Re: Peaceful change
Dan, In short, he has drawn a line between dictators, terrorists and their cronies and everyone else. A line he erases by saying You are either with us or with the terrorists. I don't see the line, Dan. Rather than dictators, terrorists and their cronies, he named whole countries the Axis of Evil. I wish what you said was true, but your editing of the President and my wishes can't change the fact that this is a guy whose first thought was to call his program for Iraq a crusade. That's not the way to start peaceful change. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I feel angry when anyone bring up inaction or doing nothing, etc., in this thread. Nobody is suggesting doing nothing. But there are times when Except for Nick. something seems terribly wrong by human standards, but God asked us to let events unfold, rather than insisting on unfolding them our way. Our notion of control gets us in plenty of trouble, partly because we imagine that we are in control! The presumption that only we, the United States, can minimize the ... Good heavens, Dan, we can *always* count on God to intervene, my faith tells me. Without God's constant, total involvement, all of creation would come to a halt and we would cease to exist. The question is not whether God is involved, the question is what God is asking of us as the body of Christ. Do you believe that God is constantly involved, constantly present? Do you believe that sometimes we need to intervene because God isn't doing so? ... of the majority of Christians around the world? Would you agree that democracy is a good system not because people are good, but because we have such capacity for wrong-doing? When the majority of churches and Christians around the world are telling us that what we are about to do is wrong, and leaders that represent a huge number of them present an alternative, how can you say there is no evidence? Wow, over the past few years we have got to witness religious brainwashing in action. Nick used to have a few out there episodes occasionally, but my goodness, now religion has had more time to work and we can see the results. Religion has put Nick into permanent fantasy land. Look kids, this is your brain. This is religion. This is your brain on religion. Any questions? Are they fools? Yes. And they seem an awful lot like you. I couldn't ignore this thread any long, since I've been called by the invisible pink unicorns to spread the word about the horrors of religious brainwashing. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
At 08:52 PM Saturday 4/16/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: Good heavens, Dan, we can *always* count on God to intervene, my faith tells me. Without God's constant, total involvement, all of creation would come to a halt and we would cease to exist. The question is not whether God is involved, the question is what God is asking of us as the body of Christ. Do you believe that God is constantly involved, constantly present? Do you believe that sometimes we need to intervene because God isn't doing so? What about the idea that the Lord helps those who help themselves? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JDG Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:07 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis There are people -- I'm assuming that JDG is one of them -- who believe that abortion is intrinsically evil: that there is no such thing as a just abortion. Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception That's debatable. One second you have a sperm cell and an egg cell, the next second they have merged. What makes the new cell human life? It doesn't have a brain, it isn't sentient, so it doesn't qualify as human life. If you consider that single new cell to be human life and killing that cell intrinsically evil, then you can't even scratch an itch because in the process you'll scrape off and kill several skin cells. This may sound ridiculous, but with your reasoning even scratching that itch is intrinsically evil. -murder, the intentional killing of an innocent, is intrinsically evil -abortion is intrinsically evil Example 1: A foetus is found to have so many defects that it will die shortly after birth. As abortion is intrinsically evil in your opinion, you'd force the parents to sit out the entire pregnancy, knowing that their child will die right after birth. You are thereby prolonging the suffering of the parents. Now *that* is evil. Example 2: During a pregnancy something goes wrong, which leads to the situation that the mother will almost certainly die during childbirth. As abortion (which would save the woman's life) is intrinsically evil IYO you are condemning the woman to death. Now *that* is evil. It's not abortion that is intrinsically evil, it's views like the one you're spouting here that are intrinsically evil. Not to mention short-sighted and narrow-minded. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:08 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, John DeBudge wrote: On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone else has read The Mythical Man-Month, I see . . . I really wish the only experience I had in that subject was from a book. So do we all . . . Oh, I don't know about that. If the only experience is from that book plus Dilbert cartoons, it's not so bad. :D Of course, living with someone who's had RL experience with it gives you a different perspective than those (especially when it's happening), and I'm sure actually living it is even worse. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:16:11 +, Maru Dubshinki wrote That is sarcasm, correct? Because seriously proposing that the universe has no independent existence from a supreme deity is a stance I believe is called pan-theism, and I gather from other things you have written that your 'faith' is not a pantheistic sect. It was not sarcasm and it is not pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that all things *are* God, the worship of everything, not that God is omni-present and constantly involved, yet separate. A lot of people believe that creation, in the Bible, was a six-day event. But most forms of Christianty actually teach that creation is ongoing, that God is always present and involved, even though our awareness of God's presence comes and goes. The rather dismal view that God set the universe in motion and then stepped back to watch what would happen, intervening occasionally to reward the good and punish the bad, got a lot of support from science during the the Enlightenment, as people began to see that self-regulating mechanical systems were possible. The clockworks view of God was quite disturbing to many theologians, as was evolution similarly; on the surface, it seemed to eliminate the need for God's presence. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Hello', said the Ostrich, to the Administration
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:18:33 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote That's all I'm doing for now about it. I'm tired and I want to go to bed, but there's something I want to figure out first, and I need to find the right screwdriver to do it You mean in the sense of what brands of vodka and orange juice to use? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:46:24 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote What about the idea that the Lord helps those who help themselves? It is baloney, or perhaps the substance that one finds at the south end of a northbound steer. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On 4/17/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:16:11 +, Maru Dubshinki wrote That is sarcasm, correct? Because seriously proposing that the universe has no independent existence from a supreme deity is a stance I believe is called pan-theism, and I gather from other things you have written that your 'faith' is not a pantheistic sect. It was not sarcasm and it is not pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that all things *are* God, the worship of everything, not that God is omni-present and constantly involved, yet separate. A lot of people believe that creation, in the Bible, was a six-day event. But most forms of Christianity actually teach that creation is ongoing, that God is always present and involved, even though our awareness of God's presence comes and goes. The rather dismal view that God set the universe in motion and then stepped back to watch what would happen, intervening occasionally to reward the good and punish the bad, got a lot of support from science during the the Enlightenment, as people began to see that self-regulating mechanical systems were possible. The clockworks view of God was quite disturbing to many theologians, as was evolution similarly; on the surface, it seemed to eliminate the need for God's presence. Nick On the surface? It certainly seems to bolster the deist's arguments, and is a coherent, acceptable theodicy. And it is an attractive accomodation betwixt secular society, science, and religion. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
At 10:54 AM Sunday 4/17/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:46:24 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote What about the idea that the Lord helps those who help themselves? It is baloney, or perhaps the substance that one finds at the south end of a northbound steer. Okay. :) How about James 2:17-26? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Hello', said the Ostrich, to the Administration
Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:18:33 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote That's all I'm doing for now about it. I'm tired and I want to go to bed, but there's something I want to figure out first, and I need to find the right screwdriver to do it You mean in the sense of what brands of vodka and orange juice to use? No, I mean I needed a Phillips head that was smaller than 1 pt. to undo the screw over the battery case. :) I'm not sure there's any vodka in the house, and if there is, it was bought no later than 1987. We *do* have plenty of orange juice. Tropicana Calcium-Fortified. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Hello', said the Ostrich, to the Administration
At 12:06 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:18:33 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote That's all I'm doing for now about it. I'm tired and I want to go to bed, but there's something I want to figure out first, and I need to find the right screwdriver to do it You mean in the sense of what brands of vodka and orange juice to use? No, I mean I needed a Phillips head that was smaller than 1 pt. to undo the screw over the battery case. :) I'm not sure there's any vodka in the house, and if there is, it was bought no later than 1987. We *do* have plenty of orange juice. Tropicana Calcium-Fortified. But since you didn't need a regular screwdriver, that doesn't matter. Did you have any milk of magnesia? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
