RE: [L3] Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day

[Mike Lee]

Eric, wiff his feewwings hurt:

> > But not all disagreements are worthy of respect.
> 
> Understood. People disagreeing with you must respect you, but 
> you don't have to respect people you disagree with. Crystal clear.

No, Eric, the crystal clear point is that when you get stupid enough, we
don't have to pretend you're not stupid anymore, even if it ruins
Thanksgiving dinner.

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

Re: does time exist

[Richard Baker]

Dan said:

> The best explaination of what space and time actually are is given
> in the Critique of Pure Reason.  Briefly put, space and time are
> the a priori forms of our intuition.

But what is intuition if not a process operating through time?

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

heat sink in a sun ship, Re: Designing a space navy...

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

Bryon Daly wrote:

His biggest concern seems to be the matter of heat dissipation, which 
brought to my mind the scene in Heaven's Reach (I think), where the 
communication (?) laser is used to cool the ship, which is under 
attack.  It's been 5+ years since I read them, and I don't have the 
books handy, so forgive me if I'm mis-remembering things. 
Sundiver actually, and indeed the communications laser.

Anyway, does anyone remember how that laser cooling worked?  Is that 
reality-based, or posited on some nonexistent future technology? 
It works on the principle of a heatsink. A bit like the refridgerator. 
As far as I got it, they heat up one spot/part of the ship with the 
communicationlaser and then let the heat flow towards a cooler zone, 
being the sun in case of the novel. Does it work? No idea. But it 
sounded like flaky physics/material sciences were applied. Not sure though.

Sonja
GCU: On topic
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: does time exist

[Brad DeLong]

Dan said:

 The best explaination of what space and time actually are is given
 in the Critique of Pure Reason.  Briefly put, space and time are
 the a priori forms of our intuition.
But what is intuition if not a process operating through time?

Rich
But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say 
that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics and 
relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of space 
and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them replicate 
themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as "truth"...
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: does time exist

[Richard Baker]

Brad said:

> But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say 
> that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics
> and  relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of
> space  and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them
> replicate  themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as
> "truth"... 

Indeed not. But, so far as I can tell, Dan isn't saying that we have
intuitions about time that may or may not be correct, but that time
*exists* because we have intuitions. I presume he means that something
in our brain organises sense impressions into a spatial and temporal
structure. I don't doubt that this occurs, but like you I think that
this structuring only gives us an approximation to what's out there in
nature. Furthermore, I think that it presupposes at least some kind of
temporal structure (although perhaps I could be convinced that what
looks like a temporal structure is in fact a constraint on spatial
patterns in some kind of universe without time, or without temporal
flow [as, indeed, the universes in some theories of quantum gravity
might be, what with the vanishing of the Hamiltonian and all]).

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

RE: does time exist

[Nick Lidster]

Thanks Dan I'm sure that will help. 

As for Rich and Brad, that is where I would get in my self evaluation of
time. It would end in a stalemate not being able to decide if we are a
function of time or time is a function of us. 

IMO fitness does not equal truth. If that statement were true we would
always be wrong, nothing would ever get done. Simply put everyone would
be right all the time even with contradictory ideas. Heard this
somewhere before; 

"If you believe that it is true then it is, because truth is only what
you believe not what anyone else does."
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: does time exist

[Nick Lidster]

Thanks Dan I'm sure that will help. 

As for Rich and Brad, that is where I would get in my self evaluation of
time. It would end in a stalemate not being able to decide if we are a
function of time or time is a function of us. 

IMO fitness does not equal truth. If that statement were true we would
always be wrong, nothing would ever get done. Simply put everyone would
be right all the time even with contradictory ideas. Heard this
somewhere before; 

"If you believe that it is true then it is, because truth is only what
you believe not what anyone else does."
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: does time exist

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: does time exist


> Brad said:
>
> > But isn't our intuition wrong--or perhaps it would be better to say
> > that our intuition does not prepare us to study quantum mechanics
> > and  relativity? It's true that brains that have our intuitions of
> > space  and time tend to help the selfish genes that program them
> > replicate  themselves. But "fitness" is not the same thing as
> > "truth"...
>
> Indeed not. But, so far as I can tell, Dan isn't saying that we have
> intuitions about time that may or may not be correct, but that time
> *exists* because we have intuitions. I presume he means that something
> in our brain organises sense impressions into a spatial and temporal
> structure. I don't doubt that this occurs, but like you I think that
> this structuring only gives us an approximation to what's out there in
> nature. Furthermore, I think that it presupposes at least some kind of
> temporal structure (although perhaps I could be convinced that what
> looks like a temporal structure is in fact a constraint on spatial
> patterns in some kind of universe without time, or without temporal
> flow [as, indeed, the universes in some theories of quantum gravity
> might be, what with the vanishing of the Hamiltonian and all]).

