Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Gary Denton]

On 5/13/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:01:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> 
> > Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his
> > tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other
> > things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the
> > anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now
> > able to go.
> 
> Yes... and no, to the extent that stuff blowing up here and there is a good
> reason to stay home.  And there are curfews, difficulty getting gas (which is
> much more expensive, but still quite a bargain compared to here, IIRC).

Saddam was a secularist and oppressed the religious fanatics.  He
later politically embraced some elements of Islam but still it was a
political decision and fantastical Shites especially were oppressed.

I am not sure if I see ceremonies of religious ecstasy with blood
running in the streets from self-mutilation necessarily a step in the
right direction.  I am not sure it is a step in the wrong direction
but it is a step in a different direction about as bad.

It remains likely that Iran will get the most benefit from this war: A
friendly Shiite state opposed to the Saudi monarchy and with personal
knowledge of the worth of American promises.

- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:33:12 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote

> Are those liberal or conversative opinions?  Or sumpin' else?

Hmm.  Saw that intriguing misspelling just as I clicked the send button.

I think I'm going to start a conversative party.  We'll just talk about stuff 
and do nothing about it.  Say, that sounds familiar... where have I heard that 
before?  I was talking about...

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Nick Arnett]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:17:01 -0500, Gary Denton wrote

> The two most represented groups on the internet are the Liberals and
> the opposite Enterprisers.

I'm not sure if it was clear that they were the largest group in the telephone 
poll (unless I misunderstood).  They may also have been the largest in the 
Internet group as well, but that's not the point.

> The fact that the Liberals are the largest group does not indicate
> they are considered mainstream.

If being the largest group doesn't make one mainstream, what does?

I believe that in polls, a majority of Christians self-identify as liberal or 
progressive, though you'd never think that from the news.

On the other hand, the real majority doesn't fit into these silly ideological 
labels.

>From Zogby:

'... 42 percent of voters cited the war in Iraq as the "moral issue" that most 
influenced their choice of candidates, while 13 percent cited abortion and 9 
percent same-sex marriage. Asked to name the greatest threat to marriage, 31 
percent said "infidelity," 25 percent cited "rising financial burdens" and 22 
percent named same-sex marriage.'

Are those liberal or conversative opinions?  Or sumpin' else?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Oh dear...

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:45:30 -0700, Dave Land wrote
On May 12, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
*There might, I say might be a rare variant in which
Teal is Dusty Rose -- but "Their Dusty Rosenesses"
sounds much too run-on, at least in my handbook.   ;)
Please pay attention. They're not teal (that color is a trademark of
the San Jose Sharks), they're not "dusty rose" (that color is SO
'80s), they're PUCE.
Hey, this is my refuge from work.  Don't be bringing it here.
Explanation to those of you who don't happen to work where Nick and I
do... For some reason, the color puc, has become a kind of running joke,
rather like the color teal and the phrase "pay attention" have done
here.
Dave
PS: It's a deep red to dark grayish purple. Really, a kind of dark,
saturated dusty rose, I suppose. I will puke now.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Gary Denton]

On 5/12/05, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 12, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> > From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >> It's nice to know that, despite the opinions of some among our
> >> august body, we liberals are *not* out of the mainstream, we
> >> *are* the mainstream.
> >
> > Although I consider myself a liberal, I  think that the votes in
> > elections
> > are better indicators than an internet survey. Internet surveys are
> > less
> > reliable than 1936 phone polls. :-)
> 
> Yeah, but in 1936, phones weren't all that reliable.
> 
> Oh, wait, that's not what you meant, was it?
> 
> My comment that "liberals *are* the mainstream" was based on the report,
> which is based on about 2,000 phone calls, not on the internet survey. I
> think the internet survey was for individuals to see, based on a subset
> of the questions in the full survey, where they would have been
> classified. I am probably one of a very few people who will read the
> full report, at least in part a due to being home with a cold today.
> 
> Dave

The two most represented groups on the internet are the Liberals and
the opposite Enterprisers.

The fact that the Liberals are the largest group does not indicate
they are considered mainstream.

"Liberals stand far apart from the rest of the electorate in their
strong support for gay marriage, and in opposing the public display of
the Ten Commandments in government buildings."

"Enterprisers stand alone on key economic issues. Majorities in every
other group ­ except Enterprisers ­ support a government guarantee of
universal health insurance. Enterprisers also are the only group in
which less than a majority supports increasing the minimum wage."

"Enterprisers are the only voters to overwhelmingly believe that the
Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the war on terrorism. Liberals are
the strongest opponents of the legislation."


-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Oh dear...

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:45:30 -0700, Dave Land wrote
> On May 12, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> 
> > *There might, I say might be a rare variant in which
> > Teal is Dusty Rose -- but "Their Dusty Rosenesses"
> > sounds much too run-on, at least in my handbook.   ;)
> 
> Please pay attention. They're not teal (that color is a trademark of 
> the San Jose Sharks), they're not "dusty rose" (that color is SO 
> '80s), they're PUCE.

Hey, this is my refuge from work.  Don't be bringing it here.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:01:20 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his 
> tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other 
> things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the 
> anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now 
> able to go.

Yes... and no, to the extent that stuff blowing up here and there is a good 
reason to stay home.  And there are curfews, difficulty getting gas (which is 
much more expensive, but still quite a bargain compared to here, IIRC).

Now please finish that second sentence... ;-)

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model

[David Brin]

problem.  Russell used the initials for Star TREK. 
STIII.  (Which I thinkl was also a bad movie.  Almost
all sci fi 3rd movies were awful.)

The real initials are:

SWIII ROTS  (swill rots?)   

Also the whole series, backwards, is RAW RATS.

==

on another note, here is a speculation just written by
a friend of mine.

I think that the best take on the climate-change
nit-pickers is that some of them are accessories
before the fact in a quiet attempt to unload trillions
of dollars worth of stock that will be worth far less
in the future, before that fact becomes too obvious to
allow unloading of the stocks at a decent price. I
think that EVERYTHING else is secondary to this. Right
now the best categories of "greater fools" are
probably pension fund managers--I suspect they get
paid based on short-term returns, not long-term
returns. Over 25 years ago, I heard from the chairman
of the board of Bank of America that pension funds
were the greatest source of new capital in the
country, and that the folks in whose behalf it was
being invested generally had no significant voice in
how it was invested. The social security privatization
scam is an attempt to find a new greater fool, with a
greater source of funds.

About 25 years ago, when the freon story was gaining
credibility, DuPont was very publicly fighting a
delaying action. They stopped when they announced that
they had patent applications in on a variety of
stratospheric-ozone-safe replacements. They didn't
want to deny the truth, or prevent rational action.
They just wanted to ensure that they had at least as
strong a position with the replacements as with
freons. In fact, they probably came out ahead with the
change, because freon compounds had been around a
while--probably long enough for most of the good
patents on the compounds and production processes to
expire. But it was important for them to delay a
consensus on the need for replacements, so their
in-house talent didn't have much active competition as
they looked for alternatives.

In fact, by now there may be some good treatment of
DuPont's strategy--perhaps a masters thesis by
somebody on the subject.
This leads to another perspective: it's not just an
issue of what stocks the insiders (whoever is funding
the naysayers) want to sell, but what they want to DO
with that money, to ensure that the future role is at
least as profitable, and preferably more so.
Note also that although the US imports ~55% of its
oil, 45% still comes from domestic sources. Every time
the world price goes up, our trade deficit goes up,
but owners of petroleum sources in the US get richer.
I think they are more aware of THAT than of the
negative effects on our economy.

Messy world.

I think that this may be the main economic story of
this decade. But it may not get properly reported
until the history books get written decades later.

===

I think Joe is onto something.  Alas, no list of
contradictions will get through to otherwise
intelligent conservatives who blindly refuse to
recognize how their movement has been hijacked.

Of course this very message is probably being scanned
by vassals of the New Lords.  I am not afraid of that,
though it raises an interesting question.  

The question is - are either the lords or their
vassals sufficiently modern in mind and/or temperament
to entertain thoughts about how they might be cutting
their own throats by seeking RELATIVE wealth advantage
(at the privileged tip of a traditional social
pyramid) or maximizing their TRUE wealth, which is
best done by helping a vast civilization be more
successful.

We find ourselves in the awkward position that the
SATIABLE aristocrats have been frozen out of power and
have no access to the tools of surveillance that the
kleptos' servants are using to peer at us.  In other
words, the sane aristocrats who might be legitimate
shadow guide to a democratic civilization are not the
ones steering us all toward a cliff, out of their own
moronic notion of self interest.

It's such a pity.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:
OK, but I was specificly referring to the leverage our government had 
with other governments. We clearly have a strong cultural influence in 
Arab
countrieseven one of the Palestinians celebrating 9-11 was wearing a 
US sports tee shirt.  Yet, that is an area where we have little 
leverage.  We had a lot more leverage in Tawain and the Phillipeans.
Our meme might take longer to catch on in the Middle East, but I think 
given time and nurture it would have caught on eventually.

The military wanted to keep Communism at bay.  I think I can see that as
their bias.
But why did they want to keep communism at bay?
OK, using that hypothesis,  we should see multinationals all over the
dictatorships in Africa and virtually none in places like India, which 
has been democatic for >50 years, right?  It doesn't seem to work that 
way.
Africa is a complicated quagmire with a history of established European 
overlords.  Look at the history of central and South America to understand 
what I mean.

Now, I'd be happy to agree that businesses are after profit, which is
inherently an amoral stand.  If a horrid dictatorship is sitting on easy 
to obtain oil, there will be a company that will more than happy to make 
a
profit off it.  If that dictatorship poses a threat to the US, there 
would still be US companies selling to it (e.g. Haliburton selling A-bomb
triggers to Iraq in the 90s).

