America the Theocracy

[The Fool]

A few Excerpts.  Read the whole thing, it's quite long:

<>

America the theocracy 

A band of influential preachers is praying for the power to rule America.
For those who disagree, they have a solution -- stoning. 
...

Rather, DeMar, a relentlessly logical (if you accept his assumptions)
speaker, excitedly describes a new order, one in which God's trusted
servants reign supreme over the three governments. It's a society in
which only the faithful are citizens, democracy is a distasteful memory,
and the state's primary purpose is assisting in the conquest of the
Planet Earth for Christ. 

This is more than one man's radical dreaming. It's the core belief of a
movement called Christian Reconstruction, and DeMar is its Tom Paine.
Many followers accord him the status of transforming an arcane offshoot
of Calvinism into a political dreadnought -- and of launching that
theological warship at a speech 20 years ago. 

The movement, also dubbed "dominion theology" and "theonomy," has spread
far beyond the right wing of Presbyterian and Reformed churches. It has
penetrated, to some degree, most conservative denominations, including
Southern Baptist. 
...

The goal, one Reconstructionists feel is now within reach, is a
transformation of America into a religious state whose mission is to
spread the Gospel (as they interpret it). Violence isn't shunned. As Gary
North, the current grand man of the movement, wrote, "In winning a nation
to the Gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used." Those who
don't buy the plan could flee, or face unbending Mosaic "justice." 

...

Recruits to Reconstruction's adopted causes soon find the movement has a
blunt distaste for pluralism and democracy. North wrote in 1982 -- in an
effort to reach Baptists -- "We must use the doctrine of religious
liberty ... until we train up a generation of people who know that there
is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no
neutral civil government. Then they will get busy constructing a
Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies
the religious liberty of the enemies of God." 

Freedom, then, will be no freedom. 
...

Last month, that sentiment reached the national level. The Constitution
Restoration Act of 2004 would acknowledge Christianity's God as the
"sovereign source" of our laws. It would reach back in history and
reverse all judicial decisions that have built a wall between church and
state, and it would prohibit federal judges from making such rulings in
the future. 

The bill was co-sponsored in the Senate by Zell Miller, the turncoat
Georgia Democrat (and United Methodist), and several Republican
colleagues, including South Carolina's Lindsey Graham; in the House, the
sponsors were all Republican, including Georgia's Jack Kingston. 

But the actual drafting was done by Herb Titus, best known recently as
former Alabama Chief Justice Moore's attorney. Titus also represents
Georgia's Barrow County in its effort to put the Ten Commandments in its
courthouse. Titus has more than a little self-serving interest in the
legislation. If passed, it would overturn the rulings that forced Titus'
most newsworthy client, Moore, from the bench. 
...

As for the Reconstruction economy, it would be a libertarian's dream --
as long as biblical laws, such as prohibiting usury, were adhered to. 

DeMar said last month, "There's much (libertarian talk-show host) Neal
Boortz and I agree on." Primarily, government isn't needed when it comes
to economic issues. 

Unions would be illegal, as would any government role in workplace
safety. Employers could discriminate for any and all reasons. Minimum
wage, unemployment benefits, Social Security, welfare -- all history.
Adios environmental protection laws, as well as regulation on who can
call themselves a physician or lawyer. 

Public schools are anathema. One of the great successes of Reconstruction
has been promoting home-schooling programs. Home schooling is much
broader than Reconstruction, of course. But Illinois Reconstructionist
Paul Lindstrom has devised texts used by tens of thousands of
home-schooling families. 
...

The arena that generates the most attention -- and shock -- is dominion
theology's radical plans to make capital punishment part of America's
daily routine. 

Ringgold's Don Boys -- who as a one-term Indiana state official in the
1970s authored legislation that restored capital punishment there --
spoke cheerfully of a time when Americans will witness 10,000 executions
a year. And Gary North suggests the method -- stoning -- because rocks
are "cheap, plentiful and convenient." Reconstructionists also favor
other biblical forms of execution -- burning, hanging and the sword. 

Sins suitable for execution are those mentioned in the Old Testament.
Interestingly, although male homosexuals would be among the first in line
for the Reconstructionists' gallows, lesbians would be exempted becau

Re: The color of truth (L3) (part 1)

[John D. Giorgis]

At 07:21 PM 3/30/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >What evidence is this?
>http://tinyurl.com/38ecs
>http://tinyurl.com/36k6u
>http://tinyurl.com/26pwx

These look like partisan talking points to me, rather than evidence.   i.e.
"because John Podesta says so" isn't evidence any more than "because Marc
Racicot says so." I don't make a habit of posting RNC releases here -
I'm surprised as to why liberals find such documents so convincing.

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: America the Theocracy

[Nick Lidster]

- Original Message - 
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "xBrin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:25 AM
Subject: America the Theocracy


> A few Excerpts.  Read the whole thing, it's quite long:
>
> <>
>
> America the theocracy
>
> A band of influential preachers is praying for the power to rule America.
> For those who disagree, they have a solution -- stoning.
> ...
>
> Rather, DeMar, a relentlessly logical (if you accept his assumptions)
> speaker, excitedly describes a new order, one in which God's trusted
> servants reign supreme over the three governments. It's a society in
> which only the faithful are citizens, democracy is a distasteful memory,
> and the state's primary purpose is assisting in the conquest of the
> Planet Earth for Christ.
>
> This is more than one man's radical dreaming. It's the core belief of a
> movement called Christian Reconstruction, and DeMar is its Tom Paine.
> Many followers accord him the status of transforming an arcane offshoot
> of Calvinism into a political dreadnought -- and of launching that
> theological warship at a speech 20 years ago.
>
> The movement, also dubbed "dominion theology" and "theonomy," has spread
> far beyond the right wing of Presbyterian and Reformed churches. It has
> penetrated, to some degree, most conservative denominations, including
> Southern Baptist.
> ...
>
> The goal, one Reconstructionists feel is now within reach, is a
> transformation of America into a religious state whose mission is to
> spread the Gospel (as they interpret it). Violence isn't shunned. As Gary
> North, the current grand man of the movement, wrote, "In winning a nation
> to the Gospel, the sword as well as the pen must be used." Those who
> don't buy the plan could flee, or face unbending Mosaic "justice."
>
> ...
>
> Recruits to Reconstruction's adopted causes soon find the movement has a
> blunt distaste for pluralism and democracy. North wrote in 1982 -- in an
> effort to reach Baptists -- "We must use the doctrine of religious
> liberty ... until we train up a generation of people who know that there
> is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no
> neutral civil government. Then they will get busy constructing a
> Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies
> the religious liberty of the enemies of God."
>
> Freedom, then, will be no freedom.
> ...
>
> Last month, that sentiment reached the national level. The Constitution
> Restoration Act of 2004 would acknowledge Christianity's God as the
> "sovereign source" of our laws. It would reach back in history and
> reverse all judicial decisions that have built a wall between church and
> state, and it would prohibit federal judges from making such rulings in
> the future.
>
> The bill was co-sponsored in the Senate by Zell Miller, the turncoat
> Georgia Democrat (and United Methodist), and several Republican
> colleagues, including South Carolina's Lindsey Graham; in the House, the
> sponsors were all Republican, including Georgia's Jack Kingston.
>
> But the actual drafting was done by Herb Titus, best known recently as
> former Alabama Chief Justice Moore's attorney. Titus also represents
> Georgia's Barrow County in its effort to put the Ten Commandments in its
> courthouse. Titus has more than a little self-serving interest in the
> legislation. If passed, it would overturn the rulings that forced Titus'
> most newsworthy client, Moore, from the bench.
> ...
>
> As for the Reconstruction economy, it would be a libertarian's dream --
> as long as biblical laws, such as prohibiting usury, were adhered to.
>
> DeMar said last month, "There's much (libertarian talk-show host) Neal
> Boortz and I agree on." Primarily, government isn't needed when it comes
> to economic issues.
>
> Unions would be illegal, as would any government role in workplace
> safety. Employers could discriminate for any and all reasons. Minimum
> wage, unemployment benefits, Social Security, welfare -- all history.
> Adios environmental protection laws, as well as regulation on who can
> call themselves a physician or lawyer.
>
> Public schools are anathema. One of the great successes of Reconstruction
> has been promoting home-schooling programs. Home schooling is much
> broader than Reconstruction, of course. But Illinois Reconstructionist
> Paul Lindstrom has devised texts used by tens of thousands of
> home-schooling families.
> ...
>
> The arena that generates the most attention -- and shock -- is dominion
> theology's radical plans to make capital punishment part of America's
> daily routine.
>
> Ringgold's Don Boys -- who as a one-term Indiana state official in the
> 1970s authored legislation that restored capital punishment there --
> spoke cheerfully of a time when Americans will witness 10,000 executions
> a year. And Gary North suggests the method -- stoning -- because rocks
> are "cheap, ple

Re: Belief (was: (no subject))

[Ray Ludenia]

Deborah Harrell wrote:

>> Ray Ludenia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Deborah Harrell wrote:
> 
>>> But the short answer is 'a sense of the numinous'
>> (not
>>> my words - Doug's? Bob's? Robert's? - but I liked
>>> them enough to appropriate them).
> 
>> Running a quick search through last year's posts
>> revealed a plethora of
>> posts (23) using the word "numinous". Seemed to be
>> up to 7 different threads
>> over a period of about 5 weeks. The first instance
>> was actually (and
>> surprisingly) in one of my posts!
> 
> Did it perchance have to do with Ayer's Rock (sorry,
> don't recall the native name)?