I realize that I didn't explain things very well, but a good explanation
would probably be a 100k+ post, carefully written.  So, you will have to
live with me giving the next layer up on the explanation.

Intuition, for Kant, is not just a gut feel (e.g. woman's intuition).
Rather, it is the way our minds interact with that which is real apart from
us: numenon.  Space and time are a priori in that they come first; they are
an inherent part of the human mind.

Numenon is that which exists as itself, apart from us.  To use language
from later philosophy, its things-in-themselves.  We do not live in a world
of numenon; we live in a world of phenomenon.

Phenomenon is the interface between mind and numenon.  It is defined both
by that which exists apart from humans and by the human mind.  For Kant,
space and time do not exist apart from us.  One of the great usages of
this, at the time, was to better explore causality.  He countered the
"uncaused cause" proof of God's existence by defining causality as part of
the human mind's ordering.  Apart from our minds, things simply are.  It is
us who orders them in space and time, and arranges them with causal links.

What is neat about this worldview, is that it has a better explanation of
why we are surprised than does idealism.  After all, if one is an idealist,
and phenomenon is simply the shadows of our own mind, then why should we
ever be surprised?  But, if phenomenon is also dependant on that which
exists apart from human minds, then surprises can be expected.

Indeed, this gives a very good place to stand when trying to understand QM.
If electrons don't exist apart from the human mind, then it isn't
surprising that their properties don't exist apart from observation.

Dan M.


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

Re: does time exist

[Richard Baker]

Dan said:

> Indeed, this gives a very good place to stand when trying to
> understand QM. If electrons don't exist apart from the human mind,
> then it isn't surprising that their properties don't exist apart
> from observation.

But some of their properties *do* exist apart from observation, or at
least are always the same whenever measured: they are always spin-1/2
particles, for example. So would your position be that electrons have a
"dual nature", being part mind and part numenon?

Rich

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

Re: does time exist

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2004 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: does time exist


> Dan said:
>
> > Indeed, this gives a very good place to stand when trying to
> > understand QM. If electrons don't exist apart from the human mind,
> > then it isn't surprising that their properties don't exist apart
> > from observation.
>
> But some of their properties *do* exist apart from observation, or at
> least are always the same whenever measured: they are always spin-1/2
> particles, for example.

Fair enough, I was speaking a bit too generally.  Rightly said, some
important properties do not exist.  The spin is always +/- 1/2 whenever
measured, but it cannot be either +1/2 -1/2  before being measured in a
given direction, unless it had been measured in that direction.

So would your position be that electrons have a
> "dual nature", being part mind and part numenon?

Electrons are phenomenon.  Phenomenon is better described as the interface
between mind and numenon than part and part, IMHO.  But, that is getting a
bit technical, in a philosophical sense.

Dan M.

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

Fight the Future: Compassionate Coercion

[The Fool]

<>
  
We hold these freedoms to be self-evident...  
 

Do you want to block traumatic memories from scarring your mind? Perhaps
you do, but would you be happy if someone else did it for you? Or how
about receiving marketing messages beamed directly at you in hypersonic
waves? Mind control is getting smarter by the minute, says Richard Glen
Boire, co-founder of the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics in
California. And, as he told Liz Else, we ain't seen nothing yet...

 

Should I be worried? 


Freedom of thought is the basis of a lot of our existing constitutional
rights in the US, as in many countries. With the burgeoning of
neurosciences and the neurotechnologies they give rise to, we can see
great opportunities but also great perils, because the law on freedom of
thought is so underdeveloped. It is the most important of all legal
freedoms, but the least articulated. Here at the Center for Cognitive
Liberty and Ethics (CCLE) in Davis, California, we try to provide legal
theory and principles to guide courts, policy makers and civil liberty
experts. 