But my point wasn't about the influence of the US culture or businesses, 
it was about the US government.  Insofar as the military desire to see 
no more Communist governments came into play, I can understand why 
anti-Communist
dictatorships would be embraced.  When Communism fell, that needed did
also, and the right-wing dictatorships lost their bargining chip with the
US. This meant that the US's leverage with those countries increased, 
and, by my hypothesis, the percentage of dictatorships in countries in 
Latin
America should have fallen significantly after the end of the Cold war.  
By your hypothesis, there should have been a much smaller effect.  The
military would still want control, and multinationals would still want
profit.  Only if one agrees that the military wanted to defend the US at
virtually all costs can one argue for a strong military influence 
resulting in the preservation of right-wing dictatorships. I would agree 
to this bias by the military during the Cold war, but not afterwards.
You'll recall that I agreed with most of your hypotheses in my first 
post.  I think one of the things you're missing, though, is that U.S. 
intervention to prevent the spread of communism was a failed policy well 
before the fall of the Soviet Union.  Starting with our miserable failure 
in Viet Nam continuing through the overthrow of the Shah and the expulsion 
of Marcos, and culminating in the Iran Contra fiasco, the U.S. Public's 
support for "friendly despots" was on the wane well before the end of the 
cold war.

And I have to return to the reason we wanted to stop the spread of 
communism.  IMO it was more about protecting our commercial interests than 
our ideological ones.  That's not to say we didn't have ideological 
interests, but that maybe it would have been more effective in the long 
run for these states to find out for themselves that communism doesn't 
work.

I believe in the strength of our meme - or what it was before the present 
administration anyway, and I think that the excessive use of force by our 
military obscures that message.  That's not to say that a strong military 
isn't important or that we should never intercede, just that I believe 
that we should let our good ideas do as much of the work for us as we can 
get away with even if it takes considerably longer.

--
Doug
Good things come to those who wait maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Oh dear...

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
*There might, I say might be a rare variant in which
Teal is Dusty Rose -- but "Their Dusty Rosenesses"
sounds much too run-on, at least in my handbook.   ;)
Please pay attention. They're not teal (that color is a trademark of the
San Jose Sharks), they're not "dusty rose" (that color is SO '80s),
they're PUCE.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Julia Thompson]

Doug Pensinger wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru

Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru

What about Thanksgiving '75?
A fond memory of hearing that song.
It might have been the first time I heard the song.  My grandfather put 
the record on for me in the basement and then went back upstairs to the 
kitchen where he had more work to do on Thanksgiving dinner.  I was 
already all dressed up for dinner, in a dress, and dancing around to the 
music.

Funny what sticks in your mind from childhood
(Of course, in high school, I got a cassette tape with it, and played 
that a lot.  Not as much as I played, say, Beethoven's 6th Symphony, but 
still fairly frequently.)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 7:12 PM, JDG wrote:
I have to
wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you 
have
a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the 
equivalent
of baiting?
Considering the source, this question's pretty damn funny.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 8:18 PM, JDG wrote:
At 09:51 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
Pardon my
bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the 
very
least, stupidly risky.
You know, back when I started working, it wasn't.
And what happens if the company goes bankrupt?
To channel Erik, you're not paying attention. For one thing, in (say) 
1950 or so, the thought of IBM (example) going bankrupt was absurd. So 
was the thought that a professional would EVER change careers. Start 
with a company, retire from that same company four decades later.

It's grossly unfair of you to take your 2005 perspective and use it to 
show how naive people were in, say, the 1970s, before globalization, 
before the iron curtain rusted through, before AT&T was broken up, 
before airlines were deregulated, before 401Ks, before rapacious and 
incompetent CEOs were permitted to gut their own companies in the name 
of short term gain.

Up through the 1970s and possibly early 80s, going with a pension plan 
was by far one of the best, wisest and most sound choices ANY employee 
could make. It meant the difference between dogfood and a retirement of 
comfort and luxury.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)


> Dan M. wrote:
> > Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak.
> >  I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing
> > the results. :-)
>
> I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to
> wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you
have
> a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the
equivalent
> of baiting?

No, I've just tried to get people to commit to their understanding of the
validity of a type of data independent of it supporting or countering their
viewpoint.


> Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth
> during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure
> what you are thinking here.

I'm thinking data are.  We should fit theory to data, not pidgen hole data
into what we already know is true.
> >I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people
of
> >Iraq.  Ideally, the question would be "are you better off than you were
> >under Hussein" or "are you better off than you were three years ago."
But,
> >a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
> >Iraq is "are things going in the right direction?"
>
> I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually
> suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor -
> though I don't know for sure.)   The "right direction" question is
> inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that
question
> would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or
> immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the
past
> week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the
> populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein.

The time frame is a bit ambiguous, but I think that it is reasonable to
assume that people consider the biggest changes of the last couple of years
when they answer this.   If most people thought the country was going in
the wrong direction, then it would be hard to say that people consider
things a lot better.

The quote from
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050506/wl_mideast_afp/iraqpollpolitics_050506175337

is

"And 67 percent of Iraqis now think the country is going in the right
direction, the most optimistic response in the last year, the poll showed.
Some 22 percent said Iraq was going in the wrong direction.

Sentiment hit an all-time low in early October 2004, as US forces started
pounding Fallujah from the air ahead of a November ground assault on the
town, 40 kilometres (25 miles) west of Baghdad, the poll showed.Some 45
percent of Iraqis said the country was going in the wrong direction at the
time, edging past the 42 percent who felt more positive."

This poll was taken in mid-April.

A poll taken a year ago asked about whether Iraq was better off than before
the war.  And, 56% said Iraq was better off before the war, while 70% were
optimistic about the future.

The source isn't as good for this poll, it is:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004319.asp

which looks a bit biased.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: US Pensions


> At 09:51 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
> >> Pardon my
> >> bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the
very
> >> least, stupidly risky.
> >
> >You know, back when I started working, it wasn't.
>
> And what happens if the company goes bankrupt?
>
The pension fund wasn't owned by the company...it was not considered a
company asset.  The problem was not that the pension obligations went to
other creditors (the employees were creditors after all).  It was that the
company was able to use vodoo ecconomics to fund the pensions.
Unfortunately, in the 80s, the US governments stopped insisting on sound
accounting practices with pension funds.

> >If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's
tax
> >cuts,
>
> "Paying for tax cuts" is a non-sequitur.

It's all income transfer.  What happened in reality is that taxes went from
slightly progressive to virtually flat above, roughly, a 40k family income.

> Social Security is also fully funded this year, so that is a non-sequitur
> as well.

So, you are saying that  Reagan lied to me, but it's no big deal?

> > Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and
> > see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive.
>
> You're playing word games.

No.  I just like to look at data.

> A poor person making minimum wage is paying a 15.3% tax rate.
>
> A CEO making $22 million this year is paying a 0.06% tax rate.

> That's regressive under anybody's definition of economics.

How much does the CEO as a fraction of what he pays?  How much does the
poor person get?

> And oh yeah, that CEO earning $22 million is going to get a
taxpayer-funded
> check when he retires.

And, if he didn't, the poor person would have gotten nothing. Look at how
we look to cut Medicaid but expand Medicare.  Programs that only favor the
poor are on the bottom of the priority list.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[JDG]

At 09:51 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>> Pardon my
>> bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the very
>> least, stupidly risky.
>
>You know, back when I started working, it wasn't.  

And what happens if the company goes bankrupt?

>If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's tax
>cuts,

"Paying for tax cuts" is a non-sequitur.

Social Security is also fully funded this year, so that is a non-sequitur
as well.

> Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and
> see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive.

You're playing word games.   

A poor person making minimum wage is paying a 15.3% tax rate.

A CEO making $22 million this year is paying a 0.06% tax rate.  

That's regressive under anybody's definition of economics.

And oh yeah, that CEO earning $22 million is going to get a taxpayer-funded
check when he retires.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[JDG]

 Dan M. wrote:
> Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. 
>  I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing 
> the results. :-)

I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to
wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you have
a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the equivalent
of baiting?Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth
during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure
what you are thinking here.

>I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of
>Iraq.  Ideally, the question would be "are you better off than you were
>under Hussein" or "are you better off than you were three years ago."  But,
>a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
>Iraq is "are things going in the right direction?"

I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually
suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor -
though I don't know for sure.)   The "right direction" question is
inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that question
would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or
immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the past
week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the
populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Doug Pensinger]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru
What about Thanksgiving '75?
--
Doug
hmmm, where was I - benieth the sea? maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)



> Hmmm.  I guess.  I don't know what Saddam's track record was on that, nor
how
> free people are in a practical sense, given all that's going on... but
they're
> certainly free in principle.

Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his tomb is
the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other things, Hussein
prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the anniversary of Husayn's (the
Prophet's grandson) death. They are now able to go.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: US Pensions



> When a worker relies upon an employer's pension plan, that worker is
> essentially putting his or her savings nest egg in the same basket as his
> or her income egg, and handing the basket into the competent (or
> incompetent as the case may be) hands of his or hers managers.Pardon
my
> bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the very
> least, stupidly risky.

You know, back when I started working, it wasn't.  Companies are/were
legally oblidged to fund their pensions on an as-you-go basis.  But,
businesses were able to buy (sorry lobby for) a change in the law that
allowed them to siphon money from the pensions, claiming they were
"tremendously overfunded."  So, they got the law changed to reflect some,
shall we say, creative bookeeping.  As a result, many pension plans are now
terribly underfunded.

> (Although considering another significant aspect of our retirement system
> involves taxing the poor to write checks for the rich,  employer pension
> plans may look almost sane by comparison.   But I digress)

If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's tax
cuts, that wouldn't be the case.  Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and
see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:55:07 -0400, JDG wrote

> Well, let me help you out:

Thank you.  I was asking *because* I was having a hard time with it.  More 
below.

> -number of political prisoners

Definitely.

> -number of people subjected to torture  (yes, even *with* Abu Ghraib)

Indeed.

> -number of people able to practice their religion freely

Hmmm.  I guess.  I don't know what Saddam's track record was on that, nor how 
free people are in a practical sense, given all that's going on... but they're 
certainly free in principle.

> -number of people able to petition their government for redresss of 
grievances

I don't know anything about that in the past or current situation.

> -number of people who cast free ballots in the last election

Well... we'll see how that works out for them.  It is a step in the right 
direction, however.

> -number of victims of systematic ethnic cleansing

Hmm.  But more people are dying.

> And I am sure you can come up with more.

Now that you've helped me -- I really was looking for help, not an argument.  
Believe me, I want to see every bit of good that we're doing over there -- our 
family paid a high price, after all.  I've been having a hard time seeing the 
good in it all... which isn't unusual when something hits home so hard... and 
I wish you'd believe that I wasn't just trying to argue, but really wanted 
your help in seeing.  

> Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 
> worst regimes on Earth.

Whose ranking?

