Re: Democrats

[Dave Land]

On Aug 10, 2004, at 5:34 PM, JDG wrote:
Anyhow, would you car to apologize for the gratuitous insult which 
followed
the above?
OK. I apologize for asking if you are a horse's ass.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Doug Pensinger]

JDG wrote:
  Thus, given that the incredibly insulting allegations of these
Democrats have now proven to be demonstrably false in short order, in 
polite society an apology would be in order.
Do you want to apologize for the Republican reaction to Clinton's attempts 
to go after bin laden following the embassy bombings?

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

Re: Contraception

[Doug Pensinger]

JDG wrote:
It is worth noting that there are an awful lot of 1, 2, and 3-child
Catholic families thanks to NFP.
It's probably even more worthy to note that there are probably many times 
more 1 2 and 3 child Catholic families thanks to the pill.

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1114
http://tinyurl.com/6x7qy
"In another poll taken on August 11, 1993, 82 percent of Catholics said 
one can use artificial birth control "and still be a good Catholic."

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

RE: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[JDG]

At 08:52 AM 8/11/2004 +0530 Ritu wrote:
>> Apologies from Democrats for playing politics with the Terror 
>> Warnings were not forthcoming.
>
>Could kindly explain this comment please?
>Try as I might, I fail to see how the topic of a Democrat apology came
>up when the issue under discussion was a serious security breach by the
>Republican administration.

First, let me reiterate that there are simply no excuses for this security
breach (if indeed the facts we have our true - which of course is the only
possible means of discussion, but it should be kept vaguely in the back of
our heads that anything having to do with intelligence could be
misinformation.)   

Still, there were a *lot* of Democrats who were loudly suggesting that the
most recent terror alert was essentially made up by the Bush Administration
for political purposes.   This is a particularly craven sort of political
argument during a time of war.Due to this security breach, however, we
now know that the terror alert was real, and based on breaking information.
  Thus, given that the incredibly insulting allegations of these Democrats
have now proven to be demonstrably false in short order, in polite society
an apology would be in order.

JDG

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

Re: Objective Evil

[William T Goodall]

On 11 Aug 2004, at 2:31 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:22 PM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 11 Aug 2004, at 1:25 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Damon Agretto wrote:
What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define
for yourself what it means to be faithful and
Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have
to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of
Jesus.
No, I think that's not enough, otherwise Muslims - who
claim to follow the teachings and philosophy of Jesus,
the penultimate Prophet - would be Christians.
That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that 
Jesus was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad 
superseded Jesus they are not Christians.

This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :)

Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he 
atoned for our sins as Christ did.
Muslims don't worship Muhammad or believe that he atoned for anyone's 
sins. They just believe that the angel Gabriel gave him the info for 
the Koran. Like Moroni gave Joseph Smith some stuff. The ambiguity is 
inherent in the situation.

The difference is that, while Muslims and Latter-day Saints both 
believe that the founders of their respective churches were men who 
were prophets who brought additional knowledge directly from God, 
Latter-day Saints believe that Christ did atone for our sins, while 
Muslims see Him as only another prophet.

LOL.  Religion is just so funny :)
But sad too.
So much wasted time. So many wasted lives.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Ritu]

JDG wrote:

> At 10:05 AM 8/10/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
> >Last week, the administration was desperate to justify their 
> decision 
> >to raise the threat level to orange in three states based on 
> activity 
> >that occurred over three years ago. National Security Advisor 
> >Condoleezza Rice admitted yesterday that the administration 
> - during a 
> >background briefing to reporters - identified Mohammed Naeem 
> Noor Khan 
> >as the source of the information that prompted the terror alert.[2] 
> >According to Reuters, Khan "had been actively cooperating with 
> >intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name 
> >appeared in U.S. newspapers"[3] His identification by the 
> >administration likely "cost the United States a valuable source."[4]
> 
> Apologies from Democrats for playing politics with the Terror 
> Warnings were not forthcoming.

Could kindly explain this comment please?
Try as I might, I fail to see how the topic of a Democrat apology came
up when the issue under discussion was a serious security breach by the
Republican administration.

Ritu

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

RE: Avian Magnetic Vision (was Re: Horses)

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Avian Magnetic Vision (was Re: Horses)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:00:19 -0700
On Aug 10, 2004, at 3:33 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:

Just asking a question here. Does anyone know or remember which type of 
bird navigates by actually 'looking at' the Earth's magnetic poles? 
Apparently they can actually see something like a red orb which they use 
as a landmark of sorts.
This  appears to be the 
source
of the image showing the "red orb" (the image appeared in the document 
labeled
"Graphs and Stuff" in Ronn's "Birds, was Horses" message of a couple of 
days ago.

I don't think the image was intended to suggest that birds actually see a 
red orb,
but to suggest that some kind of visual indication of magnetic orientation 
may be
incorporated into avian vision.
I never read Ronn's 'Birds, was Horses message'. Nor did I check out that 
URL. As far as I can recall I saw all this on the tube in a documentary.

And as far as the red orb thingy goes, I'm not really sure if that's what 
the birds actually see. All I remember is that the audience was presented 
with an animation showing that orb. As for what else I remember - well, the 
magnetic poles thing AND that this was a particular species of bird. Not 
birds in general.

-Travis
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

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

Re: Objective Evil

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:22 PM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 11 Aug 2004, at 1:25 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Damon Agretto wrote:
What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define
for yourself what it means to be faithful and
Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have
to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of
Jesus.
No, I think that's not enough, otherwise Muslims - who
claim to follow the teachings and philosophy of Jesus,
the penultimate Prophet - would be Christians.
That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus 
was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus 
they are not Christians.

This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :)

Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he atoned 
for our sins as Christ did.
Muslims don't worship Muhammad or believe that he atoned for anyone's 
sins. They just believe that the angel Gabriel gave him the info for the 
Koran. Like Moroni gave Joseph Smith some stuff. The ambiguity is inherent 
in the situation.

The difference is that, while Muslims and Latter-day Saints both believe 
that the founders of their respective churches were men who were prophets 
who brought additional knowledge directly from God, Latter-day Saints 
believe that Christ did atone for our sins, while Muslims see Him as only 
another prophet.


-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Spiritual development

[William T Goodall]

On 11 Aug 2004, at 1:34 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 01:09 PM Monday 8/9/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:56 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

Sounds like you've got a long hard path to atheism.

Then it's a good thing he'll have all eternity to work on it rather 
than having to get it right in this life, isn't it?
An eternity dead is a lot less useful than five minutes alive though. 
Don't you think?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[William T Goodall]

On 11 Aug 2004, at 1:25 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Damon Agretto wrote:
What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define
for yourself what it means to be faithful and
Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have
to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of
Jesus.
No, I think that's not enough, otherwise Muslims - who
claim to follow the teachings and philosophy of Jesus,
the penultimate Prophet - would be Christians.
That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus 
was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus 
they are not Christians.