Uluru.

> For some reason, that
> image came to mind with the 'numinous;

No, actually it had to do with Petra in Jordan.

>' didn't mean to
> slight your contribution!  <:}

No problem. It was a rather slight contribution anyway!

Regards, Ray.

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

Re: Belief (was: (no subject))

[Ray Ludenia]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:

> At 08:02 AM 3/30/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:

>> Running a quick search through last year's posts revealed a plethora of
>> posts (23) using the word "numinous".
 
> Would you say that they were numerous?

Not without prompting. Supernumerary, perhaps.

Regards, Ray.

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

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke

[Ray Ludenia]

Dan Minette wrote:

> 4) When there was a spike in the danger indication under Clinton, the
> principals had daily meetings on it to help "shake the bushes" for
> information.

Did he really expect that "shaking the Bushes" would continue under the new
administration? All sorts of nuts could have been exposed. :)

Regards, Ray.

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

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "BRIN L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke


> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > 4) When there was a spike in the danger indication under Clinton, the
> > principals had daily meetings on it to help "shake the bushes" for
> > information.
>
> Did he really expect that "shaking the Bushes" would continue under the
new
> administration? All sorts of nuts could have been exposed. :)

Oh no...you just gave me a horrid visual image of someone's pants dropping
while dancing.

Dan M.


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

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:40 AM 3/31/04, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "BRIN L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > 4) When there was a spike in the danger indication under Clinton, the
> > principals had daily meetings on it to help "shake the bushes" for
> > information.
>
> Did he really expect that "shaking the Bushes" would continue under the
new
> administration? All sorts of nuts could have been exposed. :)
Oh no...you just gave me a horrid visual image of someone's pants dropping
while dancing.


You mean about a gazillion clips of that on shows like "America's Funniest 
Videos" weren't enough?



-- Ronn!  :)

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

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke


> At 08:40 AM 3/31/04, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "BRIN L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:14 AM
> >Subject: Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke
> >
> >
> > > Dan Minette wrote:
> > >
> > > > 4) When there was a spike in the danger indication under Clinton,
the
> > > > principals had daily meetings on it to help "shake the bushes" for
> > > > information.
> > >
> > > Did he really expect that "shaking the Bushes" would continue under
the
> >new
> > > administration? All sorts of nuts could have been exposed. :)
> >
> >Oh no...you just gave me a horrid visual image of someone's pants
dropping
> >while dancing.
>
>
>
> You mean about a gazillion clips of that on shows like "America's
Funniest
> Videos" weren't enough?

Actually, it was worse than that.  I was thinking about one particular
person going guerrilla.

Dan M.


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

20/20 Hindsight

[Ronn!Blankenship]

Washington, D.C. -- where the hindsight is 20/20
Bill Murchison
March 30, 2004

Couldn't we just turn off "The Dick Clarke Show" for a little while and 
reflect that, contrary to widespread belief, there's a war on?

Because there is, and people are dying, and the thing is profoundly serious 
and the outcome far from visible. And yet, amid it all, the "prestige 
media" and the Washington establishment have tied themselves in knots over 
what the president said to his terrorism adviser in 2001, what the experts 
thought about al-Qaeda and Iraq, whether the national security adviser 
should testify under oath, and so on.

My brothers and colleagues, my anointed leaders and counselors, would you 
all just kindly shut up?

You won't? That means I'll have to speak louder, concerning matters like 
the 20/20 hindsight our Washington friends have suddenly developed.

The Clarke-Rice-Bush-9/11 commission fistfight is ludicrous. The reason 
comes in two parts.

Part 1: We're re-fighting, as it were, the Civil War. The Yankee brethren 
who have lived but a short time among us history-minded Southerners cannot 
know of what I speak. They cannot fathom the propensity we once exhibited 
for trying to straighten out, rhetorically, the Late Unpleasantness. Why, 
if ol' Peg-Leg Hood hadn't gone off into Tennessee ... and if Jeb Stuart 
hadn't been killed at Yellow Tavern ... and ...

Well, maybe. Who knows? But who can do anything about it at this vast 
remove? And what's the use of going on and on save for the high purpose of 
emotional relief? Or -- as I suspect in the present case -- political malice?

What you can't do anything about, it's unhealthy to go on and on about. (I 
note that our Southern proclivity for raking the historical coals never got 
the verdict of Appomattox reversed.) Better surely -- in Bill Clinton's 
phrase -- to "move on" and do something about what you can do something 
about. Which brings me to:

Part 2: That war that's currently on, the "war on terror" -- what a bracing 
way to fight it. Instead of laying into the terrorists, we lay into each 
other. What a bracing way, you might say, to lose such a war or at any rate 
to prolong it while sharply accelerating the costs, both human and material.

If the accompanying spectacle -- Americans with their hands around each 
other's throats -- seems unedifying at home, then in places like the Sunni 
Triangle, it must exhilarate.

Americans have a well-earned reputation for going through this sort of 
thing at intervals. We did it in the '70s for sure: slugging it out over 
Watergate and the apparent vindication of George McGovern's "Come Home, 
America" foreign policy.

The Soviets and the Iranians licked their chops as we licked our wounds, 
detaching ourselves from non-homefront concerns, slashing military 
spending, undermining intelligence capabilities. That whole range of 
responses to the American embrace of anti-Americanism prepared the way for 
-- among other fateful events -- the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the 
Iranian hostage crisis.

We might have troubled to note since then that a nation fighting an 
internal war is going to have some trouble fighting an external one. You 
might suppose that, in order to focus on the matter at hand, we could save 
for the post-war period all the post-war quibbles and queries.

Evidently not. For reasons known best to himself and God, Dick Clarke dumps 
a wheelbarrow load of sour, self-justifying accusations into the debate. He 
says, in effect, to an immense public that previously had little idea who 
he was: "Boy, did those guys mess up after I left."

Do you know what? -- some, much, perhaps even all, of what Clarke says may 
be worth hearing and sifting. In the right setting. Is a bitter election 
year that setting? Is it the period just after the Madrid bombings and not 
long before the American handover of civil authority to the Iraqis?

Whether it is or not, my friends, the market for 20/20 hindsight 
prescription spectacles can't have been this strong since Appomattox 
Courthouse.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

<>

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

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 12:49 PM 3/31/04, Dan Minette wrote:

- Original Message -
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke
> At 08:40 AM 3/31/04, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "BRIN L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:14 AM
> >Subject: Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke
> >
> >
> > > Dan Minette wrote:
> > >
> > > > 4) When there was a spike in the danger indication under Clinton,
the
> > > > principals had daily meetings on it to help "shake the bushes" for
> > > > information.
> > >
> > > Did he really expect that "shaking the Bushes" would continue under
the
> >new
> > > administration? All sorts of nuts could have been exposed. :)
> >
> >Oh no...you just gave me a horrid visual image of someone's pants
dropping
> >while dancing.
>
>
>
> You mean about a gazillion clips of that on shows like "America's
Funniest
> Videos" weren't enough?
Actually, it was worse than that.  I was thinking about one particular
person going guerrilla.


I take it "going guerrilla" is the accepted term for when one "goes 
commando" and then loses one's trousers . . .