What kind of neurotechnologies are there? 


On the near horizon are a slew of new pharmaceuticals we call memory
management drugs. Some of these aim to improve memory safely. Others are
designed to help dim or to erase the memories that haunt people suffering
post-traumatic stress disorder. 


But right now? 


Some of these drugs are available now. Take a drug like propranolol, a
beta blocker used to control high blood pressure. It was found that
people who take this drug within six hours or so of a traumatic event
have a reduced recall of that event. People are talking about giving
propranolol to emergency response teams before they go into horrific
scenes such as plane crashes. Others have talked about giving it to
soldiers after a gruesome battle.


Is propranolol really being used in that way? 


Well, it has been tested in emergency rooms. In 2002, there was a study
of the effect of propranolol on car accident victims in emergency rooms.
It found that one month later, patients who received propranolol had
fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder than patients who
suffered similar injuries but were given placebos rather than the drug.


That does sound helpful. 


Yes, that application may well be, so long as people are given the
choice. But we are concerned about the idea of emergency room personnel
automatically giving it to trauma victims. For instance, a victim of
violent crime may not necessarily want to remember what happened, but may
want to testify. Emergency room doctors might think it would be great to
have a drug to give victims that would blank out horrible memories; but
they might also overlook the complexities of why somebody would want to
retain the integrity of their memory. It has to be the person's choice.


Is there anything else coming up? 


In the next five to ten years, we think drugs that enhance memory are
going to raise important issues of freedom of thought. Will you have a
right to say no to these drugs if you are the only eyewitness to a crime?
Could a future government say: "It's very important that you remember
what you saw. We want you to take this drug at least until after you have
testified in court."


Are there possibilities for coercion in these neurotechnologies? 


Yes, in some more than others. Take brain fingerprinting. This is a real
technology being tested by the FBI. It could become part of the key
evidence to overthrow the murder conviction of Jimmy Ray Slaughter, who
is facing the death penalty in Oklahoma for assault and murder. It works
by picking up the P300 electrical wave emitted by the brain when the
subject is shown images relating to a crime. Its strength is that the
P300 wave is involuntary - the suspect can't affect the outcome. It is
said to be much more accurate than the polygraph. 

The CCLE has no problem with brain fingerprinting so long as it's
voluntary, as in the Slaughter case. Our concern is that law enforcement
agents will seek to use it coercively. Such compelled use ought to be
forbidden, because it would pierce one of the most private and intimate
human spheres: our own memory. 


Aside from memory control, what other neurotechnologies are you looking
at? 


Hypersonic sound. This is a focused beam of sound used to deliver
marketing noises or other messages in a very personal way. The sound is
inaudible unless you walk into its narrow path. 


It sounds entertaining. 


Yes. It does have fun possibilities. But it's also invasive. It's sudden
and it acts inside your head, as if you're hearing something through
headphones. And Forbes magazine reported last September that American
Technology Corporation, the company that invented hypersonic sound, is
installing this in soda machines right now on Tokyo's streets. As you
walk past, you'll suddenly hear inside your head the sound of the

Grossly Distorted Product

[The Fool]

<>

<>

Grossly Distorted Product

Apr 7th 2004 
>From The Economist print edition


Are official statistics exaggerating America's growth?
 
DESPITE the welcome leap in American employment in March (see article),
America's job market has been surprisingly weak in the past couple of
years—surprising, at least, to economists. Some have explained this by
pointing to rapidly rising productivity figures. Perhaps firms have not
needed more workers. But there is another explanation: America's GDP
figures, which have been strong, may be inaccurate, and may be
exaggerating the extent of economic growth.

In the two years to the fourth quarter of 2003 America's real GDP grew at
an annual rate of 3.6%. Going by past recoveries, this should have meant
a rise in employment of 2% a year. Instead, non-farm payrolls have
fallen. Most economists say that this reflects a sharp increase in
productivity growth. Jan Hatzius, an economist at Goldman Sachs, is not
so sure. Other economies that have enjoyed rapid productivity gains in
recent years, such as Canada and Australia, have also seen strong
increases in employment. 