This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :)

Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he 
atoned for our sins as Christ did.
Muslims don't worship Muhammad or believe that he atoned for anyone's 
sins. They just believe that the angel Gabriel gave him the info for 
the Koran. Like Moroni gave Joseph Smith some stuff. The ambiguity is 
inherent in the situation.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Spiritual development

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 01:09 PM Monday 8/9/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:56 pm, Dan Minette wrote:

Sounds like you've got a long hard path to atheism.

Then it's a good thing he'll have all eternity to work on it rather than 
having to get it right in this life, isn't it?


Good luck.

It's a little early for this (though yesterday I saw decorations for sale 
at a Dollar Tree store), but what the heck:

"At this season of the year, I'd like to wish all my Christian friends a 
"Merry Christmas," all my Jewish friends, a "Happy Hanukkah," all my Wiccan 
friends, a "Joyous Solstice," and to say to all my atheist friends, "Good 
luck!""

The Old Ones Are Still The Good Ones Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:42 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Damon Agretto wrote:
What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define
for yourself what it means to be faithful and
Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have
to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of
Jesus.
No, I think that's not enough, otherwise Muslims - who
claim to follow the teachings and philosophy of Jesus,
the penultimate Prophet - would be Christians.
That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus was 
the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus they are 
not Christians.

This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :)

Latter-day Saints do not worship Joseph Smith or believe that he atoned for 
our sins as Christ did.


-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Contraception

[Julia Thompson]

JDG wrote:
> 
> At 04:53 PM 8/9/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >> Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing
> >> contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the
> >> quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all
> >> contraception, then that suggests a God with very little
> >> understanding, compassion, or empathy for the human condition.
> >> If that's true, then we're all thoroughly screwed. So,
> >> "inconceivable" wouldn't be the right word, but "terrifying" might.
> >>
> >But the Catholic church is _not_ against contraception [ok: maybe
> >it's time to cut some of many negatives in this sentence!]. They
> >fiercely propose one 100% effective way of contraception: sexual
> >abstinence!
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> It is worth noting that there are an awful lot of 1, 2, and 3-child
> Catholic families thanks to NFP.

3 is quite enough at times, believe me.

Especially when all 3 want Mommy-comforting at the same time.  (I left
the two not in the direst need to theur grandma's ministrations and am
holding the other, typing one-handed while moving to music to help
soothe her)

NFP can definitely be useful for spacing children.  (An airlock leading
to vacuum is also useful for spacing them in a thoroughly different
sense.)

Julia

tried a total of 3 months of her life to get pregnant, and has 3
children
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democrats

[JDG]

At 04:10 PM 8/10/2004 -0700 Dave Land wrote:
>I think a much better case can be made that allowing the terrorists to
>dictate how we board aircraft, how we conduct our political conventions
>and so forth is much more like "surrendering to the terrorists."

I suppose that letting Osama bin Laden dictate our Afghanistan policy was
"surrendering" to under this logic?

>> That is a serious problem,  a serious issue for the upcoming election, 
>> and
>> if you want to call it "questioning patriotism" - then so be it, 
>> because it
>> concerns me even more in this election than the abortion issue.
>
>Did I call it that? Hmmm. I don't see it in my message. 

Incredible, but true - you aren't the only person on this List.

Anyhow, would you car to apologize for the gratuitous insult which followed
the above?

JDG

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

Magnitudes, was Birds, was Horses before it was Birds

[Alberto Monteiro]

> Ronn suggested the following limiting magnitudes:
> 4.5 for a human in a light-polluted area;
> 6.5 for a human with a dark sky;
> 8.3 for a cat with a dark sky, since a cat's eyes are
> 6 times as sensitive as a human;
>11.5 for an owl with a dark sky, since an owl's eyes are
> 100 times as sensitive as a human.

Does anyone know the _historical_ magnitudes of humanity?
Like, with Galileo, we reached _x_, with Hubble, we reached _y_.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: Objective Evil

[William T Goodall]

On 11 Aug 2004, at 12:43 am, Dan Minette wrote:
I realize that you didn't come up with this logic chopping...so I'm not
faulting you.  For example, I have reluctantly concluded that with the
nuclear deterrent, the end justified the means. We are together in
dissenting from the teachings of the American bishops here. :-)
I'm just trying to promote honest, consistent labeling...not to point 
you
out as wrong and me right on morality.  I'm arguing that we all do 
this.
How about this, look at it as if it were a speech by a Democrat; I'm 
sure
would be able to find the inconsistencies then. :-)
But if God's plan is inscrutable and beyond human comprehension at 
times then applying human logic to it is pointless. Best to shut up and 
do as you're told by those appointed to pass the word down...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any 
idiot is going to run it."  -  Warren Buffet

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

Re: Democrats

[Dave Land]

On Aug 10, 2004, at 4:54 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You state that you are "very nervous as to what
pressure JK will be
under
from within his own party..." The rest of us (that
is, people who
continue
to /think/ about issues, rather than accept whatever
BushCo tells us is
good for us and for the rest of the world)
How arrogant (although, sadly, increasingly typical of
the list).  I can only imagine the shallowness of mind
and intellect that causes someone to believe that only
people who agree with me think about issues.
"Well, I expressed myself rather forcefully, felt better
after I had done it."
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Democrats

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You state that you are "very nervous as to what
> pressure JK will be 
> under
> from within his own party..." The rest of us (that
> is, people who 
> continue
> to /think/ about issues, rather than accept whatever
> BushCo tells us is
> good for us and for the rest of the world) 

How arrogant (although, sadly, increasingly typical of
the list).  I can only imagine the shallowness of mind
and intellect that causes someone to believe that only
people who agree with me think about issues.  

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



__
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: Objective Evil

> >As an aside; do you agree with the bishops that our nuclear deterrent
was
> >inherently evil and should not have existed?
>
> My personal opinion - No.

When we launch those weapons, what is the intent?

It is to kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people...most of whom are
innocent. The deterrent, by definition, holds hundreds of millions of
people hostage to the acts of a few.  It hopes to influence those few to
make decisions that are in the best interest of the United States.

If this is all right, and using condoms to stop the spread of AIDs can be
considered wrong, then it is all about playing games with boxes.  When one
wants to do something-- one calls the good part of the equation the intent.
When you think others shouldn't, it is separated from the intent and called
the ends.  Since the intent justifies the action and the ends doesn't, then
all is good.

I realize that you didn't come up with this logic chopping...so I'm not
faulting you.  For example, I have reluctantly concluded that with the
nuclear deterrent, the end justified the means. We are together in
dissenting from the teachings of the American bishops here. :-)

I'm just trying to promote honest, consistent labeling...not to point you
out as wrong and me right on morality.  I'm arguing that we all do this.
How about this, look at it as if it were a speech by a Democrat; I'm sure
would be able to find the inconsistencies then. :-)

Dan M.


