplace: Los Angeles, CA
Home City: Lake Oswego, OR
Religion: Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship

Education:
MLS, University of Oregon School of Librarianship, 1975
Attended, US Army Judge Advocate General's School, 9-month LL.M., 1965
MA, Boston University School of Letters, Arts & Sciences, 1961
JD, University of Southern California School of Law, 1952
BA, University of Southern California School of Letters, Arts & Sciences, 1949.

Professional Experience:
Voluntary Attorney, Consumer Justice Alliance, 2000-present
General Counsel, Oregon Consumer League, 1987-1989, 1991-1999
County Counsel, Malheur County, 1989-1991
Deputy District Attorney, Malheur County, 1989-1991
Associate Professor, Northwestern School of Law, Lewis & Clark College, 1970-1980
Commissioned Officer, Judge Advocate General's Corps, US Navy, 1952-1970
Petty Officer, US Naval Reserve, US Navy, 1944-1952.

Political Experience:
Chair Emeritus, Socialist Party of Oregon, 2001-present
Alternate Member National Committee, Socialist Party U.S.A., 2001-2003
Senator, Oregon State Senate, 1975-1987
Senate Member, Governor's Commission on Senior Services, 1983-1986.

Organizations:
Member, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, 2003-present
Member, Amnesty International, 1997-present
Charter Member, Alliance for Democracy, 1995-present
Member, Friends Committee on National Legislation, 1995-present
Member, Oregonians for Health Security, 1994-present
Active Emeritus Member, Oregon State Bar Association, 1981-present
Member, Lincoln Lodge Number 34, F. & A.M., Olonpago, Zambales, Luzon, Republic of the Philippines, 1962-present
Life Member, Sierra Club, 1957-present
Member, California State Bar Association, 1952-present
Member, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1949-present
Member, Board of Directors, Oregon Common Cause, 1994-1998
Member, Board of Directors, Tualatin Valley Cable Access, 1995-1997
Member, Board of Directors, Loaves and Fishes, Inc., 1984-1986.

Caucuses/Non-Legislative Committees:
Member, State Steering Committee, Health Care for ALL-Oregon, 2001-2002
Member, Western States Legislative Forestry Task Force, 1984-1986
League Member, Oregon Consumer Advisory Commission, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1971-1974
Public Member, Multnomah County Public Safety Retirement Board, 1971-1974.
-*-*-*-
Ms. Temperance Alesha Lance-Council
Current Office: Challenger
Office Seeking: President
Party: Anti-Hypocrisy

Background Information
Gender: Female
Family: Husband,
Birthdate: 05/04
Birthplace:
Home City: Los Angeles, CA
Religion: Baptist/Christian

Education:
California State University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Ferrum College.

Professional Experience:
Social Activist
Political Activist.

Political Experience:
Candidate, United States President, 2000
Political Commentator.

Organizations:
National Deans List
Phi Theta Kappa
Kappa Alpha Psi Sweetheart Organization
Who's Who (Among Junior Colleges)
Screen Actors Guild
People for the American Way.
-*-*-*-
Mr. Michael W. 'Mike' Bay
Current Office: Challenger
Office Seeking: President
Party: National Barking Spider Resurgence

Background Information
Gender: Male
Family: Single.
Birthdate: 01/25/1957
Birthplace: Cedar Rapids, IA
Home City: Lakewood, CO
Religion: Non Denominational

Education:
Associate, Arapahoe Community College, 1986.

Professional Experience:

Political Experience:
Candidate, United States President, 2000.

Organizations:
Member, Laughter Crafters (online humor writer collective), 2002-present
Member, The NetWits (online humor writer collective), 2000-present
Member, National Society of Newspaper Columnists, 1998-present.