- Original Message - From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Peaceful change At 10:54 AM Sunday 4/17/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:46:24 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote What about the idea that the Lord helps those who help themselves? It is baloney, or perhaps the substance that one finds at the south end of a northbound steer. Okay. :) How about James 2:17-26? You mean from the Epistle of Straw. :-) *** Dan M. *** this historical quote does not reflect the views of this station. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion and war
One of the occasionally necessary components to birth control is abortion. (The alternatives are worse in many situations.) World wide birth control down to replacement, and in many cases below, is one of the two hopes humans have for avoiding a population crash that might well go into the billions of deaths. (Easter Island war model.) The other hope is technology advancing fast enough to support current and projected populations in style. This too has serious drawbacks. (Singularity) I don't see how we can avoid one or the other in the next 20 years. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Hello', said the Ostrich, to the Administration
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:06 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:18:33 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote That's all I'm doing for now about it. I'm tired and I want to go to bed, but there's something I want to figure out first, and I need to find the right screwdriver to do it You mean in the sense of what brands of vodka and orange juice to use? No, I mean I needed a Phillips head that was smaller than 1 pt. to undo the screw over the battery case. :) I'm not sure there's any vodka in the house, and if there is, it was bought no later than 1987. We *do* have plenty of orange juice. Tropicana Calcium-Fortified. But since you didn't need a regular screwdriver, that doesn't matter. Did you have any milk of magnesia? Nope. :) And I really appreciate you reminding me of a bunch of annoying commercials. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Hello', said the Ostrich, to the Administration
At 02:29 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:06 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:18:33 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote That's all I'm doing for now about it. I'm tired and I want to go to bed, but there's something I want to figure out first, and I need to find the right screwdriver to do it You mean in the sense of what brands of vodka and orange juice to use? No, I mean I needed a Phillips head that was smaller than 1 pt. to undo the screw over the battery case. :) I'm not sure there's any vodka in the house, and if there is, it was bought no later than 1987. We *do* have plenty of orange juice. Tropicana Calcium-Fortified. But since you didn't need a regular screwdriver, that doesn't matter. Did you have any milk of magnesia? Nope. :) And I really appreciate you reminding me of a bunch of annoying commercials. You mentioned Phillips screwdriver, which reminded me of that old joke, which reminded ME of said commercials, so the least I could do was to share the misery . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
it goes on and on...
Think Tank's Ideas Shifted As Malaysia Ties Grew Business Interests Overlapped Policy By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page A01 For years, the Heritage Foundation sharply criticized the autocratic rule of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad, denouncing his anti-Semitism, his jailing of political opponents and his anti-free market currency controls. Then, late in the summer of 2001, the conservative nonprofit Washington think tank began to change its assessment: Heritage financed an Aug. 30-Sept. 4, 2001, trip to Malaysia for three House members and their spouses. Heritage put on briefings for the congressional delegation titled Malaysia: Standing Up for Democracy and U.S. and Malaysia: Ways to Cooperate in Order to Influence Peace and Stability in Southeast Asia. Then-Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad was assailed by the Heritage Foundation but later honored by its president. (Andy Wong - AP) Heritage's new, pro-Malaysian outlook emerged at the same time a Hong Kong consulting firm co-founded by Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage's president, began representing Malaysian business interests. The for-profit firm, called Belle Haven Consultants, retains Feulner's wife, Linda Feulner, as a senior adviser. And Belle Haven's chief operating officer, Ken Sheffer, is the former head of Heritage's Asia office and is still on Heritage's payroll as a $75,000-a-year consultant. On Sept. 27, 2001, Belle Haven hired Alexander Strategy Group, a Washington lobby firm run by Edwin A. Buckham, a former chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), to help represent Malaysian clients. Linda Feulner works as a consultant for Alexander Strategy Group as well as for Belle Haven. Experts say that the relationship between one of Washington's most influential conservative think tanks and a network of lobbying firms collecting fees from Malaysian business interests -- well in excess of $1 million over two years -- could pose a problem for Heritage's tax status as a nonprofit group. The fees were disclosed in reports filed with Congress and the Justice Department. Bruce R. Hopkins, a lawyer and an expert on nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations, said Heritage and Feulner are on the edge here. Hopkins said that a court or the Internal Revenue Service would have to determine whether the assets [of Heritage] are