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

Re: What Kerry Did on 9/11

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: What Kerry Did on 9/11


>
> >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: What Kerry Did on 9/11
> >Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 18:08:10 -0500
>
> 
>
> >...people will cling to a comfortable lie with ease
>
> >...and it is something we should all should strive to remove from
our
> >repertoire.
>
> Do you mean that generally or context-specific?
>
Take as a broad general statement that has numerous exceptions.
Some that prove the rule and others that are just run of the mill
exceptions.


xponent
Runescape Maru
rob


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

Re: Spiritual development

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Spiritual development
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 20:28:27 -0400
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 04:39:12PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> > William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like you've got a long hard path to atheism.  Good luck.
>
>  Sometimes you're really annoying, you know?
It IS annoying when someone is continually right in pointing out one's
foibles, isn't it?
I can think of something more annoying than that...
-Travis
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

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

Re: Contraception

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:58 PM
Subject: Contraception


> At 04:53 PM 8/9/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> >> Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing
> >> contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the
> >> quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all
> >> contraception, then that suggests a God with very little
> >> understanding, compassion, or empathy for the human condition.
> >> If that's true, then we're all thoroughly screwed. So,
> >> "inconceivable" wouldn't be the right word, but "terrifying" might.
> >>
> >But the Catholic church is _not_ against contraception [ok: maybe
> >it's time to cut some of many negatives in this sentence!]. They
> >fiercely propose one 100% effective way of contraception: sexual
> >abstinence!
>
> Thank you.
>
> It is worth noting that there are an awful lot of 1, 2, and 3-child
> Catholic families thanks to NFP.

And lotsa surprises too.  The reality is that NFP only works well with a
fraction of the women...and the only way to be sure if your wife is one of
those women is to do the experiment.

The low success rate has been confirmed on this list, including our
resident physician.  The only way it can work well when practiced by a
representative sample of the population, is if most recent medical research
is wrong.

I figured that, if I were to use NFP and wanted a high chance of success,
we'd have no more than 10-15 possible days per year for sex.  And, of
course, those would be the days of the absolute least interest for my wife.

Dan M.


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

Re: Democrats

[Dave Land]

On Aug 10, 2004, at 3:47 PM, JDG wrote:
At 10:55 AM 8/9/2004 -0700 Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 8, 2004, at 11:45 AM, JDG wrote:
From an Economist/YouGov poll:
Only 36% of Democrats agree that life is better now for Iraqis than
under
Saddam Hussein.
51% of Democrats believe that US forces should be withdrawn from Iraq
"within the next few months."
This last result makes me very nervous as to what pressure John 
Kerry,
if
elected, will be under from within his own part to surrender to the
terrorists.
And so you gain some inkling of how it has been for the rest of us for
the past four years of Shrub and his no-bid contracts to destroy and
"rebuild" Iraq.
Come again?
You state that you are "very nervous as to what pressure JK will be 
under
from within his own party..." The rest of us (that is, people who 
continue
to /think/ about issues, rather than accept whatever BushCo tells us is
good for us and for the rest of the world) have been exceedingly nervous
as we actually *watch* a sitting president cater to every whim of his
paymasters.

It seems to me that this poll indicates that 36% of Democrats are 
seriously
detached from reality, and that a majority of Democrats favor 
surrendering
to the terrorists.
I am not entirely certain that bringing home soldiers who signed up to
defend America (and not Iraq) equals "surrendering to the terrorists."
I think a much better case can be made that allowing the terrorists to
dictate how we board aircraft, how we conduct our political conventions
and so forth is much more like "surrendering to the terrorists."
That is a serious problem,  a serious issue for the upcoming election, 
and
if you want to call it "questioning patriotism" - then so be it, 
because it
concerns me even more in this election than the abortion issue.
Did I call it that? Hmmm. I don't see it in my message. Perhaps you have
different kinds of rods or cones in your eyes, so you can see things in
my message that I didn't put there. Are you a bird, perhaps? A Horse?
The rearward portion of a Horse's anatomy?
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Travis Edmunds]

From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Objective Evil
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:12:10 +0100

even Velikovsky
Don't you just love it when someone scientifically explains 'manna from 
heaven'?

-Travis "it's a bird...it's a plane...it's Mars!!!" Edmunds
_
Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen 
Technology  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

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

Contraception

[JDG]

At 04:53 PM 8/9/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>> Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing
>> contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the
>> quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all
>> contraception, then that suggests a God with very little
>> understanding, compassion, or empathy for the human condition.
>> If that's true, then we're all thoroughly screwed. So,
>> "inconceivable" wouldn't be the right word, but "terrifying" might.
>>
>But the Catholic church is _not_ against contraception [ok: maybe
>it's time to cut some of many negatives in this sentence!]. They
>fiercely propose one 100% effective way of contraception: sexual
>abstinence!

Thank you.

It is worth noting that there are an awful lot of 1, 2, and 3-child
Catholic families thanks to NFP.

JDG

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

Avian Magnetic Vision (was Re: Horses)

[Dave Land]

On Aug 10, 2004, at 3:33 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Horses
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 21:25:13 + (UTC)
Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
... some types of birds have five types of cone cells, suggesting
that they can see colors we can't.
Can you tell us more?  This is deep.
Just asking a question here. Does anyone know or remember which type 
of bird navigates by actually 'looking at' the Earth's magnetic poles? 
Apparently they can actually see something like a red orb which they 
use as a landmark of sorts.
This  appears to be 
the source
of the image showing the "red orb" (the image appeared in the document 
labeled
"Graphs and Stuff" in Ronn's "Birds, was Horses" message of a couple of 
days ago.

I don't think the image was intended to suggest that birds actually see 
a red orb,
but to suggest that some kind of visual indication of magnetic 
orientation may be
incorporated into avian vision.

Dave
Tern for the Worse Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

[JDG]

At 04:51 PM 8/9/2004 +1000 Russell Chapman wrote:
>JDG wrote:
>> Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely believe
>> that God does not want us to engage in contraception?
>
>Well, yes - if there's no basis for it.
>No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high.

Come on, surely if God can regulate the eating of crustaceans and hoofed
animals, surely he can regulate contraception!

>Do they sincerely believe we shouldn't take vitamins? That we shouldn't 
>have remedial surgery. Why is some meddling with the body to improve 
>quality of life OK but other meddling not OK?

The Catholic Church objects to calling children an impediment to the
quality of life.  

>I was seriously asking how priests got involved in contraception. You 
>have proven so knowledgeable about the Catholic religion, and been able 
>to explain much that seemed a mystery to me in the past - I figured 
>there was a good chance you knew the answer...

Basically, since the time of Moses, the clerical class has regulated all
sorts of aspects of Judaeo-Christian life.   Heck, opposition to abortion
goes as far back as Hippocrates, so it is unsurprising that Jews and
Christians would adopt it and until the scientific discovery of ovum
and sperm, there probably wasn't much theological difference between
abortion and contraception.