   Unless you believe that Iraq is *stil* one 
> of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am  *sure* that you can come 
> up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it.

It really had nothing to do with honesty in the usual sense.  It has to do 
with the world looking like a lousy rotten place when a wonderful 21-year old 
gets blown to bits, whatever the reasons.  I don't want to see the world that 
way, I want to find joy and whatever comfort I can take in the mission he was 
on... it's just hard.  I wish I could explain better, but I don't think 
anybody can really grasp it unless some real tragedy like this has hit them.

Surely, however, there have been times in your life when you struggled to see 
the bright side of things?  That's why I said, "enlighten me."  It wasn't 
sarcastic, it was a bit of a pun... the whole thing seems heavy and oppressive 
these days and I don't sleep all that well the more I read about the situation 
over there.

Clear enough?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Julia Thompson]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Lucas Film Business Model

[Robert Seeberger]

Russell Chapman wrote:
> I don't know if these figures are widely known, but I found them
> staggering...
>
> Cost of making STIII-ROTS - $115,000,000
> Money spent *so far* on marketing STIII-ROTS - $100,000,000
> Revenue to date on Star Wars Merchandise/Licencing - $9,000,000,000
>
> 9 Billion ? Which makes 10 Billion a distinct possibility by the end
> of the year.
> While these numbers justify every wise crack our Dr Brin has ever 
> made
> about them being advertisements, it gives me a new respect for 
> Lucas'
> ability to make money.

>From Box Office Mojo:

-
BOX OFFICE MOJO
THEATER COUNTS REPORT
-

MAY 19

Title (Distributor) / Theater Count (Change) / Week #

Revenge of the Sith (Fox) / 3,700

 - Should the estimate hold, it would be the 10th widest release
ever.

 - Attack of the Clones / 3,161 theaters
Opening Day: $30,141,471 (on a Thurs.)
Four-day bow: $110,169,231

 - The Phantom Menace / 2,970 theaters
Opening Day: $28,542,349 (on a Wed.)
Five-day bow: $105,661,237

Revenge of the Sith will have a global launch next weekend, playing
everywhere except Japan and South Korea.

The complete Overseas Breakdown:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=starwars3.htm



xponent
That Lucas Is Such An Awful Filmmaker Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: US Pensions

[JDG]

To a rough approximation there are two fundamental aspects of economic
security: income and savings.

When a worker relies upon an employer's pension plan, that worker is
essentially putting his or her savings nest egg in the same basket as his
or her income egg, and handing the basket into the competent (or
incompetent as the case may be) hands of his or hers managers.Pardon my
bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the very
least, stupidly risky.

(Although considering another significant aspect of our retirement system
involves taxing the poor to write checks for the rich,  employer pension
plans may look almost sane by comparison.   But I digress)

To answer Bob's question, I don't think that the question is how can
Congress make employer's pension plans illegal.   No American worker should
be duped into entrusting nearly his or her entire economic security - both
income and savings - into the hands of the managers of a single
corporation.   Such a strategy is simply too risky, and given that the
government is the ultimate insurer against catastrophic  risk, that is
simply an unfair risk for workers to be imposing upon the community.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[JDG]

At 09:09 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
>> Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum
>> of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better 
>> in Iraq today than it was under Saddam Hussein.   After all, Saddam 
>> Hussein's
>> regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth.   Unless you believe 
>> that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am 
>> *sure* that you can come up with something - if you are willing to 
>> be honest about it.
>
>I don't think it has to do with honesty in the everyday sense of the word.  
>I'm at a loss to come up with a *measurable* way of showing that things are 
>better in Iraq today than before we invaded.  

Come on Nick!I can't *believe* that I have to help you out with this.
Either you are being dishonest about your ability to come up with one
measurable thing, or you are woefully unable to see other points of view.

Well, let me help you out:

-number of political prisoners
-number of people subjected to torture  (yes, even *with* Abu Ghraib)
-number of people able to practice their religion freely
-number of people able to petition their government for redresss of grievances
-number of people who cast free ballots in the last election
-number of victims of systematic ethnic cleansing

And I am sure you can come up with more.

Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst
regimes on Earth.   Unless you believe 
that Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am  *sure*
that you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about
it.

JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Doug Pensinger]

Ronn! wrote:
I wrote:
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are 
not_!!!

--
Doug
So there maru

Can't argue with logic like that . . .
What's logic got to do with it? 8^)
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpty back camels and a brace o' fleas?
--
Doug
Dating ourselves maru.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Lucas Film Business Model

[Damon Agretto]

I don't know if these figures are widely known, but I found them staggering...
Cost of making STIII-ROTS - $115,000,000
Money spent *so far* on marketing STIII-ROTS - $100,000,000
Revenue to date on Star Wars Merchandise/Licencing - $9,000,000,000
9 Billion ? Which makes 10 Billion a distinct possibility by the end of 
the year.
While these numbers justify every wise crack our Dr Brin has ever made 
about them being advertisements, it gives me a new respect for Lucas' 
ability to make money.
And yet we STILL can't get a decent kit of the Falcon, and have to rely on 
one based on 30yo molds...

Damon, who may invest $100 in upgrade parts to bring the Falcon up to par...

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Ertl's TIE Fighter

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 5/10/2005
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's nice to know that, despite the opinions of some among our
august body, we liberals are *not* out of the mainstream, we
*are* the mainstream.
Although I consider myself a liberal, I  think that the votes in 
elections
are better indicators than an internet survey. Internet surveys are 
less
reliable than 1936 phone polls. :-)
Yeah, but in 1936, phones weren't all that reliable.
Oh, wait, that's not what you meant, was it?
My comment that "liberals *are* the mainstream" was based on the report,
which is based on about 2,000 phone calls, not on the internet survey. I
think the internet survey was for individuals to see, based on a subset
of the questions in the full survey, where they would have been
classified. I am probably one of a very few people who will read the
full report, at least in part a due to being home with a cold today.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Luca$ Film Bu$ine$$ Model

[Russell Chapman]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:44 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Russell Chapman wrote:
I don't know if these figures are widely known, but I found them 
staggering...

Cost of making STIII-ROTS

Probably someone else has previously noticed this, too, but written 
like that it looks like it says "STILL-ROTS" . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
That's even funnier !
Good pickup...
Cheers
Russell C.
---
This email (including any attachments) is confidential
and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the
content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this
email does not bind the School and does not necessarily
constitute the opinion of the School.
If you have received this email in error, please delete
it and notify the sender.
---
<<<>>>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Luca$ Film Bu$ine$$ Model

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 06:44 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Russell Chapman wrote:
I don't know if these figures are widely known, but I found them staggering...
Cost of making STIII-ROTS

Probably someone else has previously noticed this, too, but written like 
that it looks like it says "STILL-ROTS" . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Copping A Teal, was Re: Permission Slips was Re: Rhetorical Questions was RE: Removing Dictators was Re: Peaceful change L3 (the latter refers to the subject line)

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:55 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Debbi wrote:
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

And what sort of a teal, anyway?
Oh...oh, *dearie* me.

Debbi
Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:}
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are not_!!!
--
Doug
So there maru

Can't argue with logic like that . . .
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin: Lucas Film Business Model

[Russell Chapman]

I don't know if these figures are widely known, but I found them 
staggering...

Cost of making STIII-ROTS - $115,000,000
Money spent *so far* on marketing STIII-ROTS - $100,000,000
Revenue to date on Star Wars Merchandise/Licencing - $9,000,000,000
9 Billion ? Which makes 10 Billion a distinct possibility by the end of 
the year.
While these numbers justify every wise crack our Dr Brin has ever made 
about them being advertisements, it gives me a new respect for Lucas' 
ability to make money.

Cheers
Russell C.
---
This email (including any attachments) is confidential
and copyright. The School makes no warranty about the
content of this email. Unless expressly stated, this
email does not bind the School and does not necessarily
constitute the opinion of the School.
If you have received this email in error, please delete
it and notify the sender.
---
<<<>>>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Oh dear...

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Oh dear...



> *There might, I say might be a rare variant in which
> Teal is Dusty Rose -- but "Their Dusty Rosenesses"
> sounds much too run-on, at least in my handbook.   ;)

How about the social introduction: "Their Dusty Rosenesses, The Duke and
Duchess of Demolition" ?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Oh dear...

[Deborah Harrell]

> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You know what? Well, no, of course you don't...
> 
> Anyway, upon reading Debbie's post (the one I made a
> joke out of) I of 
> course deleted it, then proceeded to click my little
> Hotmail "up" arrow in 
> order to proceed in turn, to the next message. But
> something got shagged up 
> and I kept getting brought back to Debbie's post...

Ahem!
And what does this tell you?!  Why, that Their
Tealnesses* have a pointed sense of humor, and
deliciously delicate timing.

Debbi
No "E" Owner-of-Yellow-Dog! Maru ;}

*There might, I say might be a rare variant in which
Teal is Dusty Rose -- but "Their Dusty Rosenesses"
sounds much too run-on, at least in my handbook.   ;)



__ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:25:07 -0500, Gary Denton wrote
> Moving beyond red and blue.
> 
> Take the test.
> http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

I don't quite see how this quiz moves us beyond red and blue, as it uses the 
same dimensions as always.

The main thing that popped into my head as I read it was that as a capitalist 
democracy, our government is a product of our morality... but like a number of 
others, the question wasn't really asked, it was only suggested.

Nick

(One of the 13 percent of Bible studying, praying Liberals, according to this.
)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Damon Agretto]

Take the test.
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/
No surprise for me; I tested out as "Liberal."
Damon.

Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Ertl's TIE Fighter

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.8 - Release Date: 5/10/2005
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape today



> It's nice to know that, despite the opinions of some among our
> august body, we liberals are *not* out of the mainstream, we
> *are* the mainstream.

Although I consider myself a liberal, I  think that the votes in elections
are better indicators than an internet survey. Internet surveys are less
reliable than 1936 phone polls. :-)

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The American Political Landscape today

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Gary Denton wrote:
Moving beyond red and blue.
Take the test.
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/
Read the report
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242
I hope folks here will take the time to read the report -- it is
fascinating stuff. Of course, nobody here will be surprised to
learn that my test results landed me in the Liberal type group,
which I am happy to report is the largest group in the report.
It's nice to know that, despite the opinions of some among our
august body, we liberals are *not* out of the mainstream, we
*are* the mainstream.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons


> Dan wrote:
>
> >> I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the
> >> Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to
move
> >> away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not
because
> > of its influence.
> >
> > If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US
> > influence and find a greater percentage of working democracies for
> > longer periods of time than those with greater US influence.
>
> Allow me to rephrase a little because I don't really think our influence
> is a simple matter.  I believe our influence via military/industrial
> channels was negative but that our cultural influence was positive and
one
> the people of many countries wish to emulate.