^RETURN TO TOP^

Americans vote on everything. Everything. On the first Tuesday of November each year, they vote on dozens of matters, from the members of the local animal control board, to the sewer commission, to the sheriff, to the school board, to… well you get the picture. They vote for local offices, state offices, and federal offices. They may vote on millage (school tax), on any number of local or state initiatives or proposals, and about anything else you can imagine. Each ballot may be made up of dozens of lines, each calling for a decision.

One reason for this is America's federal system of government, the product of the failure of the first attempt at national government, the Articles of Confederation (established in 1777, soon after the US Declaration of Independence, but only ratified in 1781). Under the Articles of Confederation, the thirteen original States retained most of their sovereignty, with a very weak central government. Given the failure of this form of government to deal with relations between the US and other countries, and more importantly among the various States, it was decided in 1787 to reform the Articles of Confederation. As is often the case, instead of modifying the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Congress decided to start from scratch, inventing a new form of government embodied in the Constitution that has continued to be the law of the land since its ratification in 1788.

The Constitution is the result of these historical tensions between the various States and the central government, between the North and the South, between the interests of the commercial and industrial cities and the agricultural countryside, between small States and large States. Each of these tensions led to various compromises without which the Constitution would never have been written and ratified, and without which the United States would probably not exist today. For example, the issue of the balance of power between small and large States was settled by the division of the legislature into two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate protects the interests of small States, as each State is represented by two Senators, giving each State equal weight. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, reflects the balance of population, with each State entitled to a number of Representatives proportionate to its population. The approval of both houses is required to make a law, and each house has specific powers (taxation bills must be initiated by the House of Representatives, the Senate must approve the President's nominations for federal and Supreme Court judges, for members of the Cabinet, and for other offices).

The issue of slavery was a source of contestation from the very beginning of the country. In terms of representation, the southern States wanted their slaves to be counted as part of the population. The North refused to grant representation on the basis of slaves who had no status as citizens. With slaves counting, the population of the South would have been greater than that of the North. Without slaves counting, the opposite would have been true. The compromise, known as the "3/5 Compromise" was to count each slave as 3/5 of a free citizen for purposes of representation. The result appeared and appears shocking, but gave a balance in electoral weight between North and South without which the Constitution could not have existed.

The Americans had just fought a long war for freedom from tyranny, and were very concerned with safeguarding their sovereignty and rights, both the rights of individuals to be protected from government, and from the States to be protected from the central government. The Constitution established a balance of powers between the legislature (itself divided between Senate and House of Representatives), the executive branch (President) and to a lesser degree, the judiciary (the Supreme Court and the federal court system). The Constitution gives only certain powers to the federal government, with all remaining powers retained by the sovereign States (the historical trend has been to find justification within the Constitution for a progressive increase in the power of the federal government that the writers of the Constitution would probably not approve of).

The Constitution deals mostly with the relations between the States and the federal government, and we can see this in the elections for national office. Each State is the master of these elections, and it can be said that there are in fact no national elections in the US. The most extreme example of this is the Presidential election, in which the popular vote across the country has absolutely no importance for the designation of the President. In the beginning, the legislature of each State, and not the people of the State, would vote on the presidential candidates. Although the vote is now in the hands of the people, the tradition remains that the vote in each State determines the vote for the entire State. This is translated to the presidential election through the Electoral College, in which each State has a number of Electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives of the State. Each State thus designates all of its electors for only one candidate, meaning that even a small majority for a particular candidate results in that candidate winning all of the Electors of the State (there are only two exceptions to this, Maine and Nebraska, which divide their Electors on a geographical basis).