JDG

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

Re: Democrats

[JDG]

At 10:55 AM 8/9/2004 -0700 Dave Land wrote:
>On Aug 8, 2004, at 11:45 AM, JDG wrote:
>
>>> From an Economist/YouGov poll:
>>
>> Only 36% of Democrats agree that life is better now for Iraqis than 
>> under
>> Saddam Hussein.
>>
>> 51% of Democrats believe that US forces should be withdrawn from Iraq
>> "within the next few months."
>>
>> This last result makes me very nervous as to what pressure John Kerry, 
>> if
>> elected, will be under from within his own part to surrender to the
>> terrorists.
>
>And so you gain some inkling of how it has been for the rest of us for
>the past four years of Shrub and his no-bid contracts to destroy and
>"rebuild" Iraq.

Come again?

It seems to me that this poll indicates that 36% of Democrats are seriously
detached from reality, and that a majority of Democrats favor surrendering
to the terrorists.

That is a serious problem,  a serious issue for the upcoming election, and
if you want to call it "questioning patriotism" - then so be it, because it
concerns me even more in this election than the abortion issue.

JDG

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

Re: Objective Evil

[JDG]

At 10:53 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 10:31 PM
>Subject: Re: Objective Evil
>
>
>> At 10:14 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
>> >> >>And dropping bombs on Saddam Hussein's armies was not evil.
>> >> >
>> >> >So, the action of killing conscripts of Hussein, many of whom are
>there
>> >> >because they had no choice, in inherently an acceptable action?
>> >
>> >> You are changing the subject.   Not once have I ever said that it was
>> >> "inherently acceptable", I merely said that it was *not* "inherently
>> >> evil."
>> >
>> >but you also said:
>> >
>> >The killing of innocent people is an objective evil.   (True)
>> >
>> >So, the logical conclusion is that you believe that the soldiers in
>> >Hussein's army are not innocent because they accepted their conscription
>> >instead of death or torture.  Is that it?
>>
>> Yes, I do not believe that they are "innocent."   I think that even you
>> would describe them as having chosen the "lesser evil", would you not?
>In
>> which, case, they are still engaging in evil.
>
>As I would think of anyone who engages in killing.  Killing another human
>being is an inherently evil act.  You are arguing that the end justifies
>the means.  War cannot be justified as an end in itself, it must be
>justified by another end.

I disagree that killing anorther human being is an inherently evil act.
Killing an innocent human being directly (murder) is an inherently evil act.

If, however, killing another human being is an inherently evil act, then I
would be guilty of a mortal sin by taking a vacation and ordering
take-out-pizza instead of sending all of my consumption spending to assist
refugees in Darfur or fund mosquito nets in Congo.   

>As an aside; do you agree with the bishops that our nuclear deterrent was
>inherently evil and should not have existed?

My personal opinion - No.   

JDG

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

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[JDG]

At 10:05 AM 8/10/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
>Last week, the administration was desperate to justify their decision
>to raise the threat level to orange in three states based on activity
>that occurred over three years ago. National Security Advisor
>Condoleezza Rice admitted yesterday that the administration - during a
>background briefing to reporters - identified Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan
>as the source of the information that prompted the terror alert.[2]
>According to Reuters, Khan "had been actively cooperating with
>intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name
>appeared in U.S. newspapers"[3] His identification by the
>administration likely "cost the United States a valuable source."[4]

Apologies from Democrats for playing politics with the Terror Warnings were
not forthcoming.

JDG

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

Re: Objective Evil

[JDG]

At 04:50 PM 8/9/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote:
>Please explain, then, how any war can be "just," since
>it is inevitable that innocents will be killed, maimed
>and left bereft by.

Deborah,

I could say the same thing about automobiles. does that mean that
driving automobiles is an evil act, since it is inevitable that driving
automobiles leaves innocents killed, maimed, and left bereft?

I use the same logic with a "just war" - intent matters.

JDG


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

RE: Objective Evil

[Horn, John]

> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> 
> And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning 
> question marks on peoples' lawns...

And there's the one about how when Unitarians die they go to the
"Great Whatever".

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

Re: Horses

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Horses
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 21:25:13 + (UTC)
Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
... some types of birds have five types of cone cells, suggesting
that they can see colors we can't.
Can you tell us more?  This is deep.
Just asking a question here. Does anyone know or remember which type of bird 
navigates by actually 'looking at' the Earth's magnetic poles? Apparently 
they can actually see something like a red orb which they use as a landmark 
of sorts.

-Travis "too many documentaries" Edmunds
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

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

RE: Objective Evil

[Horn, John]

> Behalf Of The Fool
> --
> From: Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>> They certainly don't consider themselves Christian or at least
don't
>> call themselves that.

> If you are referring to JW's here you are quite mistaken.

According to my sisters-in-law (who are JW's), I'm not.

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

Re: Birds, was Horses

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:20 PM Tuesday 8/10/04, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote that he created
... charts of the area around the constellation Orion showing what
it would look like to each of those (based only on the
sensitivity)
I could not figure out how to do this until Ronn reminded me that a
computerized sky chart program enables one to set different limiting
magnitudes.  I do this all the time in order to compare what I will
see in my light polluted area with my naked eye and 50 mm binoculars.
Sad to say, I did not include cats and owls in the same thought
pattern as sky charts!

To be fair, I'm not sure when I thought of it, either, but I don't think it 
was the first time I encountered a computerized sky chart program or a cat, 
either . . .

;-)

Ronn suggested the following limiting magnitudes:
4.5 for a human in a light-polluted area;

That may be pushing it.  For someone who doesn't know the sky, 3.5 might be 
more realistic.  For someone living near downtown, 2.5 or even less might 
be better.


6.5 for a human with a dark sky;
8.3 for a cat with a dark sky, since a cat's eyes are
6 times as sensitive as a human;
   11.5 for an owl with a dark sky, since an owl's eyes are
100 times as sensitive as a human.


Did you get the graphic I sent you off-list?

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Birds, was Horses

[Robert J. Chassell]

Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote that he created

... charts of the area around the constellation Orion showing what
it would look like to each of those (based only on the
sensitivity)

I could not figure out how to do this until Ronn reminded me that a
computerized sky chart program enables one to set different limiting
magnitudes.  I do this all the time in order to compare what I will
see in my light polluted area with my naked eye and 50 mm binoculars.
Sad to say, I did not include cats and owls in the same thought
pattern as sky charts!

Ronn suggested the following limiting magnitudes:

4.5 for a human in a light-polluted area;

6.5 for a human with a dark sky;

8.3 for a cat with a dark sky, since a cat's eyes are
6 times as sensitive as a human;

   11.5 for an owl with a dark sky, since an owl's eyes are
100 times as sensitive as a human.

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

Re: What Kerry Did on 9/11

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Kerry Did on 9/11
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 18:08:10 -0500

...people will cling to a comfortable lie with ease

...and it is something we should all should strive to remove from our 
repertoire.
Do you mean that generally or context-specific?
-Travis
_
Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® 
SmartScreen Technology. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

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

Re: Scouted: Project for an Old American Century

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:58 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, The Fool wrote:
<>
--
"There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury,
ammo. Use in that order. Starting now."

Heinlein?

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:46 AM Tuesday 8/10/04, Nick Arnett wrote:
And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning question marks 
on peoples' lawns...

