Re: How we were hoodwinked
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:00:33PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: Typically people with dyslexia have a hard time getting some words spelled close enough to correct that a spellchecker will be able to recognize them. This problem is not propaganda, You missed the point AND your statement above is wrong in this instance. I tried about 10 of the words here http://www.ultralingua.net/dictionary/ and all but 1 of them showed up in the first 3 guesses (the remaining one was 12th). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 03:51:27PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: 2) You condone a law that would prevent 62 million American citizens from being able to get married and have children? How ironic. Apparently you only support freedom of speech, not freedom of thought or freedom of religion. You underestimate me, sir. I don't just want to prevent Catholics from having children. I have a list of people who should not be allowed to marry or reproduce: fundamentalists, Mormons, Jews, Muslems, Hindis, young people, old people, people who drink alcohol, people who smoke, people who own SUVs, government workers, philosophers, lawyers, and last, but not least, conservatives. 3) In equating being Catholic with not being decent, you have insulted me, JDG (I can't believe I'm actually defending him...), and all the other Catholics on the list. I would appreciate an apology for this uncivilized behavior and breech of list etiquette. In demanding that I write something against my opinion just because you say so, you have shown extreme intolerance and bigotry for my point of view. Maybe you should apologize! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
At 02:32 PM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: You just insulted all bigots while trying to insult me! Personally, I'm prejudiced against bigots. Exactly. The point being that Erik is being wholly unproductive, uncivil, and unapologetic for equating prejudice against bigots with prejudice against Catholics and homosexuals. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 7:39 AM Subject: Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution At 12:06 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: JDG poured an a$$load of gasoline on the fire by writing: I disagree. Since every child is produced by a mother and a father, I think that our ideal goal should be to place every child up for adoption with a very good mother and father. With all due respect, I think you're way out of touch with reality. You've taken the classic boob's line, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! and slapped a new coat of pain on it, but it's still bereft of real substance, and just as ridiculous. While a man and a woman are required for the initial act, it does not necessarily follow that both sexes are required for every step after that. I have yet to see compelling evidence that gay adoptive parents, screened to the same degree as a heterosexual couple, are less fit as parents. My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women and men are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be effects of both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural roles. While we clearly know that a man and a woman are not *required* for raising children, each unborn child has a reasonable expectation of having both a mother and father, since each was necessary for the creation of that child. Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no way of determining any contrary desire of the child. I don't know that I could buy this argument. But I have read several of the responses to this post, and my thinking has gone off on a bit of a tangent: In Texas, (and I have to assume that things are done in a similar fashion in the rest of the US) when there is a divorce, a child of tender years (age 9 and under in Texas) is automatically made the custody of the mother. The argument being that a young child needs a mother on a daily basis more than he/she needs a father. This brings questions to mind immediately: * If homosexual men are allowed to adopt children under 10 years of age, will this not constitute prejudice against divorced heterosexual men? * Will homosexual women be given preference to adopt children over homosexual men? * Will divorce law have to be modified to eliminate these prejudices (if they indeed exist)? * How would custody be arranged for divorcing homosexuals who have adopted children? (How would you determine who the custodial parent would be?) It seems to me that allowing homosexuals to adopt children will have consequences that extend beyond the original question of qualification, and would actually be a benefit to heterosexual men who desire custody of their children. I'm interested in what people think about this. I have no opinion as of yet, since I cannot think of a single consistent rule that would constitute fair play for every combination of parents. Opinions? xponent Can 'O Worms Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Arrgh!