OK, but I was specificly referring to the leverage our government had with
other governments. We clearly have a strong cultural influence in Arab
countrieseven one of the Palestinians celebrating 9-11 was wearing a US
sports tee shirt.  Yet, that is an area where we have little leverage.  We
had a lot more leverage in Tawain and the Phillipeans.

>Military/industrial people  want control and large profits at the expense
of the native people.

The military wanted to keep Communism at bay.  I think I can see that as
their bias.

> A  people that elects a government that wants to distribute the wealth of
> their country fairly among the people is much less profitable than a
> dictator that takes his cut and allows the multinationals to do as they
> will.

OK, using that hypothesis,  we should see multinationals all over the
dictatorships in Africa and virtually none in places like India, which has
been democatic for >50 years, right?  It doesn't seem to work that way.

Now, I'd be happy to agree that businesses are after profit, which is
inherently an amoral stand.  If a horrid dictatorship is sitting on easy to
obtain oil, there will be a company that will more than happy to make a
profit off it.  If that dictatorship poses a threat to the US, there would
still be US companies selling to it (e.g. Haliburton selling A-bomb
triggers to Iraq in the 90s).

But my point wasn't about the influence of the US culture or businesses, it
was about the US government.  Insofar as the military desire to see no more
Communist governments came into play, I can understand why anti-Communist
dictatorships would be embraced.  When Communism fell, that needed did
also, and the right-wing dictatorships lost their bargining chip with the
US. This meant that the US's leverage with those countries increased, and,
by my hypothesis, the percentage of dictatorships in countries in Latin
America should have fallen significantly after the end of the Cold war.  By
your hypothesis, there should have been a much smaller effect.  The
military would still want control, and multinationals would still want
profit.  Only if one agrees that the military wanted to defend the US at
virtually all costs can one argue for a strong military influence resulting
in the preservation of right-wing dictatorships. I would agree to this bias
by the military during the Cold war, but not afterwards.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)


> On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
>
> > why would you suggest that attacks by some people
> > indicate that most people are worse off?
>
> I didn't suggest that.  I suggested that those people, as well as the
hundreds
> of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are
saying
> that they would be better off it we left.

But, the question was whether the people in Iraq was better off.  Why make
this arguement if it wasn't relevant?  I googled for that demonstration,
and saw multiple quotes that put anti-US demonstrators in the tens of
thousands, not the hundreds of thousands.  That immediately suggested who
was behind it, and what was the political motivation...it was people on the
outside of the present government trying to put that government in a bind.
That government knows it is not prepared to provide security, so it doesn't
want the US to leave immediately.  It has said so.  Yet, the US soldiers
are resented.

What is interesting is that the organizers could only get one middle size
demonstration going.  I think that the word went out from influencial
figures (such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani) that these type of demonstrations
were not useful.  Everything that I see indicates that Sistani could get
millions on the street by sending out the word.

> Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni.  That was my point -- these are
the
> people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam.  If the
Shiites, of
> all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there?

The elected government for one.  Ayatollah Sistani for another. They both
wants us out, but not right now.  Heck, _we_ want us out, but not right
now.

>They're the  ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000
people on the
> streets on April 9th.

I tend to doubt the 300,000 number for an anti-American demonstration.  I
looked it up at multiple places and didn't get that number. A good example
of what I read is at:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40509-2005Apr9.html

you see that Sadr, the one who's millita fought the US for a month around a
year earlier, organized that demonstration.  Personally, I think the change
from fighting at the shrine of Ali for a month to a one day demonstration
is a hopeful one.

> > You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself  has decided to work
politically
> > instead of militarily.  Everything that I see indicates that the
> > attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni.
>
> First, so what if Sadr is working politically?  That is no indication of
> whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed
off
> even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people
are
> following him, lots of people.  As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr
> directly to the violence in Sadr City.  He's a cleric, not a soldier.

You don't remember the big fight in Najaf of about a year ago?  It was with
_his_ militiamen.  They have stood down, and he has chanced tactics from
military to political.  He now organizes demonstrations, instead of gun
battles.


> Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one
of the
> most dangerous places in the country for our troops.  I don't think
anyone
> questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely
were
> happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam
sentiment.
>  Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from
the
> only incident there.

Which was during the time that Sadr was fighting US troops.  Since his
militamen have stood down, what fraction of attacks have been by Shiites
and what fraction by Sunnis?


> What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of
> power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are
killing our
> troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave?

I think that there are a few things involved.  First, occupation troops are
never popular, even if they are simply providing security.  Second, we
really screwed up both security and infrastructure.  I think the average
Iraqi cannot believe Americans are that inept.  Third, the politics in Iraq
is complicated.

I wouldn't doubt that Sadr would call for US troops out _now_.  Its a smart
political move.  The government knows it cannot maintain any semblance of
stability without US help, so it cannot comply.  He can turn resentment of
the US into support for him in the future.

The person I've been watching _extremely_ carefully for the past two years
is Ayatollah Sistani.  He is clearly a far more influential figure than
Sadralthough no part of Baghdad is named after his dad. :-)  During the
fighting near the shrine of Ali, he happened to have a medical cond

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3

[Doug Pensinger]

Debbi wrote:
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

And what sort of a teal, anyway?
Oh...oh, *dearie* me.

Debbi
Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:}
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are 
not_!!!

--
Doug
So there maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,  
unemployment
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not  
hear of
that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter  
group,
of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a]  
few
other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business  
man
from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
11/8/54
In the elision represented above by "[a]" was the name of H. L. Hunt,
the father of Ray Hunt, who was the finance chairman of the RNC Victory
2000 Committee, appointed by G. W. Bush.
Their number may have been negligible in 1954 and they may have
appeared to be stupid to the President, but they now are in power
and believe that Jesus is telling them how to rule the world.
*That* is a lesson that the Democrats had better learn and remember.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The American Political Landscape today

[Gary Denton]

Moving beyond red and blue.

Take the test.
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

Read the report
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=242

Republicans Divided About Role of Government - Democrats by Social and 
Personal Values

Democrats have a core of 44% of voters, the GOP 34%. In the last election 
the GOP captured the middle by promoting an aggressive military policy. What 
about the future?

Pew Research Center produced this and also included a bunch of issues likely 
to be at play in the 2006 election to analyze coalitions.

.http://typology.people-press.org/data/ 

- 
Gary "Purple Populist" Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:18 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I've told you before:  they're not pink, they're
> sort of a teal.  And you
> can see them just fine if you put a narrow-pass
> Lyman-alpha filter in front of your detector.
Ohdear.  This is what happens when you send before
reading all posts in the relevant thread...
Debbi
who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was the
first to point out Their Tealnesses...  ;)
  ^
  (so to speak)
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Please edit quotations

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Please edit quotations
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 21:26:07 + (UTC)
Please edit the quotations you give so they are shorter
than what you write. What you write is more important.
But what if you're quoting someone who's more important than you?
-Travis "a tad short" Edmunds

I know what you mean. It can get a little annoying.
_
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new 
MSN Search! Check it out!

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Oh dear...

[Travis Edmunds]

You know what? Well, no, of course you don't...
Anyway, upon reading Debbie's post (the one I made a joke out of) I of 
course deleted it, then proceeded to click my little Hotmail "up" arrow in 
order to proceed in turn, to the next message. But something got shagged up 
and I kept getting brought back to Debbie's post (the one that I made a joke 
out of that never got deleted in the first place). Hence my belief that it 
was posted multiple times to the list. Alright?

-Travis "nonstandard variant" Edmunds
_
Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new 
MSN Search! Check it out!

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical
QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3


> On May 12, 2005, at 2:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > It was the one written collectively at a  retirement village filled
> > with
> > Catholic one legged seamen.
>
> There are hints and suggestions of lewd jokes right under the surface
> of that statement, but I can't quite seem to get hold of one.
>
> Perhaps it'll come to me in a while.

Not a lewd joke at all, if you google, you will find that it was written by
the Peggy Parish. :-)

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Please edit quotations

[Dave Land]

On May 12, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
What you write is more important.
Evidently, you haven't read much of what I've written :-).
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Oh dear, this is what happens when you click "send" a bunch of times, was Re:...

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing 
DictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:18:43 -0700 (PDT)

> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I've told you before:  they're not pink, they're
> sort of a teal.  And you
> can see them just fine if you put a narrow-pass
> Lyman-alpha filter in front of your detector.
Ohdear.  This is what happens when you send before
reading all posts in the relevant thread...
Debbi
who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was the
first to point out Their Tealnesses...  ;)
Travis "_mostly_, that's _mostly_ certain that at least _one_, that's _one_ 
person, will at least smile" Edmunds

_
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: von Neumann machines

[Robert J. Chassell]

Gary Denton wrote, 

Poul Anderson had a story in which a millennially lost space
expedition returns to an earth with a mechanical ecosystem. There
had been a war and sea-going robotic ship survivors mutated
afterwards and gradually an ecosystem evolved.

That sounds interesting.  Do you know its name, whether it was a short
story or novel, where I could find it?

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:
I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the
Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move
away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because
of its influence.
If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US 
influence and find a greater percentage of working democracies for 
longer periods of time than those with greater US influence.
Allow me to rephrase a little because I don't really think our influence 
is a simple matter.  I believe our influence via military/industrial 
channels was negative but that our cultural influence was positive and one 
the people of many countries wish to emulate.  Military/industrial people 
want control and large profits at the expense of the native people.  A 
people that elects a government that wants to distribute the wealth of 
their country fairly among the people is much less profitable than a 
dictator that takes his cut and allows the multinationals to do as they 
will.

But these people were also exposed to our culture and the opportunity that 
it used to provide to its members.  I think this is why you see the 
dichotomy when the people of the world are asked their opinion of 
(US)America (overwhelmingly negative) vs their opinion of (US)Americans 
(somewhat positive).