Golden ones?

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Every Single Sperm

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:53 AM Monday 8/9/04, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Steve Sloan wrote:
>
> Because in my (and many other people's) opinion, opposing
> contraception is a bad idea that would drastically lower the
> quality of life for almost everyone. If God opposes all
> contraception, then that suggests a God with very little
> understanding, compassion, or empathy for the human condition.
> If that's true, then we're all thoroughly screwed. So,
> "inconceivable" wouldn't be the right word, but "terrifying" might.
>
But the Catholic church is _not_ against contraception [ok: maybe
it's time to cut some of many negatives in this sentence!]. They
fiercely propose one 100% effective way of contraception: sexual
abstinence!

Between partners in a heterosexual marriage in which both husband and wife 
are faithful Catholics?


-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Celsius 4/88.888...

[Alberto Monteiro]

I am glad I did _not_ waste my money in that. I have just read an
analysis of the... hmm... movie(?) that exposes it as a mosaic of
lies and misinformation.

Alberto Monteiro

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

Re: [L3 ] Re: Jesus-anity and the status of women

[William T Goodall]

On 10 Aug 2004, at 8:02 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:
However you seem to have proved me wrong.
It's nice you can admit that. There are some people on this list who 
would argue black was white rather than admit they were mistaken about 
anything...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any 
idiot is going to run it."  -  Warren Buffet

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

Re: [L3 ] Re: Jesus-anity and the status of women

[Travis Edmunds]

"Be mild with the mild, shrewd with the crafty, confiding to the honest, 
rough to the ruffian, and a thunderbolt to the liar. But in all this, never 
be unmindful of your own dignity."

--John Brown--
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [L3 ] Re: Jesus-anity and the status of women
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:26:45 +0100
On 6 Aug 2004, at 6:24 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:

Sick gobbledygook.
You do yourself, the position you espouse, and the rest of your ilk a 
great disservice by broadcasting such an idiosyncratic predilection 
towards that which you so conspicuously abhor. In fact, your words are so 
laden with the pomposity that only a fundamentalist can bring to the table 
that I have a difficult time taking you seriously.
LOL.
Good one Bill. Cowering. Hiding in obscurity. The refuge of incompetence.
'lol'...
You find that a little contrived don't you? My above paragraph that is. You 
have, floating about in your head, this idea that I tried ever so hard to 
bring my best to the table. That I tried ever so hard to impress upon you 
and everyone else that I'm good. That I'm a smart guy. That I can write...

Well Bill, now it's my turn - LOL!!!
And as my father would say - you're as useless as the tits on a bull (use a 
little imagination on that one).

Now I won't lie to you Bill. I put a little effort into it. No doubt about 
that. In fact, if memory serves (there I go again...gettin' all fancy), it 
took me about ten minutes to write that entire post. I sat down, took a 
minute or two to figure out exactly what I wanted to say and then I started 
to type. About five or so minutes later...BANG...I had a post. Another few 
minutes of silent review and...BANG...you had an e-mail from yours truly.

But where is the effort in that, you might ask? Well Bill, it's in my frame 
of mind. A frame of mind where I purposely, though not contrivedly, write a 
particular way. And I sometimes write that way for one express purpose - 
fun. I like to have fun with words. Why? Because I can. Mind you, I'm not 
really doing that now; even though I am having fun. In fact all I'm doing as 
you're reading this is writing. Writing without thinking (if that makes any 
sense to you...and it probably doesn't...poor ole fella...). Anyway the 
thing is, you can take a look at my archived posts and deduce for yourself 
everything that I've just stated. And that is...well... why don't you tell 
me Mr. William T. Not-So-Goodall...?

I wrote:

Especially when taking into consideration the hypocritical nature of your 
seemingly whimsical comments. For a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is 
a fundamentalist! Whether they be religious or secular...

Willie wrote:

Maybe you should use a dictionary instead of a thesaurus. 'Fundamentalist - 
one who believes in the literal truth of the Bible, against evolution etc.'
Maybe you should try to retain a little dignity and not slap yourself in the 
face while attempting to do just that to me. Have a little respect for 
yourself! And (Good heavens!!! I started a sentence with a conjunction!!! I 
must be an ape...) seeing as how we're on the topic of respect, I'd like to 
let you in on a little secret - I merely reciprocate what's shown to me.

Moving on...
A definition of a fundamentalist. That's...ah...just...ah... great Bill... 
Just great...

You are correct though. In the context in which I used the word - 
fundamentalist - I was saying that one who believes in the literal truth of 
the Bible, against evolution etc, believes in the literal truth of the 
Bible, against evolution etc, believes in the literal truth of the Bible, 
against evolution etc...(Get it? No?didn't think so. I'm sure someone 
will)

You're worse off than I originally thought! I mean, do you not have ANY 
capacity whatsoever to think outside of the proverbial box? Perhaps that's 
not your problem though. Perhaps you're just a little too 'high & mighty' if 
ya know what I mean? Either way it doesn't matter much as you've already 
made yourself look like a complete ass. All I'm doing is enjoying the ride!

But listen up hot shot (Many people might say the same about me. Funny.). 
I'm gonna tackle your little definition thingy. And first of all I'd like to 
know why you did that. Why?

Is it that I'm correct and you just never knew the difference? Or are you 
playing the abstract game with me? I honestly hope it's the latter. But I 
sincerely doubt it...

Anyway, seeing as how most people here don't like to play the abstract game 
(although there is a sleeper amongst us who's pretty darn good!), I'll stick 
to the cement so to speak (PLEASE!!! Tell me you get that one Bill 
Please).

You'll notice Bill, that my post ended with the following:
(...For a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist! Whether 
they be religious or secular...

Travis "...or fundamentally fundamental" Edmunds)
The 

ShrubCo's Outing of Mole Allowed al-Qaida Suspects to Escape

[The Fool]

<<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&u=/ap/20040810/ap_on_re_as
/pakistan_intelligence_leak_2&printer=1>>

Leak Allowed al-Qaida Suspects to Escape 

Tue Aug 10, 8:23 AM ET 

By MUNIR AHMAD, Associated Press Writer 

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The disclosure to reporters of the arrest of an
al-Qaida computer expert allowed several wanted suspects from Osama bin
Laden ( - )'s terror network to escape, government and security officials
said Tuesday. 
  

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer, was
nabbed in a July 13 raid in the eastern city of Lahore. He then led
Pakistani authorities to a key al-Qaida figure and cooperated secretly by
sending e-mails to terrorists so investigators could trace their
locations. 


His arrest was first reported in American newspapers on Aug. 2 after it
was disclosed to reporters by U.S. officials in Washington. Later, the
Pakistan government also confirmed his capture but gave no other details.



Two senior Pakistani officials said the reports in "Western media"
enabled other al-Qaida suspects to get away. 


"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some
al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of
anonymity. 


National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ( - ) acknowledged Sunday that
Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on
background," meaning that it could be published, but the information
could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it. 


The Pakistani officials said that after Khan's arrest, other al-Qaida
suspects abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places. 