Nor does Mr Hatzius accept the argument that the employment figures have
been understating job creation. It is too soon to tell whether March's
data (which were published after his study) mark the start of a delayed
catching-up. This leads Mr Hatzius to suggest that GDP is being
overstated. The standard measure of GDP is calculated by totting up
aggregate expenditure; but another estimate, found by summing
incomes—which in theory should be the same—says that GDP has grown at an
annual rate of only 2.8% since the end of 2001, 0.8 percentage points
less than the expenditure measure.

Another piece of evidence is the unusual divergence of the growth rates
of GDP in the goods sector and of industrial production. The two series
used to track each other closely; but in the past two years a wide gap
has opened up (see chart). In the year to the fourth quarter, industrial
production rose by only 1.4%, while goods-sector GDP surged by 8.0%.

Industrial-production figures are likely to be the more reliable of the
two, because they come directly from industry reports. In contrast,
goods-sector GDP is estimated indirectly by adding together final sales
of goods, changes in inventories and net exports. If goods-sector GDP is
replaced with the industrial-production series in estimating GDP, then
the economy grew by only 2.2% in the year to the fourth quarter, not the
reported 4.3%.

Why might official statisticians be overstating America's GDP—and
productivity with it? Mr Hatzius suggests that they may be undercounting
imports of intermediate inputs of goods and services produced abroad by
American firms that have outsourced jobs to cheaper countries. Since GDP
is calculated as domestic spending plus exports less imports (including
imports of intermediate inputs), this would lead to an overstatement of
GDP.

For example, when American firms outsource call-centre and
information-technology-support jobs to India and other Asian countries,
the result should be higher imports of services, yet official statistics
do not show such an increase. America's recorded imports of software
services from India are also much smaller than India's reported exports
of such services to America. 

If Mr Hatzius is right, then jobs have been slow to pick up largely
because this has been, at least until now, an exceptionally weak economic
recovery. That is exactly what you might have expected after the bursting
of the biggest financial bubble in history.





"If evil could be branded, its emblem would be the Wal-Mart logo."
-Inthesetimes article

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

Psychedelic Republicans

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.psychedelicrepublicans.com/

That's right - the wait is finally over! It's wacky fun time with
all-new Psychedelic RepublicansTM trading cards and gear! Collect them
all, and gaze on in helpless pupil-dilating wonder as your all-time
favorite C-SPAN rock stars morph into groovy explosions of technicolor
conservatism!


xponent
Groovy Kimosabe Maru
rob


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

Educated Wolf Whistles

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.chickenhead.com/stuff/laborer/index.asp

Greetings, gentle reader. My name is Reginald Cummings. Please join me
atop my scaffold perch, from whence I unleash the signature
silver-tongued catcalls which so endear me to the fairer sex!


xponent
That's What I'm Talking About Maru
rob


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

Whitehouse.Org

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.whitehouse.org/

Jesus Votes Republican

USA We Own The Planet

and much much more..


xponent
Chimpeach Maru
rob


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

New Case for Oldest Life on Earth

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/lava_life_040422.html


Using a method never applied to rock from ancient Earth, researchers
have found possible signs of biological activity dating back nearly
3.5 billion years, earlier than any other agreed-upon discovery of
life on this planet.



The primordial life appears to have eaten rocks to survive.



Meanwhile, separate work is turning up intriguing similar structures
in Mars rocks found on Earth, though no claims of life have yet been
made with regard to this ongoing Martian investigation.



If the terrestrial finding is confirmed, it means life was thriving
not long after this world had been presumably sterilized several times
over by asteroid and comet impacts that were common in the earliest
era of the solar system, which is about 4.6 billion years old.



The researchers found microscopic tubes in ancient, glassy lava that
they say were created by microbes eating into the lava after it cooled
on the ocean floor. Similar signatures of life, including genetic
material, have been found in lava that formed more recently in Earth's
history. Scientists generally agree that the tubes in the more modern
lava were indeed creating by boring organisms.



The 3.5-billion-year-old tubes contain carbon and traces of carbonates
that could represent organic material left behind by the primitive
organisms. The research was led by Harald Furnes atNorway's University
of Bergen and is reported in the April 23 issue of the journal
Science.



Of life, evolution and sex


Separately, scientists are engaged in an ongoing debate over purported
microfossils in rock found in Australia, also said to be about 3.5
billion years old, and even older "graphite inclusions" in rocks from
Greenland. Meanwhile, the oldest solid evidence for life dates back
3.2 billion years.