Oh, and I said used to provide because I believe that Brin is correct in 
pointing out that Bush is attempting to squash the diamond back into a 
pyramid.  Because of this and the growing prominence of religious 
fanaticism in our country, our society is no longer as attractive to the 
world as it once was.

All IMO, of course.
--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Please edit quotations

[Robert J. Chassell]

Please edit the quotations you give so they are shorter 
than what you write.  What you write is more important.

Thank you.

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 2:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
It was the one written collectively at a  retirement village filled 
with
Catholic one legged seamen.
There are hints and suggestions of lewd jokes right under the surface 
of that statement, but I can't quite seem to get hold of one.

Perhaps it'll come to me in a while.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:26:19 -0500, Gary Denton wrote

>  "If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a 
> major deterioration of the situation," said the newly-appointed 
> minister, pointing out that 75 percent of households had clean water 
> two decades ago. 

And to my surprise, as I looked at some of these issues, one of the best 
national health care systems in the world.

Not that I'm advocating a "the trains ran on time" mentality.  But I've seen 
that one up close, in Chile, after Pinochet.  

Some of the unhappiness in Iraq is the inevitable result of people trying to 
figure out how to take responsibility for things that have long been dictated 
to them.  How much would be impossible to quantify, I suspect.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> why would you suggest that attacks by some people 
> indicate that most people are worse off?

I didn't suggest that.  I suggested that those people, as well as the hundreds 
of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are saying 
that they would be better off it we left.

> The evidence that I've seen is that the overwhelming majority of the 
> local grown attacks are from Sunnis.  Right now, there are 
> negotiations with Sunni political leaders about going through Sunni 
> tribal leaders to work out an amnesty program for many of the insurgents.

Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni.  That was my point -- these are the 
people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam.  If the Shiites, of 
all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there?  They're the 
ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000 people on the 
streets on April 9th.

> You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself  has decided to work politically
> instead of militarily.  Everything that I see indicates that the 
> attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni.

First, so what if Sadr is working politically?  That is no indication of 
whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed off 
even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people are 
following him, lots of people.  As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr 
directly to the violence in Sadr City.  He's a cleric, not a soldier.

Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one of the 
most dangerous places in the country for our troops.  I don't think anyone 
questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely were 
happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam sentiment. 
 Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from the 
only incident there.

What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of 
power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are killing our 
troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions
RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3


> > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Ohdear.  This is what happens when you send
> > > before reading all posts in the relevant thread...
> > >
> > > Debbi
> > > who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was
> > > the first to point out Their Tealnesses... ;)
>
> > IIRC, there was a children's book that referred to
> > them: "Amelia Bedilia Meets Their Tealnesses."
>
> Cite!  I demand that you back up your ridiculous
> assertion with *hard evidence*!  Or withdraw it
> posthaste!   
>

It was the one written collectively at a  retirement village filled with
Catholic one legged seamen.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing DictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3

[Deborah Harrell]

> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > Ohdear.  This is what happens when you send
> > before reading all posts in the relevant thread...
> >
> > Debbi
> > who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was
> > the first to point out Their Tealnesses... ;)
 
> IIRC, there was a children's book that referred to
> them: "Amelia Bedilia Meets Their Tealnesses."

Cite!  I demand that you back up your ridiculous
assertion with *hard evidence*!  Or withdraw it
posthaste!   

Debbi 
who is merely 300 posts behind now**, and off again to
spread the gospel of Equitation Emeritus   ;)

**not counting, of course, those set aside to respond
to at some (probably distant) time...

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing DictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing
DictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3


> Ohdear.  This is what happens when you send before
> reading all posts in the relevant thread...
>
> Debbi
> who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was the
> first to point out Their Tealnesses...  ;)

IIRC, there was a children's book that referred to them: "Amelia Bedilia
Meets Their Tealnesses."

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3

[Deborah Harrell]

> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
 
> And what sort of a teal, anyway?

Oh...oh, *dearie* me.


Debbi
Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:}



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3

[Deborah Harrell]

> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


> I've told you before:  they're not pink, they're
> sort of a teal.  And you 
> can see them just fine if you put a narrow-pass
> Lyman-alpha filter in front of your detector.

Ohdear.  This is what happens when you send before
reading all posts in the relevant thread...

Debbi
who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was the
first to point out Their Tealnesses...  ;)

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3

[Deborah Harrell]

> Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

> The invisible pink unicorns told me to
> help out here. God, I hate them!

_How_ many times must I say it?!!  They're
teal-pointed* -- not pink, fuschia or rose-colored.  

*-pointed refers to the coloring of the lower legs,
head or ears, and mane/tail (except in dogs and cats,
who have no manes, of course -- well, that doesn't
account for maned wolves, or lions, or the extinct
Caspian tiger...)

Debbi
Setting The Record Straight - Or Spiraled, As The Case
Might Be Maru;)



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Warren Ockrassa]

More seriously...
On May 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
 "If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a 
major
deterioration of the situation," said the newly-appointed minister, 
pointing
out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13481
This isn't particularly useful, unfortunately. The logical conclusion 
is that Iraqis, naturally, were miserable after 1.5 decades of Hussein, 
sanctions and so on; and only a few years of change won't have 
addressed the slow decline their country was led into by Saddam. As an 
indictment of Hussein the survey might be effective; but it could also 
be used as a chastisement against the US and UN and the years of 
sanctions, no-fly, etc.

A more useful survey (more relevant to this discussion, that is) would 
be to compare living conditions in 2000 to those found in 2005. But 
that might not be possible.

The problem I see is that you'd actually have had to take the first 
part of the survey in 2000. Anyone you asked today about how life was 
in 2000 will be doubly biased -- memory, which is not a particularly 
reliable tool, will contain its own slants; and whatever opinion is 
voiced today is going to be colored at least in part by current events 
as well as the last half decade of history.

If you were to ask me how I liked Iraq now, and I was living there and 
a US soldier had accidentally shot my brother, I would probably have a 
very negative outlook, even if (in 1999) Hussein's goons had once 
threatened to shoot me if I didn't stop printing subversive pamphlets 
(or whatever).

Sure, those days were hard, I'd probably think ... but at least my 
brother was still alive. You knew what the rules were and you knew what 
lines not to cross. Now, with those hair-trigger troops everywhere, 
even getting some bread and goat's cheese is a life-risking venture.

But if you were to ask me, in 1999, how I liked Iraq, I might spit and 
say, "The sooner that son of a jackal Hussein is out of power, the 
better."

Population surveys aren't necessarily objective. (Opinion surveys are 
NEVER objective.) That's a problem. The other problem is (I think) that 
when you ask a given person his opinion, he's likely to tell you what 
he thinks at that moment, not what his overall sense of a thing is. In 
that respect you might only be getting something like a daily 
temperature reading, not any useful measure of a climatic trend. So you 
need a longitudinal study as well.

This suggests to me that such polls can't necessarily be used to reach 
firm conclusions, especially if they're taken after the fact and given 
to people conscious of many competing political agendas, conscious that 
how they answer might well have a lasting impact on the quality of 
their lives in the foreseeable future.

The one objective thing I can think of that might be used to argue life 
in Iraq has improved is the elections and their (still developing) 
results. As measures go that's not necessarily a bad one, but I think 
I've done a fairly thorough job of expressing that, in my view, the 
ends do not justify the means, as well as why I have that view.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons


>I am not sure how your hypothesis is able to be proved false.

By showing that countries which were less influenced/dominated by the US
had a greater chance of becoming democracies.

>What countries were not US dominated?

The US had basically ignored Africa, for example...it had minimal influence
there.  It has had little to no leverage in the Middle East since OPEC.  It
has had tremendous influence in Latin America.  It provided defence for
Tawain and South Korea.  It had a fair amount of influence on the
Phillipeans.  It has had only modest influence in SE Asia.

>What do you count as expanding democracy?

Governments going from dictatorships to elected goverments.  Evidence of
mature elected governments such as peaceful transitions between different
parties.

>What time lines do you have to show that it was Bush promoting democracy
>that caused a rise in the number of democracies?

It would be a matter of deciding the amount of leverage the US had at the
time in a country vs. the state of a democracy.  I don't think it was just
Bush.  I think that, after the Cold War, Bush I made the support of
democracies a bi-partisan issue, after Carter made it an issue.  In a sense
it was Carter stating "we cannot support dictatorships", Reagan saying "we
can if it is needed to fight Communism, and Bush I saying "now that we've
beaten communism, we need not hold our noses and support brutal
anti-Communists any more.  Clinton supported that idea, and now Bush II
does.

>How do you exclude other factors?

I'd assume they were fairly random. If we could reasonably control for
them, that would be betterbut baring that assuming that they are random
is standard technique.  It is possible, of course, to get a false positive
or false negativethat relates to the fact that international relations
is not a science.  But, I'd bet with a several sigma signal instead of
against it.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Gary Denton]

On 5/12/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:41 AM
> Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> 
> > On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > >> We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began
> > >> not
> > >> following orders Reagan ordered him removed.
> > >
> > > Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
> > > actually
> > > important.
> >
> > I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:
> >
> > 
> >
> > Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
> > in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
> > specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
> > off a long roll of names.
> 
> Sorry, I thought that it was clear that it wasn't Rossevelt because he
> didn't do that. Every example was post WWII.
> 
> >It's a little like not distinguishing between western Europe and mainland
> Europe...
> 
> Well, I was thinking of the US sphere of influence in Europe. It was
> Western Europe. I said mainland later because the UK and Ireland were not
> invaded by the Germans during WWII, and were not candidates for US nation
> building after the war.
> 
> I'd also be more than happy to exclude the sphere of influence of the US
> that was not in Western Europe, but in Europe, such as Greece and (sorta)
> Turkey. With I used both terms, I was thinking of Europe, west of the Iron
> Curtain, excluding GB and Ireland. The Nordic countries were included in
> both cases. But, I can see how my terms might have been unclear.
> 


I am not sure how your hypothesis is able to be proved false.

What countries were not US dominated?
What do you count as expanding democracy?
What time lines do you have to show that it was Bush promoting democracy 
that caused a rise in the number of democracies?
How do you exclude other factors?


-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 11:26 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
 BAGHDAD - The Iraqi people are suffering from a desperate lack of 
jobs,
housing, health care and electricity, according to a survey by Iraqi
authorities and the United Nations released on Thursday.
Wow. So Iraq really IS like the US now! Woot! Mission, indeed, 
accomplished!