. . . And Selected Shorts Maru

-- Ronn!  :)

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

Fwd: Clarke's Admission

[Ronn!Blankenship]

From Inside Politics, Wash. Times

"If President Bush had followed every last letter of Richard Clarke's 
recommendations starting Inauguration Day, it still would not have 
prevented 9/11," the Wall Street Journal says.
"How do we know this? Richard Clarke says so," the newspaper said in 
an editorial.
"Here's how the disgruntled National Security Council adviser put it 
last week in an exchange with Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission 
and former Washington senator:
"Mr. Gorton: 'Assuming that the recommendations that you made on 
January 25 of 2001 ... including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had 
been an agenda item at this point for 2½ years without any action, assuming 
that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that 
that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the 
remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
"Mr. Clarke: 'No.'
"Mr. Gorton: 'It just would have allowed our response after 9/11 to be 
perhaps a little bit faster?'
"Mr. Clarke: 'Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.'
"Mr. Gorton: 'But “yes, but we weren't going to” there was no 
recommendation on your part or anyone else's part that we declare war and 
attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?'
"Mr. Clarke: 'That's right.'
"This startling exchange got almost no media attention last week. Mr. 
Clarke has rocketed to national fame over the past 10 days by alleging the 
Bush administration was negligently inattentive to the al Qaeda threat. He 
took it upon himself to 'apologize' on behalf of 'your government' to the 
families of 9/11 victims, as if there had been policy options on the table 
“perhaps offered by him” that might have prevented their deaths.
"But when pressed on that point under oath, Mr. Clarke was forced to 
concede that the impression he'd created, the very reason anyone was paying 
any attention to him, was false. As long as Mr. Clarke is in the apology 
business, can we have one for wasting a week of the administration's 
precious antiterror time?"

 

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

Trial and Tribulation

[Ronn!Blankenship]

Trial and Tribulation
Jay Bryant
March 30, 2004

Today's Richard Clarke Award for Stepping in your Chamberpot goes to 
Richard Ernest, a ballistics expert who testified in the trial of Jason 
Williams, one of the several NBA players in trouble with the law. Williams 
faces 55 years in prison if convicted of aggravated manslaughter in the 
death of his chauffeur, but claims he didn't pull the trigger ­ that the 
gun went off by accident.

Williams' lawyers put Ernest on the stand to give expert testimony that it 
was possible for the gun to go off spontaneously if a tiny wood chip has 
somehow clogged in the trigger mechanism. And so he did, saying it could 
have happened just like that. When the prosecution got its chance at 
cross-examination, Ernest was asked if he had performed any experiments to 
test his theory. Uh-oh. Seems he had indeed, taking a similar gun to a 
firing range and painstakingly, using "a stereo microscope and fine 
tweezers" inserted a chip into the inner workings. But try as he might, he 
was never able to get to the gun to go off spontaneously, without pressing 
the trigger. Williams story is that his hand wasn't on the trigger, though 
eyewitnesses say otherwise.

You've got to give the defense kudos for chutzpah, though. In order to show 
the jury just how their theory worked, they prepared a little animated 
film, in which the animated gun actually does go off by itself. Where the 
heck do they think this trial is being held, Toontown? Anyway, the judge 
told them they couldn't show jurors the Roger Rabbit version of the gun 
going off, on account of because Williams' twelve peers might actually 
think that when they saw the gun go off on its own in the film, it meant 
the gun could actually go off like that. The judge did let them use the 
animation sequence without the explosion, though, so the jurors would have 
some idea what they were talking about.

So here's the upshot, so to speak. When the supposedly edited animation is 
shown to the court, BLAM, off goes the animated gun. The prosecutor leaps 
up like HE'S been shot, and starts yelling objections at the top of his 
voice. The judge pounds his gavel like he's spotted a poisonous scorpion on 
the podium and the bailiffs whisk the jurors out of the room for their own 
protection, although whether from the animated gunshots, screaming 
prosecutor or hammer-whacking judge is not certain.

When the confusion dies down, at least a little, the defense counsel claims 
it was all an accident, that they were sure the banned sequence had been 
edited out, and can't imagine how it got back in.

See the neat little parallel here? The animated gun went off by accident, 
just like the real one did. Cute, eh?

Eventually, the jury came back into the room and the judge instructed them 
to disregard what they had seen. You hear TV judges say that sort of thing 
all the time, but I've never figured out how it can work. It's sort of like 
being ordered to enjoy yourself, isn't it? Here a gunshot has gone off, all 
hell has broken loose in the courtroom, you have been shoveled into the 
jury room by a bunch of gun-toting bailiffs, and when it's all over, the 
judge does his Tony Soprano imitation and says, "this never happened, got it?"

I'm not saying Williams is now certain to be convicted. New Jersey juries 
are highly unpredictable. But the thing the defense tried today didn't work.

Now, I know what you're thinking. How is it that the award mentioned in the 
lead paragraph of this article got to be named after Richard Clarke?

Well, I'll tell you. It's because his whole gambit, like the Williams 
defense, is a fictional, unsupported proposition so improbable that its 
likelihood rests way out on the end of the continuum between reasonable 
doubt and utterly impossible.

Like sad sack ballistics expert Ernest, Clarke made up a story, only to 
have it turn out his own paper trail contradicted his claims. In Clarke's 
case, release of the news interview he did in 2002, when he sang the 
praises of the Bush administration's anti- terrorism policy to the hilt, 
put the lie to his book-Sixty Minutes-9/11 panel statements that they were 
all asleep at the switch. Clarke may have thought he had a smoking gun, but 
just like the one in Ernest's tests, it wouldn't fire. It turns out not to 
have been real, just an animation.

Ernest will collect his expert testimony fee, and Clarke will collect his 
book royalties, but their credibility is, if you'll pardon the expression, 
shot. A new poll shows only about 25% of Americans believe Clarke is a 
sincere fellow, while twice that number think he's motivated by politics, 
greed, narcissism or some combination thereof.

Outside the Somerville courtroom, a posse of placard-carrying Williams 
supporters marched in support of their man. They probably believed every 
word the ballistics guru said, and didn't think there was anything wrong 
with the jury seeing the ersatz explosion. Whatever Williams' cl

RE: 20/20 Hindsight

[Horn, John]

> From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> We might have troubled to note since then that a nation fighting
an 
> internal war is going to have some trouble fighting an 
> external one. You 
> might suppose that, in order to focus on the matter at hand, 
> we could save 
> for the post-war period all the post-war quibbles and queries.

I wish I knew when the post-war period might be.  There doesn't seem
to be any specific end point to the war on terror.  At any time we
could say "OK, we're done".  Or this could go on for 100 years!

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

RE: 20/20 Hindsight

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 01:15 PM 3/31/04, Horn, John wrote:
> From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> We might have troubled to note since then that a nation fighting
an
> internal war is going to have some trouble fighting an
> external one. You
> might suppose that, in order to focus on the matter at hand,
> we could save
> for the post-war period all the post-war quibbles and queries.
I wish I knew when the post-war period might be.  There doesn't seem
to be any specific end point to the war on terror.  At any time we
could say "OK, we're done".


I think that a lot of people would consider that a necessary¹ condition for 
declaring the war on terror ended would be the equivalent of an 
unconditional surrender on the part of the Middle Eastern Islamic 
fundamentalist terrorists, including no more terrorist attacks anywhere on 
anyone and recognizing the right of Israel to exist and the Jews to live.



Or this could go on for 100 years!


How many hundreds has it already lasted?  (Tens, at least . . . )

_
¹Though perhaps not a sufficient condition if one considers other nations 
(e.g., North Korea) terrorist nations.

-- Ronn!  :)

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

Re: Clarke's Admission

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:49 PM
Subject: Fwd: Clarke's Admission


>From Inside Politics, Wash. Times

 "If President Bush had followed every last letter of Richard Clarke's
recommendations starting Inauguration Day, it still would not have
prevented 9/11," the Wall Street Journal says.
 "How do we know this? Richard Clarke says so," the newspaper said in
an editorial.
 "Here's how the disgruntled National Security Council adviser put it
last week in an exchange with Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission
and former Washington senator:
 "Mr. Gorton: 'Assuming that the recommendations that you made on
January 25 of 2001 ... including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had
been an agenda item at this point for 2½ years without any action, assuming
that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that
that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the
remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
 "Mr. Clarke: 'No.'
 "Mr. Gorton: 'It just would have allowed our response after 9/11 to be
perhaps a little bit faster?'
 "Mr. Clarke: 'Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.'
 "Mr. Gorton: 'But "yes, but we weren't going to" there was no
recommendation on your part or anyone else's part that we declare war and
attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?'
 "Mr. Clarke: 'That's right.'
 "This startling exchange got almost no media attention last week. Mr.
Clarke has rocketed to national fame over the past 10 days by alleging the
Bush administration was negligently inattentive to the al Qaeda threat. He
took it upon himself to 'apologize' on behalf of 'your government' to the
families of 9/11 victims, as if there had been policy options on the table
"perhaps offered by him" that might have prevented their deaths.
 "But when pressed on that point under oath, Mr. Clarke was forced to
concede that the impression he'd created, the very reason anyone was paying
any attention to him, was false. As long as Mr. Clarke is in the apology
business, can we have one for wasting a week of the administration's
precious antiterror time?"