Nobody knows how life began. Scientists aren't even sure if it started
on Earth first or was transported here by Mars rocks or in the bellies
of comets. They do know that Earth was initially inhospitable and
probably dry as a bone when it formed about 4.5 billion years ago.



Pockmarks on the Moon testify to an early history of asteroid and
comet impacts that might have killed any living things on Earth or
thwarted the development of life for the first few hundred million
years. (Earth would have a similar frequency of scars but they were
folded inward and eroded away.)



Or, others argue, catastrophe may have been the mother of evolution,
wiping out all but the hardiest life and forcing certain favorable
mutations. For example, one study suggests a later, milder bout of
cosmic poundings led primitive creatures down the path of mutation
toward their first sexual encounters.



The latest findings


The newest discovery was made in lava that was once buried at the
bottom of the sea but is now exposed in the so-called Barberton
Greenstone belt in South Africa.



"Our data come from entirely different rocks than those in which the
search for early life has done previously," study leader Furnes told
SPACE.com.



"The biosignals we have applied are different from those previously
used," Furnes said. "I think comparing our results with those on which
the controversies presently are going on, would be like comparing
apples and oranges."



Little is known about the microbes and what they ate, Furnes
explained. They apparently created some sort of microenvironment that
dissolved the glassy lava rock, in order to drill into it.



"We know very little about this, and from the biosignals we see in the
Barberton lavas it is impossible to tell," Furnes said. "Attempts to
culture microbes that settle and dissolve young glassy lavas are few.
>From the few data that exist, however, it appears that the microbes
gain energy from oxidizing iron."



In an analysis of the work in Science, other researchers not involved
in the study offered varying perspectives.



Controversy continues


“To me, it’s unequivocal that the textures they see were created by
microorganisms," petrologist Martin Fisk of Oregon State University
told the journal. "I think they’ve got the best evidence I’ve seen for
life at that time.”



Microbial geochemist Jennifer Roberts of the University of Kansas
called the evidence compelling but said it's not a smoking gun. She
said nonbiological processes can create similar tube-like structures.



In a telephone interview, Fisk said he is "still open" to the
interpretation that the tubes were created by something other than
living things, but he added that no one has demonstrated what
nonbiological process would actually be at work.



Fisk has been aware of Furnes' work for some time, and separately he's
been trying to find similar microscopic signatures of life in Mars
rocks that have been found on Earth. So far, he said, he's not found
anything that conclusively suggests life on Mars. But in a few grains
of the mineral olivine, from Mars meteorites, he's noted shapes
similar to those found in terrestrial

Re: This time I won't blame Bush

[David Hobby]

Mike Lee wrote:
> 
> David Hobby thinks I've mischaracterized his position:
> 
> > > David Hobby thinks that workers are coerced into taking
> > dangerous jobs
> > > and that government can make us all safe:
> >
> > Mike--  If you mischaracterize my position, I won't discuss
> > things with you.  Basta.
> 
> I'll address both of my characterizations of you and demonstrate their
> accuracy.
> 
> First, I said that you believe workers are coerced into taking jobs. Quoting
> you:
> 
> > When the market messes up, and people start dying from risks they
> > did not have a chance to freely accept, then Government SHOULD intervene.
> 
> Do I have to get out the dictionary, or will you freely accept that I
> characterized you accurately?

No.  You found a characterization that would give you a good 
position to argue from, and decided that it fit what I said well
enough that you could use it.  

I submit that your characterization is half-right, and that you
know it.  It's partially right because people are in a sense 
coerced into working since nobody is prepared to pay them for
not working.  The problem is that there aren't enough jobs to
go around, so some people wind up in dangerous jobs.  Did they
VOLUNTARILY choose those jobs?  Technically, yes.  But they didn't
have enough other choices for it to really be a free choice.

Metaphorically, I said it was gray.  You simplified my position
to your choice of black or white in the way that suited you.  I
don't like partisan arguments that reduce complex issues to 
simplistic statements, since I find they are not useful.

> I also said that you think government can make us all safe. Quoting you:
> 
> > Intervening when markets malfunction is an integral part
> > of what Government should do.