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Gary Denton]

 BAGHDAD - The Iraqi people are suffering from a desperate lack of jobs, 
housing, health care and electricity, according to a survey by Iraqi 
authorities and the United Nations released on Thursday. 

 Planning Minister Barham Saleh, during a ceremony in Baghdad, blamed the 
dire living conditions in most of the country on decades of war but also on 
the shortcomings of the international community.

 "The survey, in a nutshell, depicts a rather tragic situation of the 
quality of life in Iraq," Saleh said in English at the event, attended by UN 
Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy representative in Iraq, Staffan de 
Mistura.

 The 370-page report entitled "Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004" was 
conducted over the past year on a representative sample of 22,000 families 
in all of Iraq's 18 provinces.

 Eighty-five percent of Iraqi households lacked stable electricity when the 
survey was carried out. Only 54 percent had access to clean water and 37 
percent to sewage.

 "If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major 
deterioration of the situation," said the newly-appointed minister, pointing 
out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13481
-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
actually
important.
I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:

Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
off a long roll of names.
Sorry, I thought that it was clear that it wasn't Rossevelt because he
didn't do that.  Every example was post WWII.
OK, that helps. I was also conflating Panama with the Spanish-American 
war. Too damned much _Citizen Kane_ for my own good!

It's a little like not distinguishing between  western Europe and 
mainland
Europe...
Well, I was thinking of the US sphere of influence in Europe.  It was
Western Europe.
No argument there.
I said mainland later because the UK and Ireland were not
invaded by the Germans during WWII, and were not candidates for US 
nation
building after the war.
Aha. What we had been discussing before, I thought, was the skewing 
toward democracy in all of Europe, and my impression was that we were 
talking about that emergent trait prior to WWII. (That is, from the 
early 1920s, perhaps, up until 1939.)

I'd also be more than happy to exclude the sphere of influence of the 
US
that was not in Western Europe, but in Europe, such as Greece and 
(sorta)
Turkey.  With I used both terms, I was thinking of Europe, west of the 
Iron
Curtain, excluding GB and Ireland. The Nordic countries were included 
in
both cases. But, I can see how my terms might have been unclear.
:D
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)


> On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:42:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
>
> > The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is
> > taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these
> > numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude.  Would you and
> > Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people
> > of Iraq?
>
> It could be meaningful, but it hasn't been done and isn't likely to be
done.

It has been done, and I have results from several polls, spread out over
the last year. :-)  You said it could be meaningful; why wouldn't it be.
In particular, why would you suggest that attacks by some people indicate
that most people are worse off?

> But we have are numerous incidents in which the very people we are
supposed to
> be helping are attacking us, which tends to suggest that at least some of
them
> are not feeling helped by our continuing presence.

This sets the bar very high, doesn't it.  Everyone must approve of the
change in goverment?

>The inhabitants of Sadr  City, for example.

The evidence that I've seen is that the overwhelming majority of the local
grown attacks are from Sunnis.  Right now, there are negotiations with
Sunni political leaders about going through Sunni tribal leaders to work
out an amnesty program for many of the insurgents.

You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself  has decided to work politically
instead of militarily.  Everything that I see indicates that the attacks in
Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: von Neumann machines

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 7:51 AM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Just now, according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/4538547.stm
some Cornell University people have built a robot that can reproduce
itself.  It uses modules that themselves must be manufactured in some
other way.
It's not self-reproducing. It needs already existing parts that it can 
piece together to make copies of itself. This is like building a Lego 
artifact that can build other Lego artifacts. Superficially it looks 
interesting but without a very complex set of parameters being met 
perfectly, this robot can't do a thing.

Now show me a robot that can start with raw materials -- metal, sand, 
etc. -- and make a copy of itself, and I'll concede h. sapiens has 
reason to be worried.

In other news, Mac Culkin has taken the stand, saying Jackson never 
tried to have sex with him when he (Culkin) was a kid. Culkin then 
broke down and wept. "Why, Mike?" he sobbed. "Wasn't I good enough for 
you? Oh sure, you and Emmanuel [Lewis] were bouncing off the walls, 
'Beating It' until dawn, but could I get even a single lousy grope? No, 
I was just another goofy-looking white kid left 'Home Alone' all 
night..."

Culkin was led away, leaning heavily on one of Jackson's bodyguards 
and, on leaving the courtroom, was heard to say, "I've always been 
dependent upon the kindness of..." The rest of the comment was cut off 
as the doors closed.

[Sorry. I find the whole public farce -- I mean trial -- of Jackson 
sickening. But this was too good an opportunity to pass.]

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:07:09 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. 
>  I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing 
> the results. :-)

I spoke too soon, apparently.  Not the first time.

Here's the most hopeful figure of all -- 73 percent of Iraqis looking forward 
to our departure.

The majority say that our invasion and occupation did more harm than good.

Polls looking for optimism show that it has been decreasing.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040628-045523-2426r.htm

And some words on using and misuing polls:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6114

And more general information about Iraqis' attitudes toward the United States:

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=11353

"Large majorities of Iraqis - 69 percent of Shiites and 82 percent of Sunnis - 
want U.S. soldiers to get out of Iraq quickly, according to an Abu Dhabi TV/
Zogby International poll earlier this year. Over half of Sunnis considered 
insurgent attacks to be a legitimate resistance to U.S. presence. This follows 
polling last year that showed that 71 percent of Iraqis considered U.S.-led 
forces 'occupiers' rather than 'liberators.'"

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Nick Arnett]

On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:42:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote

> The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is 
> taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these 
> numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude.  Would you and 
> Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people 
> of Iraq?

It could be meaningful, but it hasn't been done and isn't likely to be done.  
But we have are numerous incidents in which the very people we are supposed to 
be helping are attacking us, which tends to suggest that at least some of them 
are not feeling helped by our continuing presence.  The inhabitants of Sadr 
City, for example.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons


> On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >> We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began
> >> not
> >> following orders Reagan ordered him removed.
> >
> > Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
> > actually
> > important.
>
> I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:
>
> 
>
> Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
> in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
> specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
> off a long roll of names.

Sorry, I thought that it was clear that it wasn't Rossevelt because he
didn't do that.  Every example was post WWII.

>It's a little like not distinguishing between  western Europe and mainland
Europe...

Well, I was thinking of the US sphere of influence in Europe.  It was
Western Europe.  I said mainland later because the UK and Ireland were not
invaded by the Germans during WWII, and were not candidates for US nation
building after the war.

I'd also be more than happy to exclude the sphere of influence of the US
that was not in Western Europe, but in Europe, such as Greece and (sorta)
Turkey.  With I used both terms, I was thinking of Europe, west of the Iron
Curtain, excluding GB and Ireland. The Nordic countries were included in
both cases. But, I can see how my terms might have been unclear.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
>
> I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the
> Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move
> away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because
of
> its influence.

If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US influence
and find a greater percentage of working democracies for longer periods of
time than those with greater US influence.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
What I've read  indicates that the Greek democracies bore little
resemblance to our own.  The patriarchs of the families got to vote, 
not
the free males.
Missed that one. I don't believe that's wholly correct. There were 
cases argued, for instance, involving hetara (male prostitutes) voting 
-- they weren't allowed to hold public office and apparently this 
reflected in their voting rights as well. Slaves and women, of course, 
were not permitted enfranchisement.

But the Greek model *did* reflect an attempt at reasonably fair 
suffrage, and the Roman one even more so. The concept of democracy was 
not invented in the US, was not an artifact of the American Revolution 
or 1776. It was built upon, based on earlier models, one can argue 
improved substantially, but the idea was not new when Jefferson et. al. 
proposed it.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Gary Denton]

On 5/12/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> >> We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began
> >> not
> >> following orders Reagan ordered him removed.
> >
> > Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is
> > actually
> > important.
> 
> I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area
> in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to
> specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing
> off a long roll of names. It's a little like not distinguishing between
> western Europe and mainland Europe...
> 
> The more recent "lesson" from Panama, BTW, seems to have been lost
> anyway. :\
> 
> The GOP seems to have a problem with remembering lessons learned -

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment 
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of 
that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, 
of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few 
other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man 
from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
11/8/54

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Warren Ockrassa]

On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began 
not
following orders Reagan ordered him removed.
Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is 
actually
important.
I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama:

Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area 
in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to 
specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing 
off a long roll of names. It's a little like not distinguishing between 
western Europe and mainland Europe...

The more recent "lesson" from Panama, BTW, seems to have been lost 
anyway. :\

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Gary Denton]

On 5/12/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> 
> > But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot
> > tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
> > camp, but there were terrorists.
> 
> >Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist
> >activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due 
> to
> >terrorists.
> 
> It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths 
> in
> the months following VE day.


I had read an article or two indicating none directly attributed to 
terrorists in Germany but even taking your 20 that is a far cry from Iraq.


>> It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to
> >> directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting
> >> other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America.
> 
> >We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not
> >following orders Reagan ordered him removed.
> 
> Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is 
> actually
> important.
> 
> >There may have been an indirect influence in promoting democracy as older
> >dictators in Latin America saw there were limits to their power.
> 
> The reason I think the timing is important is what transpired between
> Reagan happily dealing with Noreaga, and Bush removing him. The Cold War
> was won between those actions. For over 40 years, we were willing to
> support right wing dictatorships because we feared the alternative might 
> be
> a Communist takeover. One exception to this was when we decided to drop
> support of Bastidas around '59. I think it is fair to say that was
> considered an object lesson by many.
> 
> Now, I agree with the arguement that we were willing to look the other way
> far too often when our allies acted in an inhumane manner. Chile comes to
> mind here. But, until the end of the Cold War, I think it is fair to say
> that an arguement could be raised that we needed to allign with right wing
> dictatorships as the least bad option. In the '70s and early '80s, the
> swift victory of the US in the Cold War was not seen as inevitable.
> 
> But, once the US won, this excuse for supporting right wing dictatorships
> vanished. The US no longer had a reason to fear that the removal of a
> right wing dictatorship would result in another Russian ally. Thus, it was
> the perfect time to assess whether the Cold War was an flimsey excuse for
> supporting right wing dictators, or whether the US would change policy now
> that this risk had been removed.
> 
> Latin America was the perfect test case because the influence of the US 
> was
> so strong. Unlike the Middle East, we and Western Europe have little
> dependance on Latin America. Panama, with the US interest in the canal
> staying open, and US soldiers in the canal zone, was good test case.
> 
> I think the message that was sent was, now that the Cold War is over, we
> have no reason to have to accept right wing dictatorships. We now consider
> them against our interests. For the most part, I think the message was
> received.