But, that's not the way Senator Gorton characterized the exchange this
morning.  This exchange only dealt with the foreign affairs part of
Clarke's recommendations.  The part concerning what could/should have been
done domestically is still open.

Dan M.


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

Weekly Chat Reminder

[Steve Sloan II]

This is just a quick reminder that the Wednesday Brin-L chat
is scheduled for 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or
7 PM Greenwich time, so it started about forty minutes ago.
There will probably be somebody there to talk to for at least
eight hours after the start time. See my instruction page for
help getting there:
http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html
__
Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org
Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store
Chmeee's 3D Objects  http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee
3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com
Software  Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links
Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Clarke's Non-Admission

[The Fool]

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 From Inside Politics, Wash. Times, _Moonie Cultist Propaganda_ 

 "Mr. Gorton: 'Assuming that the recommendations that you made on 
January 25 of 2001 ... including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had 
been an agenda item at this point for 2½ years without any action,
assuming 
that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that 
that had all been adopted, say, on January 26, year 2001, is there the 
remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?
 "Mr. Clarke: 'No.'
 "Mr. Gorton: 'It just would have allowed our response after 9/11 to
be 
perhaps a little bit faster?'
 "Mr. Clarke: 'Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.'
 "Mr. Gorton: 'But “yes, but we weren't going to” there was no 
recommendation on your part or anyone else's part that we declare war and

attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?'
 "Mr. Clarke: 'That's right.'

-

So have you stopped beating your wife yet?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[The Fool]

More Right-Wing lies and propaganda from Townhall:

--
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Washington, D.C. -- where the hindsight is 20/20
Bill Murchison

He 
says, in effect, to an immense public that previously had little idea who

he was: "Boy, did those guys mess up after I left."

---

But that's _not_ what he is saying.  He's saying They Screwed Up
~_BEFORE_~ he left, Before 911 in particular.


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

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:53 PM 3/31/04, The Fool wrote:
More Right-Wing lies and propaganda from Townhall:

--
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Washington, D.C. -- where the hindsight is 20/20
Bill Murchison
He
says, in effect, to an immense public that previously had little idea who
he was: "Boy, did those guys mess up after I left."

---

But that's _not_ what he is saying.  He's saying They Screwed Up
~_BEFORE_~ he left, Before 911 in particular.


So, if according to him They Screwed Up before 9/11, what has he suggested 
that They could realistically have done differently to have averted 9/11?



-- Ronn!  :)

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

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[Tom Beck]

Couldn't we just turn off "The Dick Clarke Show" for a little while  
and reflect that, contrary to widespread belief, there's a war on?
The war is on because George W. Bush lied to the American public and to  
the world and led us into an illegal war of aggression against a  
country that, regardless of how odious its leader was, had not been a  
threat to the US or to US interests for several years. A war that had  
nothing whatsoever to do with the response to 9-11 and was the extreme  
right wing's attempt to remake that part of the world in their own  
image. A war that has been draining resources from the war against  
terror and has been increasing terror rather than lessening it.

To argue otherwise is akin to setting a house on fire and then, when  
your neighbors condemn you for it, stating, "Look, it doesn't matter  
how it started, there's a fire and I'm the fire marshall, so you all  
have to listen to me."

 
--

Tom Beck

my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd  
see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle

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

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[John D. Giorgis]

At 05:37 PM 3/31/2004 -0500 Tom Beck wrote:
> an illegal war of aggression 

Illegal???Its called UN Security Council Resolution 678, Tom: learn it,
live it, love it.
 
 http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm

>against a  
>country that, regardless of how odious its leader was, had not been a  
>threat to the US or to US interests for several years. A war that had  
>nothing whatsoever to do with the response to 9-11 

The terrorist who burst into a classroom at my alma mater after many years
of blaming the United States for the suffering of the Iraqi people under
United Nations sanctions belies this opinion.

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: 20/20 Hindsight

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The war is on because George W. Bush lied to the
> American public and to  
> the world and led us into an illegal war of
> aggression against a  
> country that, regardless of how odious its leader
> was, had not been a  
> threat to the US or to US interests for several
> years. 

I see.

Come to New York City.  

Take the 4,5,6 to City Hall.

Walk two blocks south.

Walk one block east.

Look down.

Tell me the war is because of the liberation of Iraq.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[Tom Beck]

I see.

Come to New York City.

Take the 4,5,6 to City Hall.

Walk two blocks south.

Walk one block east.

Look down.

Tell me the war is because of the liberation of Iraq.


I was down there a few weeks after 9-11. I'll never forget it.  Don't  
lecture me about that. Rather, show me evidence that Iraq was involved.  
You won't be able to, because THERE AIN'T ANY because Iraq WAS NOT  
INVOLVED. If there was any evidence, they'd have found it by now.

Just as, if there were any WMD, they'd have found them by now because  
Rumsfeld and Cheney were swearing up down and center before the  
invasion that they knew exactly where the WMD were and all we had to do  
was go into Iraq and find them.

George W. Bush lied to get us into an unnecessary war.

 
--

Tom Beck

my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/

"I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd  
see the last." - Dr. Jerry Pournelle

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

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was down there a few weeks after 9-11. I'll never
> forget it.  Don't  
> lecture me about that. 

Quite clearly somebody needs to.

> Rather, show me evidence that
> Iraq was involved.  
> You won't be able to, because THERE AIN'T ANY
> because Iraq WAS NOT  
> INVOLVED. If there was any evidence, they'd have
> found it by now.

Germany wasn't involved in Pearl Harbor either, yet
FDR chose to focus American efforts on the defeat of
Germany.  He sold this to the American people, before
the war, with far more deceptive tactics than anything
Bush has ever used.  You are of course shouting about
that?  If you want to have an argument about whether
it's a good idea - I've done that before, and might be
willing to do it again.  But since you've never
engaged in anything resembling an argument on the
subject (N.B. claiming everyone who disagrees with you
is evil and/or stupid <> an argument) I think I'd have
to be persuaded to do it with you.

I was, of course, responding to your typically
intemperate and foolish comment that the war was on
because of the liberation of Iraq.  No, it isn't. 
We're fighting a battle in Iraq - a battle where 9
brave people died today.  Battles are not wars. 
Liberating Iraq was necessary - but not sufficient -
to victory.  

Besides, Tom, why do you care?  You think all
Americans are idiots anyways, you've said so yourself.
 More than once.  Lying to them shouldn't be a problem
for you.  Anyone with the sort of contempt you have
for most of your countrymen shouldn't have a problem
with it.

I'm not sure whether I'm more stunned by the fact that
you were willing to reveal your true beliefs about
your countrymen that way or that you've been too
stiff-necked to walk it back and thus at least
maintain the illusion that any of us who don't feel
that way should listen to you at all.

=
Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: America the Theocracy

[The Fool]

> From: Nick Lidster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> From: "The Fool"
> 
> > A few Excerpts.  Read the whole thing, it's quite long:
> >
> > <>
> >
> > America the theocracy
> >
> 
> well I'll make "lidster's list" "Fool" I hope this is a joke.and if
all
> that stuff passes.. as much as i love this thread... I say world nuke
us!

These people are real.  They really do want to remake America as a
fascist Theocracy.  They include people named 'Tom Delay', 'Trent Lott'
and 'Bill Frist', to name a few congressmen who follow this ideology.

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

Re: The color of truth (L3) (part 1)

[Doug Pensinger]

Mike wrote:

I've said it before here; I'm convinced that heightened
airport security would have thwarted the attacks.
Oh, for Christ's sake. I didn't even think you'd come up with something 
as lame as that.

Trust me, if I wanted to blow up a plane, it would get blown up. If I 
wanted to take one over, it would get taken over. It does a lot more 
good to tell commercial pilots that if they wander out of where they're 
supposed to be, and don't answer the phone, they're going to die, than 
it does to pretend to seach me. Here, you want to prevent terrorism on 
planes? Put a little card in the seat pocket along with the "how to put 
your oxygen mask on before you help your baby" card that says, "If this 
plane is hijacked, you have about 5 minutes to take care of the problem 
before the Air Force does. Don't be a
pussy if you want to live."
You and I might be able to sneak something by security, but 5 or 6 Saudi 
nationals (per plane), some of whom are suspected terrorists?  Don't think 
so.

By the way, can you quote me the Gore speech where he said he would beef 
up airport security if elected to prevent terrorist attacks?
I can remember the heightened security during certain periods of the 
Clinton administration - such as the millennium.