On 25 Jul 2003 at 16:05, Reggie Bautista wrote: Bryon wrote: I'm sort of fanatical about this - I have approximately 8-9 fans in my (very large) PC tower case. Have you ever considered using some form of liquid cooling? http://store.epowerhousepc.com/cgi-bin/EPHstore.cgi?user_action=listc ategory=Liquid%20Cooling or http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2DA52465 A lot of work, and unless you spent a LOT of cash not usually a good return. You're generally better off investing in an expensive cooler, a server case (with the appropriate fan mountings) and some noise- deadening equipment instead. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I have returned from paradise
Bryon Daly wrote: Nice pics - I'm jealous! I'd love to visit Hawaii someday. It's well worth the price. Thanks for the nice words about the pictures; my wife got a pretty expensive digital camera for MOther's Day/our anniversary, and those pics are from that. Is Knight of the Dinner Table a title you picked, or a standard one? It's one I picked. I figured it fit, between the handle and the DD stuff. :) Also, I tracked down my web site and put up the SC2 music files and mod player: Thanks, Bryon, you rock! Jim ___ Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails! Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Case for a Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution
JDG wrote: My position is based on the fact that I firmly believe that women and men are fundamentally different. I consider this differences to be effects of both fundamental biology, and, of course, differences in cultural roles. Well, duuuh! Differences in biology do not, hoever, equate to differences in ability to fill cultural niches. While we clearly know that a man and a woman are not *required* for raising children, each unborn child has a reasonable expectation of having both a mother and father, since each was necessary for the creation of that child. An unborn child has no expectations save that it be fed and cared for - differentiating between males and femals happens much later, developmentally. Since society's role in assigning adoptions should entirely give consdieration to the needs and rights of the child - not to the desires of the adopters, I think that society should try and meet the reasonable expectations of the child whenever possible, since of course, there is no way of determining any contrary desire of the child. So, society should see to it that children are fed and cared for? I'm down with that, man. Gotta warn you, though - you're sounding dangerously like a socialist... Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Read the blog. Love the blog. http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 02:18 PM 7/25/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: Actually, its called the House-Senate Conference Committe, and its been around for a very, very long time. I didn't mention this because it was in the MSNBC article. Frankly, I'm not sure why you bring it up, so it seems like a non sequiter to me. What's your point? Once the House and Senate pass similar bills, differences are hammered out in a Conference Committee. It is routine for important provisions to be added and dropped in these Conferences, and then sent back to the House and Senate for votes on relatively short notice. Indeed, the conflict between more consideration and the need to act expeditiously on a problem is as old as time. The fact that a Committee Chairman in the House is making that tradeoff in a way that the minority disagrees with is hardly new. Thus, I know that I am not a hypocrite, as you accuse, because Democratic Committee Charimen in the House most certainly have rammed bills through Committee in the past - and I know that I have never complained terribly loudly about it. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Arrgh!
I just got a re-confirm due to excessive bounces; this is the third time in about 6 weeks. What's up with this? George A - Original Message - From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 5:11 AM Subject: Arrgh! Is anyone else having their list messages bounced back? Vey frustrating! I even tried to forward one to Nick and his address was bounced. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 11:48 AM 7/25/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: JDG - Will you guys ever let it go? Probably not. (I'm just guessing.) Will you ever stop pointing out the EC stuff every time they mention it? :) Eh, probably not. I have an almost reflexive need to point out the truth - and ultimately I consider this growing urban legend that the USSC somehow changed the outcome of the 2000 election to be most damaging to our country. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 11:42 AM 7/21/2003 -0500 Julia Thompson wrote: What kind of blanket did you bring in? And is there some sort of mattress or padding that they can provide for you, or will you be on the floor? (That could get very uncomfortable if you were trying to sleep for more than, say, 45 minutes.) Eh, since I don't take naps, I figure that if I ever have to use the thing, the floor will be the least thing keeping me from getting a good night's sleep If I wanted to, though, I am sure that I could include a Therma-Rest in my cube. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SC2 Music (was Re: I have returned from paradise)