The first official described the publication of the news of Khan's arrest
as "very disturbing." 


"We have checked. No Pakistani official made this intelligence leak," he
said. 


Without naming any country, he said it was the responsibility of
"coalition partners" to examine how a foreign journalist was able to have
an access to the "classified information" about Khan's arrest. 


The official refused to comment whether any U.S. official was responsible
for the leak. 


On Monday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer ( - ), D-N.Y., asked the White House
to explain why the name of Khan was revealed. 


The disclosure on Aug. 1 came as the Bush administration was defending
its decision to warn about possible attacks against U.S. financial
buildings in New York, Washington and Newark, N.J. 


White House spokesman Scott McClellan cautioned Monday that information
may be more limited about future raids against al-Qaida suspects. 


Khan led authorities to Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani — a Tanzanian with a $25
million American bounty on his head for his suspected involvement in the
1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in east Africa — and the capture of about
20 other al-Qaida suspects. The arrests also prompted a series of raids
in Britain and uncovered past al-Qaida surveillance in the United States.



Pakistani officials over the weekend have said they are searching for two
North Africans: Abu Farj, a Libyan, and Hamza, an Egyptian, who are
believed to have spent some time in Pakistan with Ghailani. 


A Pakistani security official, who also spoke on the condition of
anonymity, said Tuesday that despite failing to capture some al-Qaida
suspects after Khan's arrest, the country's security agencies were
chasing them and would eventually get them. 


The official would not reveal the names or nationalities of the fugitives
who evaded arrest. 

Ghailani and Khan are still in the custody of Pakistan — a key ally of
the United States in its war on terrorism. 

Officials say Ghailani and Khan's computer contained photographs of
potential targets in the United States and Britain, including London's
Heathrow Airport and underpasses beneath London buildings. 

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said in a newspaper interview
that his country had been "90 percent" successful in nabbing suspects in
a number of high-profile attacks. 

"We have achieved an unprecedented 90 percent success to unearth elements
involved in terrorist attacks against myself, prime minister-in-waiting
Shaukat Aziz and in other high-profile cases," Musharraf was quoted as
saying by The News, a Pakistani English-language daily, Musharraf. 

Pakistan has seen a string of bombings and suicide attacks over the past
year, including two suicide bombings by Islamic militants that the
president narrowly escaped in December, and another last month targeting
Aziz, the current finance minister and prime minister designate. Aziz was
unhurt but seven others were killed in that attack. 

--
Fox News in April, instructs employees how to report on the increasing
number of American fatalities in Iraq: ''Do not fall into the easy trap
of mourning the loss of U.S. lives''  -- NYT

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

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Dave Land]

On Aug 10, 2004, at 7:56 AM, Gary Denton wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:47:12 -0700, Nick Arnett 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gary Denton wrote:
The CIA uses very few agents which have been set up with expensive
cover employment in CIA front companies.
This statistic is published somewhere?
Nick
Part of Josh Marshall's look at the Valerie Plame case from months ago.
Now I know they do use a surprising amount of part-timers who are
business executives who are asked to do things or note their
impressions while in foreign countries.
As anyone who read Chuck Barris's memoir "Confessions of a Dangerous 
Mind"
(or saw George Clooney's loopy film adaptation) can tell you.

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

Scouted: Project for an Old American Century

[The Fool]

<>

--
"There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury,
ammo. Use in that order. Starting now."

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

Re: Objective Evil

[Julia Randolph]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:46:24 -0700, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Denton wrote:
> 
> >  Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs
> > this is a matter of great fun for me.
> 
> Then you get should the joke... A Unitarian dies and finds himself
> facing a sign that says "Heaven," with an arrow pointing to the right,
> and "Discussion of Heaven," with an arrow pointing to the left.  The
> Unitarian goes to the left, of course.

Q:  What do you get when you cross a Unitarian with a Jehovah's Witness?

A:  Someone who goes door to door for no particular reason.
 
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Gary Denton]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:46:24 -0700, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Denton wrote:
> 
> >  Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs
> > this is a matter of great fun for me.
> 
> Then you get should the joke... A Unitarian dies and finds himself
> facing a sign that says "Heaven," with an arrow pointing to the right,
> and "Discussion of Heaven," with an arrow pointing to the left.  The
> Unitarian goes to the left, of course.

Of course, I'm with Samuel Clemens on Heaven.  A discussion of heaven
with coffee would be a lot more fun.  Ahhh, coffee - the UU holy
sacrament.

http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Mark_Twain/Captain_Stormfields_Visit_to_Heaven/
> 
> I'll add that my family went to a Unitarian church till I was 12 or so,
> and my parents resumed going to one in North Carolina (where Unitarians
> are generally viewed with great suspicion, I'm sure).  My sister was
> married a couple of years ago in the one we attended as kids (which now
> has one Nobel Laureate among its membership).
> 
> And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning question marks
> on peoples' lawns...

Only with proper permits and following the community fire codes.

> 
> Nick

Gary
-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Gary Denton]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:40:44 -0500, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:36:48 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 03:59 PM 7/10/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
> > >How can you associate yourself with someone treasonous like Robert
> > >Novak - who outs a deep cover CIA agent under the direction of this
> > >administration for petty partisan differences?
> >
> > Deep Cover?  Yes, she was "under cover" in some sense, but it is a slight
> > exaggeration to call it "deep cover."

THEY DID IT AGAIN

ADMINISTRATION EXPOSES SECRET SOURCE 

The Department of Justice has strenuously argued that it could not
release the names of detainees - even those who had not been charged
or accused of terrorism - because doing so would harm national
security. In a sworn affidavit, James Reynolds, then a top Justice
Department official, argued that when people detained as part of a
terrorist investigation are publicly identified, "terrorist
organizations with whom they have a connection may refuse to deal
further with them. This could eliminate valuable sources of
information for the investigation. It would similarly impair the
government's ability to infiltrate terrorist organizations engaged in
ongoing criminal activities."[1] Apparently, this does not apply if
the disclosure suits the administration's political agenda.

Last week, the administration was desperate to justify their decision
to raise the threat level to orange in three states based on activity
that occurred over three years ago. National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice admitted yesterday that the administration - during a
background briefing to reporters - identified Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan
as the source of the information that prompted the terror alert.[2]
According to Reuters, Khan "had been actively cooperating with
intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name
appeared in U.S. newspapers"[3] His identification by the
administration likely "cost the United States a valuable source."[4]


Sources: 

1. "James Reynolds Affidavit," Chief, Terrorism and Violent Crime
Section, Criminal Division, DOJ,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1294611&l=49598.
2. "CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer," CNN, 08/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1294611&l=49599.
3. "Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation," MSNBC, 08/06/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1294611&l=49600.
4. "U.S. Says Man Had Ties to Plot to Disrupt Vote," New York Times,
8/8/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1294611&l=49601.