We know
that Ashcroft quit flying commercial because of a threat
assessment.  If it was enough of a threat to keep Ashcroft
off the planes, why wasn't it enough to increase security?
I love it when people say, "We know..." The best cable shows about UFOs 
say "We know..." a lot.
I love it when obnoxious people stick their foot in their mouth.  We know 
because they (the Bush administration told us):

[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml]

"In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling 
exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the 
Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, 
and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the 
remainder of his term."


We also know that while under Reno, anti-terrorism was a
"tier one priority"
Yeah, too bad she thought it was all going in in Waco and Ruby Ridge. 
All I can say is what an incompetent Frankenstein-looking junkyard 
refrigerator if it was her #1 priority and she didn't do a damn thing to 
help. What exactly did her making it a #1 priority make turn out better, 
pray tell?
Several attacks were thwarted - especially around the millennium.

You know, despite my personal distaste for Ashcroft, I'll bet he gets 
more done with #7 on his task list than Reno did with #1.


You've never worked for a large corporation, have you?
For 23 years, in fact.  And what I've noticed during the many changes over 
that period is that they do much better when they listen to the bright 
people in the organization, and don't do so well when they've got an 
agenda that leads them to ignore those people.

Or if you have, you're one of those people that everyone shakes their 
heads about. Of
course, you don't know about the head shaking, do you?
Hate to tell you this, but with your fanatical stance on Islam, lots of 
people are shaking their heads at you.

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

RE: 20/20 Hindsight

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: 20/20 Hindsight
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:15:03 -0600
I wish I knew when the post-war period might be.  There doesn't seem
to be any specific end point to the war on terror.  At any time we
could say "OK, we're done".  Or this could go on for 100 years!
 - jmh
Ditto on that. It's like I said: It's a matter of perspective, really.

-Travis

_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

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

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[Doug Pensinger]

Ronn! wrote:

Washington, D.C. -- where the hindsight is 20/20
Bill Murchison
March 30, 2004

Couldn't we just turn off "The Dick Clarke Show" for a little while and 
reflect that, contrary to widespread belief, there's a war on?
Sorry, no.  Many of us believe that the war is being mismanaged and that 
those responsible for the mismanagement need to be dismissed.  In order to 
do so it is necessary to show how and why the mismanagement has occurred.

It's unfortunate.  It would be best if we could unite behind our leaders, 
but it would be far worse to unite behind incompetence than to expose and 
then purge it.

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

World Court Orders U.S. to Review Mexican Cases

[Robert Seeberger]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040401/D81LLVDG0.html

The world court ruled Wednesday that the United States violated the
rights of 51 Mexicans on death row to receive diplomatic help, and
ordered Washington to review their cases.
The ruling by the International Court of Justice could mean a reprieve
or another chance of appeal for the inmates, including one scheduled
to die May 18 in Oklahoma. It also could have implications for other
foreign citizens in U.S. prisons who were not told they could receive
help from their governments.

The order raised questions from the eight states holding the inmates,
but no assurances that the states will try to address the court's
concerns.

Some states were seeking advice Wednesday from the U.S. State
Department, but several officials said they doubted the ruling would
affect their execution plans. Officials in Oklahoma and Texas, where
three of the Mexican inmates are on death row, said no immediate
action was being taken in those cases.

"I don't see the world court as being the same as the U.S. Supreme
Court, where we'd immediately have to jump and say we'll do it," said
Nevada Deputy Attorney General Dave Neidert.

U.S. officials will study the decision carefully, said State
Department spokesman Adam Ereli, adding that the United States has
tried to comply with the requirement that consular access be granted
to Mexican and other citizens detained on U.S. soil.

It was the second time the highest U.N. court has ruled the United
States broke the 1963 Vienna Convention, which protects foreigners
accused of serious crimes. In 2001, Arizona ignored a court order to
stay the execution of a German citizen.

Although the court dealt specifically with the cases of 52 Mexicans,
it cautioned the principle should apply to all foreigners imprisoned
for serious crimes. There are 121 foreign citizens on U.S. death row,
55 of whom are Mexican, according to the Death Penalty Information
Center.

It would be wrong to assume the court's conclusions "in the present
judgment do not apply to other foreign nationals finding themselves in
similar situations in the United States," said the ruling by a
15-member panel.

The court backed virtually all of Mexico's main arguments, presented
in December.

"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful
review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding
judge Shi Jiuyong said.

Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out
under the normal appeals process in the United States.

Arturo Dager, a legal adviser with Mexico's Foreign Relations
Department, said the court's findings were "a triumph of international
law."

"Mexico was not vindicated. The rule of international law was
vindicated. Of course we are confident the United States will fully
comply with the ruling," added Mexican Ambassador Juan Gomez Robledo.

David Sergi, who represents Texas prisoner Roberto Ramos, said the
ruling "will give us a chance to litigate a lot of issues that were
not addressed at trial." He said it could lead to a retrial or at
least a sentencing review for his client.

For the three defendants who have exhausted all appeals, the United
States should make an exception and review their cases one last time,
the court said.

If the United States doesn't abide by the ruling, Mexico intends to
take further legal steps, according to a Mexican diplomat. Countries
that fail to comply with court rulings can be referred to the U.N.
Security Council for "appropriate action," according to the court's
statute.

Even if Washington accepts the decision, it's unclear if federal
authorities have the power to enforce it or compel individual states
to abide by it.

In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S.
citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right,
and the only fair solution for the men allegedly denied diplomatic
help was to start their legal processes all over again.

The United States had argued the case was a sovereignty issue, and
that the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be
used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate.

Besides Ramos, the court ordered a special review for fellow Texas
inmate Cesar Fierro, and Osbaldo Aguilera Torres, in Oklahoma. Torres
is set to be executed on May 18.

Fierro was convicted of shooting a taxi driver to death, Ramos was
convicted of killing his wife and two children with a hammer, and
Torres was convicted of killing two people during a burglary.

Mark Henrickson, who handled Torres' appeals, said he hopes Oklahoma
will comply with the ruling and that his client will be given a new
trial.

"The U.S. frequently asks that nations abide by international law and
I think we need to abide by international law," Henrickson said.

But Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry plans no action in the case until after a
May 7 clemency hearing before the state's Pardon and Parole Board.

Other Mexicans are on death row in Arizona, Arka

Brin: Any Relation?

[Robert Seeberger]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/040331/315958_1.html


Amidst rampant media speculation, Google Inc. today announced it is
testing a preview release of Gmail -- a free search-based webmail
service with a storage capacity of up to eight billion bits of
information, the equivalent of 500,000 pages of email. Per user.
The inspiration for Gmail came from a Google user complaining about
the poor quality of existing email services, recalled Larry Page,
Google co-founder and president, Products. "She kvetched about
spending all her time filing messages or trying to find them," Page
said. "And when she's not doing that, she has to delete email like
crazy to stay under the obligatory four megabyte limit. So she asked,
'Can't you people fix this?'"

The idea that there could be a better way to handle email caught the
attention of a Google engineer who thought it might be a good "20
percent time" project. (Google requires engineers to spend a day a
week on projects that interest them, unrelated to their day jobs).
Millions of M&Ms later, Gmail was born.

"If a Google user has a problem with email, well, so do we," said
Google co-founder and president of technology, Sergey Brin. "And while
developing Gmail was a bit more complicated than we anticipated, we're
pleased to be able to offer it to the user who asked for it."

Added Page, "Gmail solves all of my communication needs. It's fast and
easy and has all the storage I need. And I can use it from anywhere. I
love it!"

Today, a handful of users will begin testing the preview version of
Gmail. Unlike other free webmail services, Gmail is built on the idea
that users should never have to file or delete a message, or struggle
to find an email they've sent or received. Key features of Gmail
include:

  a.. Search: Built on Google search technology, Gmail enables people
to quickly search every email they've ever sent or received. Using
keywords or advanced search features, Gmail users can find what they
need, when they need it.
  b.. Storage: Google believes people should be able to hold onto
their mail forever. That's why Gmail comes with 1,000 megabytes (1
gigabyte) of free storage -- more than 100 times what most other free
webmail services offer.
  c.. Speed: Gmail makes using email faster and more efficient by
eliminating the need to file messages into folders, and by
automatically organizing individual emails into meaningful
"conversations" that show messages in the context of all the replies
sent in response to them. And it turns annoying spam e-mail messages
into the equivalent of canned meat.
According to Page and Brin, Google will make the preview test version
of Gmail available to a small number of email aficionados. With luck,
Gmail will prove popular to them -- and to the original user who
sparked the idea.