Bryon Daly wrote: http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/M4win240.zip http://home.comcast.net/~bryon.daly/SC2_MODS.ZIP The installer for M4win20 doesn't seem to be working. Any suggestions? Jim ___ Eliminate pop-ups before they appear! Visit www.PopSwatter.com now - It's FREE. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 07:52 AM 7/24/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: Setting aside sarcasm now... I think that you may be mistake in *expecting* the left to come up with a coherent war plan against terrorism. I think that's Gautam's point. If, as you seem to agree, the Left is simply incapable of coming up with a coherent war plan against terrorism, then the Left is inherently unqualified and unworthy to hold high political office in the United States for the future as far as we can see. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Real Life Evil. Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 08:25 PM 7/24/2003 -0400 Robert J. Chassell wrote: I don't get this. Soldiers do not go on suicide missions because they think they are evil. They go on such missions because they think they are virtuous and that their actions will help their compatriots. Can you name a real life example of a soldier actually admitting that they were evil? Do you agree that some soldiers/persons are evil? And can you reconcile your above three statements? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove evil from the world, I'm quite sure. Some likely conditions; 1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine alongside Israel. 2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the DPRK If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't we return to normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in 20 years? I don't think that we created the terrorist threat. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 01:02 PM 7/25/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: If that is the case, why didn't the Administration say so? Why did the Pentagon say at the end of May that it was still intending to investigate 700 sites? Why, throughout May, did the US government say it was increasing the size of its inspection force? Uhhh because finding WMD's was considered a very nice way of deterring criticism of the war? Do you mean to suggest that there was no `Plan B' to deal with the possibility of great success, but that the Bush Administration was counting on a long formal military resistance? I think that the Administration was not counting on a long formal resistance, but also did not seriously expect the nearly unhindered progress to Baghdad that was experienced.Suffice to say, the level of resistance was lower than their almost all but their most wildly optimistic dreams. Heck, Paul Wolfowitz admitted today that they were seriously expecting certain Iraqi military units to turn, and to be allies used in counterattacks. As it was, if they had turned, they wouldn't have been needed for formal combat. ... it is impossible to believe at this point that an immediate search of those sites by all available men would have reduced the number of weapons ... How can we know this? The search was not undertaken. Only interrogations would tell, and perhaps people who know have not been captured, or, if captured, not yet turned. Given: The WMD's were in the hands of the Iraqi Military Given: The Iraqi Military simply evaporated in retreat. Conclusion: The Iraqi Military could have taken pretty much any WMD's they wanted in the evaporation process, for which they had nearly a year to prepare. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Ritu and Nick make similar points which I will respond to here. At 12:29 PM 7/25/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: Robert J. Chassell wrote: The phrase The British have learned suggests to a listening public that the US President had US intelligence agencies investigate the matter. John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded It does not suggest this to me. Indeed the mere fact that British intelligence is being mentioned in the State of the Union suggests exactly the opposite to me. Interesting. Your ideolect is certainly different from mine and from people with whom I have talked over the past half century. I find this astounding, and can't help but wonder if you aren't letting your political bias and your various subtle biases towards my opinions to color your perception of language. If your criticism is that Bush said learned instead of informed us that they believe, then who is being pedantic and mincing words here? No, I am not saying that. I am saying that Americans I know think that the phrase `James learned' meansthat `James learned correctly' unless the phrase is otherwise qualified, as in a joke. They do not think the phrase means `James learned incorrectly'. I am being anything but pedantic and mincing; rather I am talking of how the vast majority of Americans speak and understand. Let's see, not one Brin-L'er responded to this the first time around. let's see if at the very least one of you three can give it a try this time around; QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. At this point, do you; a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong reservations about it? b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? Your choice. What do you do? I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: TI interpreation of QM
- Original Message - From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 5:07 PM Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM I wrote: I'd love to see your opinion of it when you get a chance. It's called the transactional interpretation, and John Cramer's paper on this interpretation can be found at: http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html Dan replied: Its been kicking around since David Bohm in the '50s. It had some support before the work of Bell and Wagner. The key sticking point with this interpretation is that it requires real hidden backwards in time signals. These signals violate causality... [major snip] Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate you taking the time to cover the pros and cons. Did what I say make sense to you? Do my posts on QM make sense? Or are you just being polite? There are times I get very frustrated with my own ability to communicate ideas that are fairly clear to me. ;-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