I don't know, I could be convinced but I didn't see Bush I as the mover 
against right-wing dictatorships you evidently do.
Not to say he wasn't an improvement over Reagan and Bush 2.

>> I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether
> >> representative government was just first developed in the West
> >>(in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative 
> government
> is an
> >>artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring
> dictatorships,
> >> monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for 
> the
> former.
> 
> >There is an interesting Turtledove short, one of his best, where the
> Greeks
> >were conquered by Persia and generations later a historian is trying to
> >discover who their rulers were and what was all these records of them
> >counting to make decisions. I thought this was one of the best alternate
> >histories.
> 
> What I've read indicates that the Greek democracies bore little
> resemblance to our own. The patriarchs of the families got to vote, not
> the free males.
> 

The point of the story was the idea of making decisions by counting and not 
fiat was totally foreign.

Now I am not sure if this is correct that Greece was the origin of the idea 
of democracy for all places. I seem to remember Iceland having the first 
parliamentary system the Althing in the 900s and I don't think the Greeks 
influenced that..

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan wrote:
For many long decades the US was willing to live with anti-communist
dictatorships.  Yet, if you look at the Phillipeines, Taiwan, and South
Korea, they are, after Japan, the best examples of strong representative
government.  If you want to argue that the US cut these dictatorships too
much slack, and that we didn't push enough for democracy in these
countries, I'd agree.  But, I don't think it is just coincidence that 
these countries are the best examples of representative government, 
after Japan, in the far east.
I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the 
Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move 
away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because of 
its influence.  Whether or not our support for Marcos or the Shah was 
necessary is another question, but to give the U.S. credit for the change 
in regimes is problematic, IMO.

re Japan and Germany:
It was also, in large measure, a reflection of the ability of the US to
force a governmental form on those countries.  In the other countries, 
the US was not in the same position to do so.
One has to take into consideration the impact of WWII on those countries.  
What portion of the population was killed?  How much of the infrastructure 
was destroyed?  These populations were submissive because of the (self 
inflicted) devastation they had suffered.

Secondly, and I think this is very important, The populations of both 
Germany and Japan were very homogeneous at the time.  The fact that Iraq 
has three distinct cultural divisions renders it a far more difficult 
problem than either Germany or Japan.

re terrorists.
It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths 
in the months following VE day.
It did not have enough significance to render a comparison here.
I agree more or less with the rest of your post - that our priorities 
changed post cold war, but I'd argue that it wasn't necessary to prop up 
those dictators in the first place.

--
Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

>> Well, there's the Phillipeans, Tawain, and South Korea, and Panama, to
>> name countries outside of Europe.


>The Philippines, Taiwan , South Korea and Panama are not examples of the
US
>promoting democracy. For many long decades they were examples of the US
propping
>up dictatorships

For many long decades the US was willing to live with anti-communist
dictatorships.  Yet, if you look at the Phillipeines, Taiwan, and South
Korea, they are, after Japan, the best examples of strong representative
government.  If you want to argue that the US cut these dictatorships too
much slack, and that we didn't push enough for democracy in these
countries, I'd agree.  But, I don't think it is just coincidence that these
countries are the best examples of representative government, after Japan,
in the far east.

>Germany and Japan were the examples of the US promoting democracy. This
was
>in large measure due to the constitutions put in place.

It was also, in large measure, a reflection of the ability of the US to
force a governmental form on those countries.  In the other countries, the
US was not in the same position to do so.

> > Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or
> > pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of
> > the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades.
>
> But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot
> tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
> camp, but there were terrorists.


>Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist
>activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due to
>terrorists.

It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths in
the months following VE day.

>> It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to
>> directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting
>> other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America.


>We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not
>following orders Reagan ordered him removed.

Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is actually
important.

>There may have been an indirect influence in promoting democracy as older
>dictators in Latin America saw there were limits to their power.

The reason I think the timing is important is what transpired between
Reagan happily dealing with Noreaga, and Bush removing him.  The Cold War
was won between those actions.  For over 40 years, we were willing to
support right wing dictatorships because we feared the alternative might be
a Communist takeover.  One exception to this was when we decided to drop
support of Bastidas around '59.  I think it is fair to say that was
considered an object lesson by many.

Now, I agree with the arguement that we were willing to look the other way
far too often when our allies acted in an inhumane manner.  Chile comes to
mind here.  But, until the end of the Cold War, I think it is fair to say
that an arguement could be raised that we needed to allign with right wing
dictatorships as the least bad option.  In the '70s and early '80s, the
swift victory of the US in the Cold War was not seen as inevitable.

But, once the US won, this excuse for supporting right wing dictatorships
vanished.  The US no longer had a reason to fear that the removal of a
right wing dictatorship would result in another Russian ally.  Thus, it was
the perfect time to assess whether the Cold War was an flimsey excuse for
supporting right wing dictators, or whether the US would change policy now
that this risk had been removed.

Latin America was the perfect test case because the influence of the US was
so strong.  Unlike the Middle East, we and Western Europe have little
dependance on Latin America.  Panama, with the US interest in the canal
staying open, and US soldiers in the canal zone, was good test case.

I think the message that was sent was, now that the Cold War is over, we
have no reason to have to accept right wing dictatorships.  We now consider
them against our interests.  For the most part, I think the message was
received.

>> I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether
>> representative government was just first developed in the West
>>(in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative government
is an
>>artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring
dictatorships,
>> monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for the
former.

>There is an interesting Turtledove short, one of his best, where the
Greeks
>were conquered by Persia and generations later a historian is trying to
>discover who their rulers were and what was all these records of them
>counting to make decis

Re: von Neumann machines

[Gary Denton]

On 5/12/05, Robert J. Chassell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> [Over the past two days, there have been two big developments, one
> concerning pensions, the other concerning manufacturing.]
> 
> More than two generations ago, von Neumann provided the mathematical
> underpinnings to a self-replicating device. He referred to it as a
> "Universal Constructor", but many call it a `von Neumann Machine'.
> 
> But without humans around, you may end up with a mechanical ecology
> like that described in James P. Hogan's 1983 science fiction novel,
> `Code of the Lifemaker'(1).
> 
> (Del Rey (1984), ISBN 0345305493,
> Baen Books (2002), ISBN 0743435265
> see `http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_the_Lifemaker')
> 
> 
Poul Anderson had a story in which a millennially lost space expedition 
returns to an earth with a mechanical ecosystem. There had been a war and 
sea-going robotic ship survivors mutated afterwards and gradually an 
ecosystem evolved.

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)



>> The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is
taken,
>> of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over
time
>> should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at
>> least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq?
>

> Several of these polls have been taken.

Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak.  I just
wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results.
:-)

Dan M.




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: von Neumann machines

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:51 AM Thursday 5/12/2005, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Just now, according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/4538547.stm
some Cornell University people have built a robot that can reproduce
itself.

When the reporters asked the scientists to provide a demonstration of this 
capability for them, one of the scientists pressed a button on the robot's 
remote control unit.  The robot responded by emitting a series of beeps and 
chirps, which the scientist explained was the language the robot 
communicates in.  When asked what the robot had said, the scientist 
translated "Not tonight, dear, I have a headache."

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Gary Denton]

On 5/12/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
> 
> > At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> > >> I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own.
> > >
> > >Oh, please.
> > >
> > >I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't
> > >asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like
> to
> > know
> > >if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up
> with
> > it
> > >right now.
> >
> > You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before.
> If
> > I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for "provable
> > likelihood of success" in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as
> to
> > why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so
> > unworth mentioning in Iraq. But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to
> > any of that.
> >
> > Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a
> modicum
> > of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in
> Iraq
> > today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's
> > regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that
> > Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* 
> that
> > you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about
> it.
> 
> I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of
> Iraq. Ideally, the question would be "are you better off than you were
> under Hussein" or "are you better off than you were three years ago." But,
> a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
> Iraq is "are things going in the right direction?"
> 
> The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken,
> of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time
> should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at
> least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq?
> 
> Dan M.
> 
> Several of these polls have been taken. 


-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming.blogspot.com
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Gary Denton]

On 5/11/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
> 
> > On May 11, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > >> On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions
> > >>> of human beings
> > >>
> > >> Nothing.


Quite a bit. 

>
> > [...]
> >
> > > But, it has worked a number of times, as well as not having worked a
> > > number
> > > of times.
> >
> > Has it? Apart from Germany and Japan post WWII, when in the history of
> > the US have we been successful in installing a democratic model of
> > government in any nation? (I'm really asking; I might well have
> > forgotten some things!)
> 
> Well, there's the Phillipeans, Tawain, and South Korea, and Panama, to 
> name
> countries outside of Europe.


The Philippines, Taiwan , South Korea and Panama are not examples of the US 
promoting democracy.

For many long decades they were examples of the US propping up dictatorships

Germany and Japan were the examples of the US promoting democracy. This was 
in large measure due to the constitutions put in place.

> > Western Europe and Japan are classic examples of this.
> >
> > Japan was beaten. Much of Western Europe was already skewing democratic
> > pre WWII.
> 
> Well, let's look at the larger countries. Italy was first a monarchy and
> then Facist before WWII, there was only a brief democracy in Germany 
> before
> the Facists came. Since the US didn't control Spain, it took decades for
> that country to become a democracy. Austria was part of Germany before
> WWII started. I think that democracy on mainland Europe can best be seen
> as a recent experiment with results that were mixed, at best.
> 
> >And we had the backing of the rest of the allied forces in
> > both cases (post-Nazi Germany, post-imperial Japan) to help us.
> 
> I think Japan was a solo show. Britian helped a little in Europe, but that
> was about it.
> 
> > Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or
> > pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of
> > the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades.
> 
> But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot
> tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
> camp, but there were terrorists.


Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist 
activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due to 
terrorists.


> Influence is a far cry from direct frontal assault.
> 
> It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to
> directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting
> other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America.


We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not 
following orders Reagan ordered him removed. There may have been an indirect 
influence in promoting democracy as older dictators in Latin America saw 
there were limits to their power.