Those interested in learning more about Gmail can visit
http://gmail.google.com.





xponent

Sergey Maru

rob


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

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke [L3] (part 2)

[The Fool]

Split into parts 1 & 2

> From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> As I have noted previously, I spent much of last week and weekend 
> away from the Internet and my usual news sources.   (Ironically, I 
> was helping run an educational event for high school students.)
> 
> Anyhow, as such I have missed much of the Richard Clarke brouhaha, 
> and despite having read much about it, I still remain somewhat 
> puzzled by the whole thing.  Thus, I was wondering if one of the many 
> anti-war or left-wing Brin-L'ers here could post a short summary or 
> set of bullet-points regarding what they consider to be Clarke's most 
> salient accusations?   i.e. what wrongdoing is Clarke accusing the 
> Bush Administration of?   Extra points given for summaries posted in 
> a Brin-L'ers own words, rather than a link or a re-post.

The controversy isn't about what Mr. Clark said, it's about all the lies
and propaganda this administration has put out this week.  Too bad this
Clown Show is too incompetent to keep it's lies straight.  From Rice
flip-flopping on what she says happened to Mr. Frist insinuating to
congress that Mr. Clark lied under oath (then telling reporters he
doesn't know what Mr. Clark said to the congress) to Steven Hadley and
Rice and Mcclellan being caught in lies about Sept. 12.  The Mendacity's
of this crooked lying Administration, show that ShrubCo and their
4thReichKlan congressional allies will do and say anything to retain
power.

Here's a another taste (this is no means supposed to be comprehesive):

Here's some goodies picked up by the Daily howler:
<>

-

<

>

September 11: The Threat to 'Angel' 
Of all the strange parts of the government's reaction to the terror
attacks on September 11, 2001, the strangest is the claim that Al Qaeda
had threatened Air Force One--and that that was why it and George W. Bush
were diverted to Offutt Air Force Base that day: 

Scott Paltrow, Wall Street Journal, March 22 | : As Air Force One left
Sarasota, the president intended to return directly to Washington, Mr.
Bartlett said. Mr. Bush initially had ignored advice from Vice President
Dick Cheney, calling while en route to a White House basement command
center, that Washington appeared to be under attack and the president for
his own safety should remain away, according to an official in the vice
president's office. Once airborne, Mr. Bush spoke again on a secure phone
with Mr. Cheney, who relayed a new message that changed the president's
mind, White House officials later said. The vice president urged Mr. Bush
to postpone his return because, Mr. Cheney said, the government had
received a specific threat that Air Force One itself had been targeted by
terrorists. Mr. Cheney emphasized that the threat included a reference to
what he called the secret code word for the presidential jet, "Angel,"
Mr. Bartlett said in an interview.

In a press conference on Sept. 12, 2001, then-White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer said the threat tipped the scales for Mr. Bush. The president
reluctantly agreed to remain away from Washington "because the
information that we had was real and credible about Air Force One," Mr.
Fleischer said.

Although in the days after Sept. 11, Mr. Cheney and other administration
officials recounted that a threat had been received against Air Force
One, Mr. Bartlett said in a recent interview that there hadn't been any
actual threat. Word of a threat had resulted from confusion in the White
House bunker, as multiple conversations went on simultaneously, he said.
Many of these exchanges, he added, related to rumors that turned out to
be false, such as reports of attacks on the president's ranch in Texas
and the State Department. As for the Air Force One code name, Mr.
Bartlett said, "Somebody was using the word 'angel,' " and "that got
interpreted as a threat based on the word 'angel.' " (Former Secret
Service officials said the code wasn't an official secret, but a radio
shorthand designation that had been made public well before 2001.)

The vice president's office gave an account differing from Mr.
Bartlett's, saying it still couldn't rule out that a threat to Air Force
One actually had been made.

Days after the attacks, Mr. Cheney had said word of the threat had been
passed to him by Secret Service agents. But in interviews, two former
senior Secret Service agents on duty that day denied that their agency
played any role in receiving or passing on a threat to the presidential
jet.

An official in Mr. Cheney's office said in an interview that Mr. Cheney
had been mistaken in saying the threat came to him via the Secret
Service. The official said that instead, Mr. Cheney had received word of
the threat from "a uniformed military person" manning the underground
bunker. The official said the vice president and his staff don't know who
the individual was. And the official said that he couldn't s

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke [L3] (part 1)

[The Fool]

Split into parts 1 & 2

> From: JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> As I have noted previously, I spent much of last week and weekend 
> away from the Internet and my usual news sources.   (Ironically, I 
> was helping run an educational event for high school students.)
> 
> Anyhow, as such I have missed much of the Richard Clarke brouhaha, 
> and despite having read much about it, I still remain somewhat 
> puzzled by the whole thing.  Thus, I was wondering if one of the many 
> anti-war or left-wing Brin-L'ers here could post a short summary or 
> set of bullet-points regarding what they consider to be Clarke's most 
> salient accusations?   i.e. what wrongdoing is Clarke accusing the 
> Bush Administration of?   Extra points given for summaries posted in 
> a Brin-L'ers own words, rather than a link or a re-post.

The controversy isn't about what Mr. Clark said, it's about all the lies
and propaganda this administration has put out this week.  Too bad this
Clown Show is too incompetent to keep it's lies straight.  From Rice
flip-flopping on what she says happened to Mr. Frist insinuating to
congress that Mr. Clark lied under oath (then telling reporters he
doesn't know what Mr. Clark said to the congress) to Steven Hadley and
Rice and Mcclellan being caught in lies about Sept. 12.  The Mendacity's
of this crooked lying Administration, show that ShrubCo and their
4thReichKlan congressional allies will do and say anything to retain
power.

Here's a small taste (this is no means supposed to be comprehesive):



<>

Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap

A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security
officials has a severe problem with the truth

March 26, 2004
Download: DOC, RTF, PDF

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to
use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." –
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02 

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a
one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was
capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include
the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration
was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles.
[Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01] 

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the
Administration from new revelations that the President had been
explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001.
She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen
concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source:
Washington Post, 3/25/04] 

FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President
Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed
the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request
from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the
CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04] 

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at
battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 

FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give
terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department,
which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug.
9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven
goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By
contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called
terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'"
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly
classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States."
[Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04] 

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on
this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 
FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task
force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The
President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency"
about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob
Woodward's "Bush at War"] 

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al
Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking
the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 

FACT:  9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that
came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan."
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it
true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack
Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was
amended aft

Liberal Talk Radio Network Launches

[Robert Seeberger]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040331/D81LJQAO1.html

Is it a radio business, or is it politics? The two seem inextricably
entwined for the leaders of Air America Radio, the liberal talk radio
network that launched on five stations around the country Wednesday.
As a startup media business, they need to draw in listeners fast. Air
America Radio is betting that a menu of left-leaning political
commentary, current affairs talk and satire will resonate with those
opposed to the Bush administration.

Al Franken, who is headlining the network with a daily three-hour talk
show, has made no secret of his intention to use his platform to
influence the election in November.

"We are flaming swords of justice," Franken told a cheering crowd at a
party to launch the network Tuesday night. "Bush is going down, he is
going down, he is going down. And we're going to help him."

Franken's show went live at noon on Wednesday with co-host Katherine
Lanpher, a longtime host of a public radio show in Minnesota. At the
opening, Franken joked that they were broadcasting from a bunker 3,500
feet below Vice President Dick Cheney's own secret bunker.

In fact, Franken will be broadcasting his show, dubbed "The O'Franken
Factor" in his latest jab at Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, from the
slightly shabby studios of New York City station WLIB, on the 41st
floor of an office tower a few blocks from the Empire State Building.

The studio, where the show has had just a week to settle in before
launching, has the feel of a scrappy political campaign that's just
getting under way.

"I don't think of it as a business, but I know it has to make money to
be sustaining," Franken said in an interview, perching his feet up on
the desk after a rehearsal session for the show. "A lot of it is
mission."

The sense of mission is felt just as strongly several floors down,
where the makeshift offices of Air America Radio are marked with
handwritten sheets of paper taped on the wall, including those for CEO
Mark Walsh, where the phones have yet to be hooked up.

Walsh, a former America Online executive and adviser to the Democratic
National Committee, said liberal politics would be a "teaser ... a
loss leader in the window" for the radio network, which is also being
broadcast in Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland, Ore.

"The right has dominated the airwaves for a decade, and we blew it.
First they did radio, then they did TV, and movies are next," he said.

However, the idea that liberal commentators have been shut out of
radio has been greeted with skepticism in the talk radio industry,
where the left-leaning commentator for Fox News Alan Colmes has a
large audience.

Michael Harrison, the editor and publisher of Talkers magazine, the
leading trade publication for the talk radio business, is leery of Air
America Radio's tactic of using liberal politics to draw in viewers.