MORE

Juan Cole looks at growing anger over U.S. handing of the identity of
double agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, whose "outing" may have
"prevented the capture of bin Laden" and was "a monumental foreign
relations blunder," a security analyst tells Reuters. A New York Daily
News story says the motive was "apparently to justify the orange
alert." Newsweek reports that "Senior Pakistani officials expect that
Al Qaeda will replace Khan easily enough."

http://www.juancole.com/2004_08_01_juancole_archive.html#109198359051366237
http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=560866
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/v-pfriendly/story/219869p-188947c.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5636688/site/newsweek/

>From the Scaife funded very right wing NewsMax:

Leak Allowed al-Qaida Suspects to Escape 
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2004 
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan â The disclosure to reporters of the arrest of an
al-Qaida computer expert allowed several wanted suspects from Osama
bin Laden's terror network to escape, government and security
officials said Tuesday.

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer,
was nabbed in a July 13 raid in the eastern city of Lahore. He then
led Pakistani authorities to a key al-Qaida figure and cooperated
secretly by sending e-mails to terrorists so investigators could trace
their locations.

"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan, and some
al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of
anonymity.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice acknowledged Sunday that
Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on
background," meaning that it could be published, but the information
could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/10/101606.shtml

gary
-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Gary Denton]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:47:12 -0700, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Denton wrote:
> 
> > The CIA uses very few agents which have been set up with expensive
> > cover employment in CIA front companies.
> 
> This statistic is published somewhere?
> 
> Nick

Part of Josh Marshall's look at the Valerie Plame case from months ago.

Now I know they do use a surprising amount of part-timers who are
business executives who are asked to do things or note their
impressions while in foreign countries.

Gary
-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Nick Arnett]

Gary Denton wrote:
The CIA uses very few agents which have been set up with expensive
cover employment in CIA front companies.
This statistic is published somewhere?
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Nick Arnett]

Gary Denton wrote:
 Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs
this is a matter of great fun for me.
Then you get should the joke... A Unitarian dies and finds himself 
facing a sign that says "Heaven," with an arrow pointing to the right, 
and "Discussion of Heaven," with an arrow pointing to the left.  The 
Unitarian goes to the left, of course.

I'll add that my family went to a Unitarian church till I was 12 or so, 
and my parents resumed going to one in North Carolina (where Unitarians 
are generally viewed with great suspicion, I'm sure).  My sister was 
married a couple of years ago in the one we attended as kids (which now 
has one Nobel Laureate among its membership).

And then there's the one about radical Unitarians burning question marks 
on peoples' lawns...

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

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Gary Denton]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:36:48 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:59 PM 7/10/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
> >How can you associate yourself with someone treasonous like Robert
> >Novak - who outs a deep cover CIA agent under the direction of this
> >administration for petty partisan differences?
> 
> Deep Cover?  Yes, she was "under cover" in some sense, but it is a slight
> exaggeration to call it "deep cover."
> 
> As I've said before, "deep cover agents" simply aren't married to
> ambassadors.

You might tell that to a judge:

The disclosure of a covert CIA officer's name could be a felony
punishable by up to 10 years in prison if it was done intentionally by
an official who knew the government was trying to maintain the agent's
cover.

The CIA uses very few agents which have been set up with expensive
cover employment in CIA front companies.

Gary
-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Big Media

[William T Goodall]

On 10 Aug 2004, at 2:45 pm, The Fool wrote:
<>
My Beef With Big Media How government protects big media--and shuts out
upstarts like me.
By Ted Turner
Robert Seeberger already posted this as 'The Rise Of Big Media' on the 
4th of August.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever 
that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the 
majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish 
than sensible."
- Bertrand Russell

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

Big Media

[The Fool]

<>
My Beef With Big Media How government protects big media--and shuts out
upstarts like me. 
By Ted Turner 

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

Re: Every Single Sperm

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

The Fool wrote:
From: Julia Randolph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 05:20:12 -0500, The Fool wrote:
   

From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Russell Chapman wrote:
   

JDG wrote:
 

At 10:32 AM 8/7/2004 +0200 Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
   

When it threatened to decrease the number of flock considerably
 

or
 

more to the point when contraception started interfering with
 

the
 

power base of the holy church.
 

Is it so inconceivable that maybe - just maybe - they sincerely
   

believe
 

that God does not want us to engage in contraception?
   

Well, yes - if there's no basis for it.
No scriptures, no tablets handed down from on high.
Do they sincerely believe we shouldn't take vitamins? That we
shouldn't have remedial surgery. Why is some meddling with the
 

body
 

to
 

improve quality of life OK but other meddling not OK?
 

Enter 'Jehova's witnesses'. NO MEDDLING with the body. Not even to
   

save
 

a childs life or to prevent serious and detrimental health problems
(even in babies and little children) by as simple a thing as
   

vaccination
 

by oral injestion of vaccin.
   

They really still teach that in Europe?  I know they have backed down
 

on
 

most of those here in the U.S. with the exception of blood
 

transfusions.
 

I'm guessing they backed down on those because of the pressure of
lawsuits.
 

There's also the issue of immunizations being required by law if
children are going to public school.  If you don't immunize your child
without good medical reason, the child cannot enroll in public school.
And it's not as easy to home-school children in some states as it is
in others.
   

As far as I know, they ended the vaccination nonsense in the U.S. in the
late forties / early fifties.  I also think they adopted a policy in the
1960's equating organ transplantation as cannibalism, which they slowly
abandoned, in the U.S. anyway.  

 

Situation is still very strict here, but there are many shades of the 
religious. Refusing vaccination on grounds of religious believes is 
allowed and still very much an issue. There have been numerous studies 
to see if there is enough vaccination percentage (even in the very 
religious reformed regions) in the country to keep the vaccination 
program effective. So far it hasn't been a problem so the attitude is 
relaxed.

The only exception to this is polio vaccinations. I believe that the 
religious have backed down on that.

Sonja
GCU: It's very hot and there is going to be a big rain shower soon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Gary Denton]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 05:49:26 -0500, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:20:04 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > JDG wrote:
> > >
> > > At 05:56 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> > > >> In the meantime, it is a bit grating for an office-holder of another
> > > >> Church, a Church whose raison d'etre is opposition to Catholicism,
> > > >
> > > >no,  the raison d'etre is following Jesus, the Christ, the son of the
> > > >living God.
> > >
> > > But following it in a way that is not consistent with the way the Catholic
> > > Church is following it.
> > >
> > > Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol "C", not a lowercase
> > > "c."   After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they
> > > believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church?
> >
> > It's in the Nicene creed.  ("Holy, catholic and apostolic church" is
> > what is said in the Episcopal church in the US.  I suppose I could go
> > upstairs and see what it is they say in New Zealand; I was given a New
> > Zealand prayerbook as a present)
> >
> > Are there some groups of Christians that don't adhere to the Nicene
> > creed?  If so, what is their belief on this matter?
> > 
> Yes, but they are heretics.
> 
> 
> > (Was the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split over the Nicene creed?
> 
> Yes, among other things including what type of Wonder Bread to use.
> This is the filioque question - rather to add from the Father "and the
> Son" to strengthen the Trinity position.
> 
> > Was there some other split over the Nicene creed?  What were the points
> > of contention?)
> 
> Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 to combat the more popular (me- and
> more correct!) Arianism as well as the more sensible Sabbellianism and
> the Creed was expanded and reaffirmed in 381.  Other councils were
> held in 431and 451 to outlaw other politically incorrect positions. In
> 569 they added the filioque clause.  The Easter Churchs, in a more
 ^Eastern