Nick Arnett wrote: If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't we return to normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in 20 years? Horn, John wrote: Why is this any different than during World War III (as some are calling the Cold War)? You answer that question in your own post, below. The leadership was certainly criticized. Except during the Vietnam Conflict, I don't recall anyone being branded a traitor just for questioning the leadership of the country or the direction it is going? You seem to be forgetting Sen. McCarthy and his ilk, who were able to blacklist people on the most tenuous chains of logic to a political party calling itself Communist. Besides, Why should such branding even be allowed now? Don't start with the crap line about this being wartime, and such questions as what is our purpose in this war? and what, exactly are our goals and motivations? are hindering the war effort and costing lives. So far, there is no announced goal or purpose other than something vague like make the world safer or we'll be finished when we're finished. This needs to be hashed out in public debate, has not been resolved (or even defined well for that matter), and what little that has been offered for motivation and/or purpose is not *all* holding up to scrutiny. What I sense in the right-wing's refusal to examine these issues is that, afterward, the only reasons left (while staying positive) will be that we invaded Iraq in an attempt to remove the brutal regime from the Iraqi people. That alone, as a reason to go to war, is simply not enough of a motivation for many Americans, with a high percentage considering themselves conservative. The consequences for the United States during the Cold War were certainly greater than those now. There was a better defined enemy who had (we thought) comparable resources and so on. In a way, having terrorists as the enemy-of-the-moment is an ideal situation for those wishing for a police state. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do think that without serious citizen oversight, the Ashcroft Justice Dept. would (or will) make a mockery of the Constitution. If people don't make noise about it, we will lose some of our civil rights and freedom (some will say that we already have... [no cite as these have been discussed on-list alrady]). Debbi If John Ashcroft were anyone _but_ an evangelical Christian (speaking as a non-evangelical non-Christian) the way he is treated by the Left would be recognized by everyone for what it is - sheer religious bigotry of the most unvarnished sort. = Gautam Mukunda I've heard exactly one story about Ashcroft's religion causing problems, and that was because he was holding prayer meetings in his office, making non-religious workers feel as if they had to pray with him if they wanted to get ahead. Any such thing happening where *I* work would get pounced upon pretty quickly as creating a hostile work environment. Have your prayer meetings if you want, but not on company grounds or on company time. Every other (negative) story has been about how privacy and due process rights have been under attack by Ashcroft. Show me some real evidence of this (anti)religious bigotry. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How we were hoodwinked
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 05:49:58PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Since we are being snippy... rest snipped snip (All this snipping is reminding me of the story about the 3 mythical women who cut the strings of people's lives when their time is up) The Loom of Thelassy (sp?) -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Genetic fractions, was Re: The Case for a Marriage...
Julia Thompson wrote: David Hobby wrote: The above would have been easier to state if we had general kinship terms based on degrees of genetic relatedness. Sibling, parent and child are all halves. Grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, half-sibling, and so on are quarters. And you know you're really a redneck if you need fractions which aren't negative powers of two! Oh, like 17/2^N for some N? I think that number (not sure what N is) describes my kinship relation to a particular someone. Details available upon request. (Anyone wanting details to actually calculate the mess, ask!) Julia whose kinship relation to her sister is actually slightly over 1/2, and details on *that* are available upon request, as well, for anyone either interested or wanting to calculate *that* particular mess If you go back far enough, that happens to everyone. So the value of N is relevant. : ) I don't have a good enough geneology to come near that, though. I know all my grandparents. On my father's side, that's about it. So I don't have any known extra relationships between my mother and father--my brother will have to stay at exactly 1/2 from me. I know parts of my mother's side going back to the 1500's, and there are a few circuits that I know of in those family trees. So there might be a 17/2^N for me too, I'd have to look. Anyway, N would be 12 or so, and the individual I was related to by that much would have been dead for 200+ years. Most of their descendants would also be 17/2^N from me, for various values of N. Some serious research would let me name a living one, but by then N is around 20. So you probably win! ---David I'm not sure that I have the courage to ask for your details. This stuff can get messy fast. But I bet that your 17/2^N is of the form 1/2^k + 1/2^(k+4), since that seems easiest. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't there at least one, however vaguely defined purpose to evolution: success? No. Purpose presupposes intent. There is no intent in the happenstance that some of a set of erroneously self-replicated machines survive and self-replicate better than others. We attribute intent to other systems through a mechanism that is a metaphorical extension of a quality we perceive in ourselves. Hmmm, I was going to give in and say you are correct, but after thinking about it a bit I wondered why the urges to survive and reproduce colud not be considered intent even if they are subconcious. Doug Still no [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail server. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the same things about American foreign policy that you do? That's not a fair tactic in an argument. But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do anyways seems to accord precisely with this. I thought that you were using Argumentum ad hominem to disparage my views by saying they were shared by Bin Laden. A brief summary, from: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem Argumentum ad hominem literally means argument directed at the man; there are two varieties. ... A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example: Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you. In all seriousness, why do you think that his objection is things that you define as selfish - although others may not, of course. Given what he supports, and what his supporters support, how does one follow from the other? Sorry, I can't figure out what you mean here. Clarify? You keep saying if we didn't act selfishly, they wouldn't have us. Why do you think that actions you think of as selfish are the ones that make Bin Laden and his ilk hate us? As I said before, the selfish actions of the US are not the only reason the they hate us. But it certainly is ONE of them. Let's remove it! I get the impression that you are willfully misunderstanding my position, turning it into an easily attacked straw man. I don't need this. Branding them as evil doesn't really help to make things clearer. I render your statement as something on the order of ...people who do bad things do them because they are people who do bad things. Which is vacuous. No, it just happens to be true. You can and should seek to understand motivations, but that doesn't mean that you lend motivations moral weight, which is your fundamental mistake. No. I'm not arguing from morals much at all here. What I'm saying could just as well come from pure pragmatism. We should take away their rational reasons for hating us. I can live with being hated for being a godless infidel, but see no reason to be hated for behavior that I do not even condone. I am not prepared to defend the right of various corporations to manipulate things to maximize profits. Which has nothing to do with anything, of course. _Again_, why do you think that your particular objections to free-market capitalism have anything to do with Bin Laden and his supporters? Yes, the robber barons of the 1900s were technically part of free-market capitalism. But then why do you use the phrase as if it were always a good thing? ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course, California Democrats, instead of doing the wise thing and trying to get a solid candidate in there are rallying around the sinking ship. You mean, like the Terminator? Actually, they're calling it Total Recall. Doug 8^p ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really? I have heard many people claim that everybody talks when tortured. In the movies, the tortures that are applied seem so tame and unimaginative. How about Dustin Hoffman getting holes drilled in his teeth in Marathon Man? Doug Cringe ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: How we were hoodwinked
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Provide a transcript that does not have cridbile backing. ??? Alied intelegance is considered credible. But still your missing the point. I just can't see how an intelegant person is hoodwinked by this rediculous propoganda. The REASON we went to war is simple. Let me lay it out for you ONE MORE TIME, so that you might understand. First, your insulting tone is not appreciated. Please try to keep it civil. Second, you miss the point. Clearly, the administration built support for the war by exaggerating what intelligence they did have and by not telling us that they had almost no credible intelligence. Had they not built support for the war in congress, and in public opinion, they could not have conducted the war. You said The Majority of US voters understand this, agree with it, and respect our government for taking the actions they took. But in fact, one of the reasons Americans agreed is that they believed what the Bushites were telling us. But they were misled. The vast stores of chemical/biological weapons, the weapons labs, the advanced nuclear weapons program are all fictions, and at least some members of the administration is saying as much now. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gray Davis Recall Election Set for Sep-Oct
Jon Gabriel wrote: It certainly looks to me like he's screwed and that the Democrats are (rather stupidly, imo) pinning all their hopes on him. Then again, CA Dems aren't coming across as geniuses in general these days. Did you see the report yesterday about the CA state legislators (Dems again) who were caught on tape suggesting that the state's fiscal crisis be extended over time for political gain? I haven't heard of this, can you cite a reference? From what I gather, the Republicans stand to gain more from stalling the budget. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