"Of all the elements that go into this, the least important element is
that they're liberal," Harrison said. "They've got to be entertaining,
fascinating, captivating and compelling - and then they have to find a
way to make money with it."

What's more, Harrison said the company was setting expectations too
high by promising to take on Bush as well as Rush Limbaugh, who has
built up a massive national audience over the past two decades.

"Radio doesn't work that fast, it doesn't have that power to do it
that quickly," Harrison said.

http://www.airamericaradio.com/

xponent

Debut Maru

rob


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

Vatican Downplays Opposition to Iraq War

[Robert Seeberger]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&u=/ap/20040331/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_us_iraq_1&printer=1


A top Vatican official sought Wednesday to downplay the Vatican's
opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, saying it only objected to the
means of disarming Saddam Hussein, not the ends.


French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, the Vatican foreign minister during
the war, stressed the Vatican did indeed oppose the conflict and
thought U.N. weapons inspections should have been allowed to continue.
But he said Pope John Paul II shared Washington's ultimate aims in
Iraq.


"The Holy See is not pacifist," he said. "It is a peacemaker."


Tauran, who in November was named to head the Vatican library and
archives, made the comments on the sidelines of a conference to launch
a book by the U.S. ambassador to the Holy See, James Nicholson, on the
history of U.S.-Vatican relations.


The conference, which was attended by many members of the Vatican
diplomatic corps, came as the Vatican has tried to move beyond its
disagreements with Washington over the Iraqi conflict and work toward
bringing peace and stability to the country.


In the book, "USA and the Holy See: The Long Road," Nicholson seeks to
correct what he calls public misconceptions about the Vatican's
position toward Iraq in months leading up to the war. He says the pope
never said the war was immoral, just that it should only be used as a
last resort.


"The differences that we had were essentially reduced to the question
of whether all the diplomatic means to obtain Iraqi disarmament had
been taken before recourse to military action," Nicholson wrote.


While Washington believed that Iraq would never abide by U.N.
resolutions to disarm, "the Holy See continued to believe that
inspections and dialogue offered a means to resolve the concerns of
the international community," he wrote.


Tauran largely agreed, summarizing Nicholson's argument in his
comments to the conference at the Pontifical Lateran University.


"He affirms that if the positions weren't always in agreement, it was
due more to disagreements over the means than on the ends, thanks to
the values that both parties share," Tauran said.


Tauran went further in comments to reporters afterward, saying there
was a public perception that the Vatican was "anti-American" when in
reality it merely opposed the American choice to go to war.


"(The Vatican) understood that there was a situation that had to be
resolved, but with other means," he said. "It was against the war.
Washington thought that the time had come to resolve it with war. We
said war is the last recourse."


He acknowledged though that such a "preventive war" had no
justification in international law or in the teaching of the Roman
Catholic Church, which does allow for the use of military action in
certain circumstances, such as self-defense.


On several occasions before and during the war, the pope and top
Vatican officials — including Tauran — made clear they opposed
military conflict. In one of his most famous speeches in the weeks
before the war's start, John Paul said: "No to war! War is not always
inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity."


Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Pontifical Council for Justice
and Peace, went further, saying a preventive war against Iraq was a
"war of aggression," and therefore not a "just war."


But with the end of active military conflict, the Vatican has turned
its attention to the future of Iraq, preferring not to dwell on the
differences with Washington.


"The important thing now is what do we do for the Iraqis tomorrow,"
Tauran said. "We have to work together."



xponent
Axis Of Cute Little Kitty Cats Maru
rob




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

Engineers

[Robert Seeberger]

A systems engineer, mechanical engineer, and a software engineer are
in a car careening down a mountainous road without brakes.  The driver
is furiously pumping the pedal while he steers the speeding car around
the treacherous turns - stones flying and passengers gasping.

Finally, he finds an incline and the car coasts to a stop.  All three
get out and, thanking their lucky stars, begin to assess the
situation.

"Oh," says the mechanical engineer, "the brake lines are leaking -
lets patch the hole, bleed the brakes and be on our way!"

The systems engineer says, "Maybe we should consult with the
manufacturer and the dealer to ensure that is really the problem."

The software engineer says, "Why don't we get back in and see if it
happens again?"



xponent
Goofing Around Maru
rob


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

Bushmail

[Robert Seeberger]

Mr. John Hinckley
St. Elizabeth's Hospital
Washington, DC

Dear John:

Laura and I hope that you are continuing your excellent progress in
recovery from your mental problems. We were pleased to hear that you
are now able to have unsupervised visits with your parents. The staff
at the hospital report that you are doing fine.


I have decided to seek a second term in office as your president and I
would appreciate your support and the support of your fine parents.
And both Laura and I would hope that if there is anything that you
need at the hospital, you will let us know.
By the way, were you aware that John Kerry is screwing Jody Foster?

Sincerely,
George W. Bush
President of the United States


*


xponent
The Best Of Bad Taste Maru
rob


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

RE: The color of truth (L3) (part 1)

[Mike Lee]

> You and I might be able to sneak something by security, but 5 
> or 6 Saudi nationals (per plane), some of whom are suspected 
> terrorists?  Don't think so.

Oh, my, you're not advocating racial profiling, are you?

Every time I get on a plane, I'm around people who look suspicious to me.
And, by the way, I'm all in favor of racial/country of origin/mideast accent
profiling.

> > By the way, can you quote me the Gore speech where he said 
> he would beef 
> > up airport security if elected to prevent terrorist attacks?
> 
> I can remember the heightened security during certain periods of the 
> Clinton administration - such as the millennium.

I'll take that as a No.

> Several attacks were thwarted - especially around the millennium.

Attacks are always getting thwarted. Since 9-11, I'll bet the Bushies have
racked up more points than all administrations in the last 3 decades. (As,
probably, would any administration have done.)

But I don't remember a rash of Al Qaeda plots around then. Just a lot of
paranoia. Refresh my memory. I was working a lot and not paying attention to
the news.

> Hate to tell you this, but with your fanatical stance on 
> Islam, lots of 
> people are shaking their heads at you.

Those mo-fo's have been running around declaring war on us over and over and
over again for the last 40 years. I think it's time we accept them at their
word.

And, really, all you head shaking, nice politically correct Americans who
think that the KKK are Neanderthals and shouldn't be allowed to breed, but
you give Muslims a pass (I guess because at least they're not
Republicans)...what the hell is up with you?

Islam is plain nasty. Racist, woman-hating, implacably oppposed to
democratic institutions and freedom of thought--Every mainstream Muslim
who's following the mainstram faith holds opinons that are far more
obnoxious than those of David Duke or the current Grand Dragon. They lie
about it when you ask them about it. I know about this. I was raised Mormon.
When Mormons talk to non-Mormons, they soft-pedal all kinds of weird, ugly
stuff. Every fundie religion does it. Yet you kiss Muslim butt and don't
press them on their bullshit while whaling on any bubba who comes near you
and tells a racist joke. This is where the rest of us get the idea that you
really do hate America.

Mike Lee
Islamic Moderate


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

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[John D. Giorgis]

At 04:11 PM 3/31/2004 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>Tell me the war is because of the liberation of Iraq.

Indeed, the war is because of the lack thereof.

By not liberating Iraq in 1991 (a very reasonable decision at the time,
based on the information available), we were compelled to establish a
permanent military presence in the absolute dictatorship of Saudi Arabia,
which is also the Muslim Holy Land.

We now know that this military presence was a primary animating factor for
Osama bin Laden and the Saudi hijackers who destroyed the World Trade
Center, a corner of the Pentagon, and a field near Somerset, PA.

Anyhow, Democrat Bob Kerrey (on the 9/11 Commission) recently had the most
salient about this.   His quote was something to the effect of, "20 years
from now, noone will be able to look back and say that we did the wrong
thing."

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: 4thReichKlans Making a Move: Fascist Censorship Spreads to FEC

[John Doe]

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "xBrin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 4thReichKlans Making a Move: Fascist Censorship Spreads to FEC
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:40:40 -0600
The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election
Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would cripple groups that dare
to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or
members of Congress. Incredibly, the FEC has just issued -- for public
comment -- proposed rules that would do just that. Any kind of non-profit
-- conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service,
charitable, educational, civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and
small -- could be affected by these rules.
Welcome to the Police State. :-(

By the way, one thing FEC's proposed rules do not affect is the donations
you may have made in the past or may make now to MoveOn.org or to the
MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They are aimed at activist non-profit groups, not
donors.
Not yet, anyway...