What I had in mind was that the Government would modify
the market to include an appropriate price for maintaining an 
unsafe workplace.  I would be happy to then let the market find
a safer solution.  Companies should not be allowed to profit by
acting in an unethical manner; failure to provide (cost-effective)
safety measures is unethical.
Government would be indirectly contributing to safety,
so you are partially right here.  But I just KNEW that you were
trying to paint me as being for the creation of some huge govern-
ment safety bureaucracy, which I am not. 

> First, though, let me say that when people of your ideological stripe talk
> about "markets" malfunctioning, that's not what you really mean. 

PLEASE.  I know what I meant, I did study Economics.

> You mean
> every institution and association except government. You hubristically plan
> to interfere in the voluntary relationships and associations people enter
> into, and to impose your own view of what outcomes should be. To provide
> moral cover for this arrogance, you literalize metaphorical references to
> coercion. For example, you pretend that an employer who offers a deal to a
> freely consenting adult is engaged in "coercion" by mere virtue of the fact
> that no better deal is being offered elsewhere.

No.  The employer is not the one engaged in "coercion", the system is.  
But there should be some method to insure that employers are not risking
their employee's lives to save a few dollars!  

> Clearly, you believe that government is *capable* of correcting "market
> malfunctions" (whatever the hell those are), or you wouldn't be advocating
> government intervention in the first place. The particular issue under
> discussion in this thread has been workplace safety. Therefore, your
> argument is obviously that government intervention is an effective way to
> achieve workplace safety. Or are you saying that you don't believe that
> government intervention is an effective way to achieve workplace safety? You
> have to pick one or the other.

Some government interventions would be effective ways to increase 
workplace safety.  Some would not.  There, I picked.

As for "market malfunctions" I meant when the market does not 
find the optimal solution for any of a variety of reasons.  One
example is when the market ignores externalities, so that it 
solves the wrong problem.  The "tragedy of the commons" is a 
well-known example of a market malfunction, which could be cured
by simply charging users a price to use that commons.

> Finally, while I'm still in logical vivisection mode, I feel *compelled* to
> comment on this:
> 
> > Mike--  If you mischaracterize my position, I won't discuss
> > things with you.  Basta.
> 
> Now, I'll admit that this statement is not inherently incoherent. Perhaps it
> could be taken as you warning me that, up till now, I have not
> mischaracterized your position, but you suspect I might start soon, so I
> better not or you'll give me the silent treatment. But we both know that's
> not what you meant. You obviously believe that I have already
> mischaracterized your position. But you still kept discussing things with me
> anyway, didn't you? Bitcha.

I saw that you

Re: Iraq and Vietnam

[Doug Pensinger]

Chad wrote:

The current uprising is really a last stand, so to speak, for the
insurgents.
I hope you're right, but I'm afraid it's wshfull thinking.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0416/040420_news_iraq.php

http://tinyurl.com/2g496

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

Re: Scouted: Protecting Creation on Earth Day

[Doug Pensinger]

Gautam wrote:


Since the environmental movement has done more harm to
the poor of the world than any other such supposedly
well-intentioned group, their dogma gets a very
visceral reaction from me.  When you get down to it,
you've got a bunch of people who would rather millions
of poor brown people die from malaria than even
consider the possibility of using DDT.
Environmentalists would never have gotten anywhere on the ban without the 
help of  William Ruckelshaus and his boss, Richard Nixon.

"But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated on 
August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that "DDT has an amazing an 
exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or 
other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are 
unproven speculation." But in a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon 
Society, Ruckelshaus stated, "As a member of the Society, myself, I was 
highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled 
by the facts to temper my emotions ... because the best scientific 
evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we 
in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now 
suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any 
time during the period of review." Ruckelshaus later explained his 
ambivalence by stating that as assistant attorney general he was an 
advocate for the government, but as head of the EPA he was "a maker of 
policy."

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

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

Re: Iraq and Vietnam

[Doug Pensinger]

I wrote:

Chad wrote:

The current uprising is really a last stand, so to speak, for the
insurgents.
I hope you're right, but I'm afraid it's wshfull thinking.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0416/040420_news_iraq.php

http://tinyurl.com/2g496

Forgot to say that I stole this link from Ritu's blog.  Thanks, Ritu.

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