>And it is not our
> > responsibility to "fix" the world, particularly as there are still many
> > parts of it that don't *want* our kind of fixing in the first place.
> 
> Well, we know that the governments would like things to stay as they will.
> How do we know that people don't want to vote if they can't?
> 
> 
> > Leaving aside that it's literally practically impossible to change the
> > world,
> 
> But, we can act in a way that has tremendous influence on the world.
> 
> >what right have we to force a democratic, nominally atheistic
> > government on, say, Saudi Arabia, which is a theocracy (essentially)
> > steeped in Islamic literalism? Would it be any different from, for
> > instance, forcing the Amish to accept the Internet? (On an ethical
> > level, I mean.)
> 
> How do we know what the average person in Saudi Arabia wants if they don't
> get to voice their views. I think that there is very significant evidence
> that the Shiites and the Kurds favor representative government. Yes, we
> ran the election, but we didn't force >75% of the people in those areas to
> vote. The Sunnis appear to want to go back to the good old days when they
> were in charge. How that plays out will be critical to the future of Iraq.
> 
> Giving the people a chance to choose their government, and to throw the
> rascals out a few years later if they don't like what they did doesn't 
> seem
> like forcing things on people. I'd guess that many countries in the
> Mid-East would not have the church/state separation of the US. That's OK.
> The only possible way we could be forcing things on a people is if we
> insisted on minority rights.
> 
> I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether 
> represe

von Neumann machines

[Robert J. Chassell]

[Over the past two days, there have been two big developments, one
concerning pensions, the other concerning manufacturing.]

More than two generations ago, von Neumann provided the mathematical
underpinnings to a self-replicating device.  He referred to it as a
"Universal Constructor", but many call it a `von Neumann Machine'.

(To avoid confusion, such people refer to the underlying design of the
computers that most of us use as being based on the `von Neumann
architecture'.  He also invented that.  Some people use the term `von
Neumann Machine' to refer to the laptop on which I am writing this;
but I don't.)

Obviously, viruses, bacteria, trees, and humans reproduce. 

A von Neumann machine is a non-biological reproducing entity that
humans create.  (Although oddly enough, I do not see economies
referred to as von Neumann machines, except by me.)

The first `portable by humans', non-biological reproducing entities
that I know of were created in the late 1950s.  (`Scientific American'
had an article, which I vaguely remember reading.) They were simple,
appropriately shaped blocks that if seeded by a combine and then
shook, would hook together to create other combines.

Just now, according to the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/4538547.stm

some Cornell University people have built a robot that can reproduce
itself.  It uses modules that themselves must be manufactured in some
other way.

On the one hand, this is a far distance from entities that can take
`naturally provided' modules, that is to say atoms and molecules, and
use those for reproduction.

On the other hand, this feat tells me that we are no more than a
generation or two away, maybe closer, to the idea of a robotic factory
that can both reproduce itself and assemble some kinds of other object
that humans like, such as cars, out of intermediate components.

Doing the latter will mean that the assembly costs of manufactured
goods will decrease, although at present, the cost of the components
themselves and of the energy for the robots will still be there.

That is the manufacturing implication.


Indeed, if technological advance continues, from solar energy and
mining von Neumann machines could manufacture many of the objects that
people want.

The result will be that people become richer in certain kinds of
object, but not in goods like `location' that cannot be manufactured
and not in services (except for those services provided by robots,
such as automatic answering machines).

That is to say, the cost of certain kinds of manufactured object drops
in the same way that the cost of manufactured software has dropped.
(Indeed, we do not think of your receiving this message or of looking
at a Web page as `manufacturing'; we say that the information was
`copied'; but it is a kind of re-duplication, that is to say, of
multi-unit manufacturing.)


The Cornell people have not gone very far:  but they have done more
(or at least talked about what they have done) than others.  And they
indicate a step.



The characteristics of a von Neumann machine can be modeled by
considering existing self-reproducing entities, such as trees or
humans.  (This is taken from
http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/Choice-and-Constraint.html )

Like any living entity, a von Neumann machine must eat, which means it
must gather energy and other inputs.

In order to eat and live, a von Neumann machine must be able
distinguish useful inputs from poisons; it must be able to see (or
smell, taste, feel, or hear) potential food.

This means the machine not only needs appropriate sensors, but the
ability to understand and act upon the information.  It needs eyes, a
brain, and hands.

In a small, `nano' von Neumann machine, thermal motion brings atoms
and molecules to a site.  Most often, only the appropriate atom or
molecule settles in the site.  Most others do not fit.  (The others
that do fit create variations.)

Unless you think of the process of `fitting' as a combination of
sensing, analysis, and action, you will not consider these entities as
having `eyes', `brain', or `hand' at all.  However, the process is
similar, but more condensed:  input that fits is both identified
(perhaps wrongly) and accepted by that action.

The inputs, whether energy or material, must be transformed to enable
the original von Neumann machine to continue and to enable that
machine to reproduce.

In order to continue, the machine must be able not only to provide
itself with enough food -- enough energy and materials, it must also
be able to ward off illness -- to defend itself, and to heal itself --
to repair itself.

Moreover, the machine must be able to dump materials and energy it no
longer uses.  It must be able to excrete.  Some of this excreta will
be useless to us.  It will be `pollution'.  We will want other
excreta, manufactured `goods'.  This will be what we humans say the
machine `produces'.  Think of the alcohol in wine as being excreta ...

All in all, a von Neumann mac

US Pensions

[Robert J. Chassell]

[Over the past two days, there have been two big developments, one
concerning pensions, the other concerning manufacturing.]

In the United States, its bankruptcy judge permitted United Airlines
to default on its pensions.  (United Airlines is in bankruptcy.)  The
default is for US$ 9.8 billion.

A US government entity called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
will assume Unitedâs pension obligations. 

The default puts United Airlines, which is still operating, at a
competitive advantage against non-bankrupt airlines.  They may declare
bankruptcy, too.  Delta has already said it may do so later this this.

Also, the default adds to the obligations of the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation.  My understanding is that the Corporation gains
its revenue in two ways:  one is by charging a fee to various
businesses.  This fee will have to rise.  The other is by charging the
US taxpayer (which I do not think it has done so far).

Both General Motors and Ford, the two large remaining US auto firms,
also have huge unfunded pension obligations.  Other US companies also
have unfunded pension obligations with the total in the hundreds of
billion US dollars -- an amount near to the size of the annual
government or trade deficits, that is to say, several percent of of
total US income.

The question is how well can non-bankrupt companies can make
competitive financial returns under current circumstances when they
must pay for pensions but bankrupt companies do not and foreign
companies from countries with state provided pensions do not.  (In the
US, state-provided pensions are called `social security'.)

In other words, the question is what kind of political arrangements
will be needed?

-- 
Robert J. Chassell 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com  http://www.teak.cc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)


> At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >> I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own.
> >
> >Oh, please.
> >
> >I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this.  I wasn't
> >asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like
to
> know
> >if there is something.  If I've said it, great.  I just can't come up
with
> it
> >right now.
>
> You misunderstand.   I'm not referring to anything you've said before.
If
> I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for "provable
> likelihood of success" in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as
to
> why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so
> unworth mentioning in Iraq.   But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to
> any of that.
>
> Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a
modicum
> of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in
Iraq
> today than it was under Saddam Hussein.   After all, Saddam Hussein's
> regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth.   Unless you believe that
> Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that
> you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about
it.

I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of
Iraq.  Ideally, the question would be "are you better off than you were
under Hussein" or "are you better off than you were three years ago."  But,
a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of
Iraq is "are things going in the right direction?"

The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken,
of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time
should reflect changes in attitude.  Would you and Nick consider this at
least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq?

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons


>
> On 12/05/2005, at 8:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years.  We had a
> > lot
> > tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
> > camp, but there were terrorists.
>
> Any cites on this Dan (or anyone else)? This is not something I've
> heard about before.

My source was brin-l about 2 years ago.  I included as terrorists people
who killed Germans who cooperated with the US by being mayors, etc., under
US occupation.  I've done a google on this, and found that the terrorism
was much less effective than in Iraq, that maybe 20-30 allied soldiers were
killed, and that several appointed mayors were killed.

I'd argue that the comparisons the Bush administration make between Germany
and Iraq are vastly overstated.  The strength and effectiveness of the
Werewolves, as they called themselves, was minimalbut it was still
existent.  The closest parallel, I think, was the killing of people who
cooperated with the US...but the numbers in Germany and Iraq were orders of
magnitude different.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Ray Ludenia]

On 12/05/2005, at 8:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years.  We had a 
lot
tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a
camp, but there were terrorists.
Any cites on this Dan (or anyone else)? This is not something I've 
heard about before.

Regards, Ray.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:24 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 12:07 PM Wednesday 5/11/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>>
>>> Ah, the _perfect_ leftist stance.  I have no idea what
>>> to do, but I know that you're wrong, so that makes me
>>> better than you,
>>
>> Are you sure that those who criticize your ideas only care about
>> feeling "superior," not about other people, the millions of human
>> beings caught in oppression, violence and poverty?  Do you feel
>> inferior?
>
>
> No.
>
> I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions
> of human beings, and so far haven't heard much in the way of
> suggestions on how to save them, or an argument that the status quo
> is somehow the best of all possible scenarios and anything anyone
> does will only lead to more death and suffering.
>
Who made America responsible for all the suffering in the world?

Most of the rest of the world and a good number of Americans . . .in that 
they believe that America either caused it, should provide all or virtually 
all of the money (and troops if applicable) to fix it, or both . . .

My question was not a suggestion that I hold America responsible for all, 
or even most, of the suffering in the world.  I just don't like to see 
suffering, and wonder if there's anything that anyone can do to help.  And 
I realize that the answer may indeed be "No, there isn't."  Or that the 
answer may be "Yes, but those who have the will to do something to help 
don't have sufficient resources to relieve all the suffering in the 
world."  Or "Yes, but there are some who don't want anyone who is a 
position to do something to do something — usually America, because, face 
it, we do have more resources available to do something about _ (insert 
problem of your choice) than any other country in the world — to do what 
needs to be done."
Or maybe they just plain don't like the idea of it being done America's way 
because "America is the Great Satan whose fashions and movies are 
corrupting our youth and turning them away from our traditional way of 
life."  Or . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l