First they went after the activist groups,
but I didn't protest because I was not a group.
Then they came for the activist groups' lawyers,
but I didn't protest because I wasn't a lawyer.
Then finally they came for the donors,
but by then there was nobody left to protest.
JD

_
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

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

RE: Winning the War on Terror

[John Doe]

From: "Mike Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Winning the War on Terror
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:34:17 -0800
Then let me say it again: Every Muslim who's a fan of UBL is an asshole.
That's about 80% of them worldwide.
Ah! Finally an actual figure rather than that "most Muslems are 
fundamentalists" rhetoric. Of course, now that you have given us that 80% 
figure, we expect you to come up with the scientific research that confirms 
your claim that some 80% of all Muslems worldwide support Osama bin Laden.

Don't worry, you won't have to Cut & Paste all that data. A few URLs to 
relevant websites will do.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Salaam Aleikum

JD

_
Play online games with your friends with MSN Messenger 
http://messenger.msn.nl/

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

Re: The Physics of High Heels

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:07 PM 3/31/04, Deborah Harrell wrote:
I wrote:

> Not a joke!  At least, not intentionally...
>
>
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/84/98130.htm?printing=true
> "...Researchers claim that the formula spelled out
> below can tell the maximum heel height a person can
> handle without toppling over or suffering
> excessively.
>
>
> h = Q•(12+3s/8)
>
> The variables are:
> h: Maximum height of the heel (in centimeters)
> Q: A sociological factor with a value between 0 and
> 1 (see below)
> S: Shoe size (in UK ladies' sizes)

What!?  No remarks about how these formulae are laced
with fudge factors? Or how slipshod this "study"
looks?  Or how down-at-the-heel these researchers must
be to have stooped so ludicrously low?  Or--


Wouldn't bust size have an effect, by making one, er, top- and front-heavy?

Torque Around The Ball Of The Foot Maru

-- Ronn!  :)

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

Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke

[Julia Thompson]

Dan Minette wrote:
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "BRIN L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Question Regarding Richard Clarke
> 
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> > > 4) When there was a spike in the danger indication under Clinton, the
> > > principals had daily meetings on it to help "shake the bushes" for
> > > information.
> >
> > Did he really expect that "shaking the Bushes" would continue under the
> new
> > administration? All sorts of nuts could have been exposed. :)
> 
> Oh no...you just gave me a horrid visual image of someone's pants dropping
> while dancing.

Well, I was reminded of a pickup truck I followed sometime last month
that had these:

http://www.yournutz.com/

(I got the URL off the bumper sticker on the truck.)

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

Re: 20/20 Hindsight

[Julia Thompson]

Gautam Mukunda wrote:

> Germany wasn't involved in Pearl Harbor either, yet
> FDR chose to focus American efforts on the defeat of
> Germany.  He sold this to the American people, before
> the war, with far more deceptive tactics than anything
> Bush has ever used. 

Um, didn't Germany declare war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor?

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

Re: The color of truth (L3) (part 1)

[Doug Pensinger]

Mike Lee wrote:


And, really, all you head shaking, nice politically correct Americans who
think that the KKK are Neanderthals and shouldn't be allowed to breed, 
but you give Muslims a pass (I guess because at least they're not
Republicans)
But wait, I thought they were Republicans.  Or maybe its just that some 
Republicans are honorary Saudis.  After all, the G. H. W. Bush library was 
built with help from his Saudi friends.  Then there's the Carlyl Group 
where the Saudi's have much of their $500 billion invested and to whom the 
sr. Bush is sr. advisor.  Then there's the famous escape of the  Saudis; 
while all of America was grounded, a plane load of Saudis, including 
members of the Bin Laden family and an Al Qaeda terrorist named Abu 
Zubaydah got permission from the highest levels of the Bush administration 
to fly away home.  There's even a book: House of Saud, House of Bush, 
here's an interview with its author:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/intelligence/doc4097.html

Maybe you've hitched your wagon to the wrong horse...

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

Re: The Physics of High Heels

[Deborah Harrell]

I wrote:

> Not a joke!  At least, not intentionally...
> 
>
http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/84/98130.htm?printing=true
> "...Researchers claim that the formula spelled out
> below can tell the maximum heel height a person can
> handle without toppling over or suffering
> excessively.
> 
> 
> h = Q•(12+3s/8) 
> 
> The variables are: 
> h: Maximum height of the heel (in centimeters) 
> Q: A sociological factor with a value between 0 and
> 1 (see below) 
> S: Shoe size (in UK ladies' sizes)
 

What!?  No remarks about how these formulae are laced
with fudge factors? Or how slipshod this "study"
looks?  Or how down-at-the-heel these researchers must
be to have stooped so ludicrously low?  Or--

Debbi
...On The Part Of Those Who Printed It As Genuine
Research Maru   ;)

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: 20/20 Hindsight

[Mike Lee]

> Um, didn't Germany declare war on the US shortly after Pearl Harbor?

And hasn't war been declared on the US every week for years by Saddam and Al
Qaeda and every psychotic imam in damn near every mosque in every Arab
country?

You know, it's funny we don't take them seriously. We act like they're just
petulant children throwing a tantrum every time the promise genocide against
the Jews and insane violence against the rest of the West. Then the little
brat got a couple of airplanes, so now we're going to go spank them all. Not
just UBL. All of them. Or, at least all of them who don't take an object
lesson from the first few we take out.

Mike Lee
Islamic Moderate

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

RE: The color of truth (L3) (part 1)

[Mike Lee]

> > breed, but you give Muslims a pass (I guess because at 
> least they're 
> > not
> > Republicans)
> 
> But wait, I thought they were Republicans.  Or maybe its just 
> that some Republicans are honorary Saudis.  After all, the G. 
> H. W. Bush library was built with help from his Saudi 
> friends.

Just because you buy politicians doesn't make you one. And let's not forget
that the Saudi Hillbillies have spread their manure equally fertilizing the
fields of both parties. Everyone who's been bought by them, Clintons and
Bushes, should be called to account for it. This should be a much bigger
scandal than it is.

Still, nice try at changing the subject, but you didn't address my point:

The typical Muslim holds opinions about women, Jews, politics and so on that
even David Duke would turn his nose up at. As religions go, Islam is more
noxious than the Moonies and the Scientologists bound up together and
multiplied by each other. Just because someone takes their medieval racist,
authoritarian, freedom-hating views and calls them a religion doesn't make
the views any more worthy of respect. Liberal Americans have no problem
scorning and criticizing fundamentalist Christians who believe nutty,
obnoxious things. Why do the sand Nazis deserve more respect?


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

RE: Winning the War on Terror

[Mike Lee]

> >Then let me say it again: Every Muslim who's a fan of UBL is 
> an asshole.
> >That's about 80% of them worldwide.
> 
> Ah! Finally an actual figure rather than that "most Muslems 
> are fundamentalists" rhetoric. Of course, now that you have 
> given us that 80% figure, we expect you to come up with the 
> scientific research that confirms your claim that some 80% of 
> all Muslems worldwide support Osama bin Laden.
> 
> Don't worry, you won't have to Cut & Paste all that data. A 
> few URLs to relevant websites will do.

> Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Here's one poll, courtesy of Jihad Watch from the other day. Oh, and it's
only 65% (in Muslim countries that are supposed to be our allies) so I guess
I exaggerated a little. You go find more. Every time anyone does one of
these "Arab street" polls the numbers are similar. Go do your own research
and find one where a majority in an Arab country aren't open fans of
terrorists. I just love how Musharraf gets even higher marks. Not quite as
high as Saddam's last electoral results, but high enough to tell you who
wears the panty hose in Pakistan.



March 28, 2004
Tiny minority of extremists update: 65% Pakistanis support Osama

A popular man

An interesting report on polling in Pakistan, from Mid Day:

Nearly two thirds of people in Pakistan hold favourable views of al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden and 86 per cent approve of President Pervez
Musharraf, according to a survey by a major American organisation. 
Nearly half of those interviewed said suicide bombings against Israelis and,
in Iraq, against Americans and other Westerners are justified.

The report by the Washington-based Pew Global Attitudes Project survey found
that 65 per cent favoured Osama and that pluralities of 47 per cent believed
Palestinian suicide attacks on Israelis were justified. Forty-six per cent
thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.

The Pew Research Centre is a non-profit and non-governmental organisation,
which specialises in opinion surveys. Its reports are widely respected in
Washingtons academic circles.

Pakistan was one of four Muslim-majority countries in the survey, which also
included Turkey, Jordan and Morocco, the governments of all of which have
strong ties with the US.

Pew, the polling organisation questioned 1220 people in Pakistans urban
areas, 1000 nationwide in four Moroccan cities and about 1000 each
nationwide in Turkey and Jordan between February 19 and March 3. 

The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Pew also conducted polls during the same period in the United States,
Britain, France, Germany and Russia. 

Posted at March 28, 2004 09:04 PM 


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