While there were originally logistical reasons for the creation of the Electoral College, given the long distances and the difficulties of transportation and communication in early America, the primary reason for creating such a means of electing the President was to translate two of the historic Constitutional compromises from the legislative to the executive branch. Small States are over-represented, as they benefit automatically from two Electors (the number of Senators), along with a number of Electors proportionate to its population (number of Representatives). A small State like Wyoming, for example, has only one Representative, but has three times the number of Electors it population would warrant (1 Representative + 2 Senators = 3 Electors). Likewise, thanks to the attribution of Electors on the basis of the number of Representatives, the 3/5 Compromise can be found in the Presidential election. (Thomas Jefferson, the third President, was the first to benefit from this, as he was elected with a majority of Electors from slave States, despite losing the popular vote by a significant majority.) It must of course be noted that the 3/5 Compromise is no longer in effect (slavery was abolished thanks to the victory of the North in the Civil War in 1865), but the Electoral College can be seen as a sort of constitutional fossil remains of this measure.

Each State is in charge of its own elections, including the Presidential election by which each State designates its list of Electors to the Electoral College. In general, the officer in charge of elections in each State is the Secretary of State, who in some States is named by the Governor, and in others is directly elected. A great deal of authority and responsibility is given to lower levels of government. In some States, the counties are in charge of the organization of elections. As a result, there can be different methods of voting even within a given State. The great number of elections held on the same day (dozens in most places) means that some sort of automation is desirable. Various solutions have been adopted: mechanical machines, optical card readers, punch cards, and now, touch-screen electronic voting machines. As you may have seen in some of the articles I have sent over the last year, these machines are a source of great concern, due to their lack of security (easy to hack), their ability to be tampered with ("trafiquer"), and the refusal of manufacturers to include basic safeguards such as a paper copy of the vote.

With regard to the presidential election, each State totals its vote, and the candidate receiving the majority (absolute or simple) receives all the Electoral College votes for the State (except in Maine and Nebraska, where the votes can be divided; there is currently a referendum scheduled to do the same in Colorado). As a result, the presence of a strong third party candidate can mean that a presidential candidate receives all the State's Electoral College votes without winning an absolute majority of the popular vote. In practice, these Electoral College votes are people who are proposed by each candidate or party. If the candidate wins the popular vote in a State, his list in that State becomes the official list for the State. It is possible for an Elector not to vote as he has promised to vote, but this is rare, and in certain States such a betrayal can be punished by law. The Electors transmit their votes in January, and the President elected by the Electoral College takes office on January 25. The period between the election in early November and the inauguration of the new President serves as a transition period for the establishment of a new administration.

We usually hear only about the candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties, but in each presidential election there are many more who get little attention, and few votes. It is not easy to be present on ballots across the country, and each State has its own rules on who can be present as a candidate. Established parties have a great advantage as their past performance gives them automatic representation. Candidates running as individuals or for small parties can have much more difficulty being present in each State. There are currently battles throughout the US concerning the presence of Ralph Nader on ballots, with the Republicans providing financial and logistical help for Nader who is certain to take votes from Kerry, and with the Democrats opposing his presence in the Courts (this strategy doesn't always work, as in Florida, where Governor Jeb Bush, the brother of George W, has overrode a court decision barring Nader from the ballot due to irregularities in his petitions).

The country is divided almost 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans, but in most states the outcome is clear. The result is that the candidates concentrate their campaigns on a few "swing" states that could go either way. Because of this division, the outcome of the election is hard to determine, and the presence of a strong independent or third-party candidate like Nader can have a big impact.

---

President: Elected every four years by the Electoral College. Presidents can serve two terms.

Vice-President: Elected with the President. Presides the Senate. Replaces the President in case of death or removal from office. If he serves more than two years of the President's term, he is limited to only one more term.

Senators: Two from each State. Elected for a six-year term by the entire population of each State. Each two years a third of the Senate comes up for election.

Representatives: Since 1911 the number of Representatives has been set at 435. These seats are apportioned according to the population of each State. Each State is divided into a number of districts equal to its number of Representatives (one for small States like Alaska or Wyoming, dozens for big States like New York or California). These districts have nothing to do with geographical considerations, and everything to do with ensuring that the party that controls the State legislature has the best chance of winning the greatest number of seats. All Representatives serve a two-year term, so they are perpetual candidates.

^RETURN TO TOP^