> biblical fundamentalist position, said the Bible says from the Father.
> Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs
> this is a matter of great fun for me.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >Julia


Gary  --  Some kind of Freudian slip maru

> --
> #2 on google for liberal news
> "I don't try harder"
>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[Gary Denton]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 19:20:04 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JDG wrote:
> >
> > At 05:56 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> > >> In the meantime, it is a bit grating for an office-holder of another
> > >> Church, a Church whose raison d'etre is opposition to Catholicism,
> > >
> > >no,  the raison d'etre is following Jesus, the Christ, the son of the
> > >living God.
> >
> > But following it in a way that is not consistent with the way the Catholic
> > Church is following it.
> >
> > Look, I am explicitly using Catholic with a capitol "C", not a lowercase
> > "c."   After all, isn't it a basic truism of all Christians that they
> > believe that they are members of the true, universal, catholic Church?
> 
> It's in the Nicene creed.  ("Holy, catholic and apostolic church" is
> what is said in the Episcopal church in the US.  I suppose I could go
> upstairs and see what it is they say in New Zealand; I was given a New
> Zealand prayerbook as a present)
> 
> Are there some groups of Christians that don't adhere to the Nicene
> creed?  If so, what is their belief on this matter?
> 
Yes, but they are heretics.


> (Was the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split over the Nicene creed?

Yes, among other things including what type of Wonder Bread to use. 
This is the filioque question - rather to add from the Father "and the
Son" to strengthen the Trinity position.

> Was there some other split over the Nicene creed?  What were the points
> of contention?)

Nicene Creed was formulated in 325 to combat the more popular (me- and
more correct!) Arianism as well as the more sensible Sabbellianism and
the Creed was expanded and reaffirmed in 381.  Other councils were
held in 431and 451 to outlaw other politically incorrect positions. In
569 they added the filioque clause.  The Easter Churchs, in a more
biblical fundamentalist position, said the Bible says from the Father.
 Since I am a UU - formed from the merger of two creedless churchs
this is a matter of great fun for me.

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


-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[William T Goodall]

On 10 Aug 2004, at 2:08 am, The Fool wrote:
--
From: Horn, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you!  (I presume you meant "immersion.")
Now for the big question:  are they Christians?
They certainly don't consider themselves Christian or at least don't
call themselves that.

If you are referring to JW's here you are quite mistaken.
The Jehovah's Witnesses are Arianist millennialist Christians.
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Aerospace is plumbing with the volume turned up." - John Carmack
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Objective Evil

[William T Goodall]

On 9 Aug 2004, at 6:05 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Damon Agretto wrote:
What I mean by "follow your own voice" is to define
for yourself what it means to be faithful and
Christian. Obviously to be a Christian you would have
to be a follower of the teachings and philosophy of
Jesus.
No, I think that's not enough, otherwise Muslims - who
claim to follow the teachings and philosophy of Jesus,
the penultimate Prophet - would be Christians.
That could be resolved if Christians are those who believe that Jesus 
was the last prophet. Since Muslims believe Muhammad superseded Jesus 
they are not Christians.

This does mean that the LDS are not Christians...maybe Smithians :)
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any 
idiot is going to run it."  -  Warren Buffet

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

Re: the new Bush ad : I don't see any morphing...

[Gary Denton]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:40:35 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:06 PM 8/8/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote:
> >> JDG wrote:
> >> >
> >> > At 05:48 PM 7/10/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
> >> > >In it's first day, Fahrenheit 9/11 became the most popular documentary
> >> > >ever made.  Before it opened it won the most coveted and prestigious
> >> > >award at the world's most prestigious film festival.
> >> >
> >> > Amazing that you managed to say all that without using the word
> >"French."
> >> > I don't think that it is even arguable that it won this award based on
> >> > politics and not on film-making merit.
> >> >
> >> >  In it's first
> >> > >week it was the number one movie in the country.  It will be one of
> >> > >the top ten most popular films of the year, and this for a
> >> > >documentary.  It is a leading contender for the Oscars.  Over four out
> >> > >of five American film critics recommend the film.  There have been
> >> > >lines to get in to see the film in all states, not just Gore country.
> >> >
> >> > This is false.   They aren't even releasing this movie in "Bush
> >country."
> >> > To the extent that it is being released in Red States, it is being
> >released
> >> > in Democrat-heavy areas of those States, such as around major
> >universities.
> >
> >Have you looked in the papers to see where the movie is playing in Bush
> >states?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Also, the above statement is taken from the film's distributor.
> 
> JDG

It played in Deer Park and Pasadena Texas - deeply Bush territory.

It has played longer and is still playing in urban intellectual areas.

I should go cite please but skip it.  

I don't even know what your posting is about except you want to toss
in some French bashing which I am continuing to find amusing in a
perplexing way.

I suppose the fifteen million people who paid money to see it here
must wear berets.

I had a list of links from Alabama newspapers all reporting about
lines to see the movie in their communities I had in reference to the
post but this thread is old and i'll skip it.

I am more interested in OutFoxed now which did have showings at two
Houston universities but I was busy both nights.

Gary  
-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Re: Bush, Kerry Are Far Apart on How Raising Taxes on 'Rich' Pans Out

[Gary Denton]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 15:00:27 -0400, Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 03:51:18 -0400, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Yes, Subchapter S companies pay taxes on profits at individual income
> >tax rates. But the bulk of small businesses, farmers and ranchers
> >don't make enough to fall into top brackets. They won't pay more under
> >Mr. Kerry's plan. And I've never understood the case for taxing a
> >farmer, rancher or small-business owner who clears $500,000 differently
> >than a corporate executive, lawyer or ballplayer who earns $500,000.
> 
> I'm guessing Bush's argument here is that the $500K  ends
> up paying the tax, and it's the uber-rich $10M CEO/ballplayer that can
> hire the accounts to beat paying the taxes.  Still, it's a pretty lame argument
> to say "well, they'll get around paying the tax anyway, so we shouldn't
> bother".
> 
> Honestly - if it's such a certainty that they'll get around paying their taxes
> that he can use it as an argument against the taxes, wouldn't a better tactic
> be to rework the tax laws to remove those holes?
> 
I heard Bush's argument from the left side several weeks ago when I
explained that all the outpouring of support came from the true Reagan
fans - those who appreciated a top rate 28%  which was a huge, huge
cut.  He said BS, they have accountants and never pay those rates.  I
thought that was a stupid argument and hearing Bush say it just
confirms it.

Gary

-- 
#2 on google for liberal news
"I don't try harder"
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l