being used in a way that confers some form of undue or unwarranted benefit on a [Heritage] insider. He said both Feulner and his wife are insiders under tax law. The key question, he said, is whether it could be shown that the charity is doing this to provide benefits to her clients. Then there could be a problem. . . . The question just has to be, 'Are the resources of the charity being deliberately shifted so that some sort of private benefit is being conferred?' In a statement issued last week, Heritage defended its activities and the integrity of its extensive work evaluating foreign countries: The Heritage Foundation has and always will call it like we see it. Neither Linda Feulner's work with Belle Haven and ASG [Alexander Strategy Group] nor Edwin Feulner's relationship with Belle Haven influenced any of the policy recommendations or analysis of The Heritage Foundation. . . . The Heritage Foundation is organized under IRC [Internal Revenue Code] Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code and as such is engaged only in educational activities, not lobbying. The overlapping work of Heritage and top lobbying firms in support of the Malaysian government and Malaysian business interests is a case study in the largely unseen creation of a favorable climate for a controversial country through careful targeting of Washington elites. The close relationships between the think tank and lobbying interests were apparent on the 2001 trip to Malaysia. Heritage paid expenses for DeLay, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Ander Crenshaw, both Republicans from Florida, and their spouses; Edwin and Linda Feulner, and Sheffer. Joining them on the trip but paying his own way, according to Edwin Feulner, was Buckham, the former DeLay aide and chairman of the Alexander Strategy Group. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Hello', said the Ostrich, to the Administration
Ronn! wrote: Am I the only one for whom both of the other attempts were all run together into one huge block of text? Seems like. My 'Net-based mail formatted it fine. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: it goes on and on...
Think Tank's Ideas Shifted As Malaysia Ties Grew Business Interests Overlapped Policy And about what in this article do you want to discuss here? I already think that the current US government is making bad policy and using questionable methods to get what they want. But alas, you cannot impeach the president for his actions because he was faithful to his wife. So we all have to wait until 2008, when GWB's second term runs out. So, what do you want to discuss? (PS: I'm ambi. *duck*) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic! Citizens declare themselves relatively unafraid of threats of undeclared rationality. +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 05:40 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Matt Grimaldi wrote: [...] Given my luck with the computer chips I've bought at Fry's, I'd rather get the edible ones. Just because it says Fry on the package doesn't mean that you are supposed to hook them up directly to the 440VAC line and actually _fry_ them . . . Have We Milked This Gag Enough? Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Matt Grimaldi wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: we invade! Justice will be served! With a side order of freedom fries. Dan Minette wrote: No fries. They sell an assortment of chips, though. Ronn!Blankenship wrote: So do most electronic hobby stores, but I wouldn't want to eat there . . . Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's some sort of witty retort involving Fry's Electronics, but I can't come up with it right now. Fry's *does* have a cafeteria, though I've never eaten there, as well as a cattle-chute aisle stocked with all kinds of munchies leading up to the cash registers. Given my luck with the computer chips I've bought at Fry's, I'd rather get the edible ones. I have drooled over the munchies. I have bought some of the munchies. If I'd bought it by the box, I could say I'd gotten a case of the munchies. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 1:33 AM Subject: Re: Peaceful change Dan, In short, he has drawn a line between dictators, terrorists and their cronies and everyone else. A line he erases by saying You are either with us or with the terrorists. That depends on who he thinks is with him and against him. We all know that the Vatican opposed the war in Iraq; which one might consider opposing Bush and thus with the terrorists. But, actions and statements from both the Vatican and from Bush indicates that this is not how either views it. After Gulf War II, the Vatican was asked about continuing fairly warm relationships between itself and the Bush administration...considering the fact that they opposed Gulf War II. The answer was: that was a disagreement about tactics, not goals. From this quote, and the strong praise of the Pope by Bush, one gets the feeling that Bush and the Vatican do not view each other as on different sides with regards to terrorists. At the time he said that publically (soon after 9-11), he also stated it privately in very strong terms to the leader of Pakistan. Pakistan was trying to both support the Taliban and keep friendly relations with the US. I saw that warning as being very applicable to them. Saudi Arabia also comes to mind; paying protection money to AQ. To a lesser extent, France's close working relationship with Hussein (including taking contracts to support his nuclear bomb program) and taking bribes to work against the sanctions, would be brought to mind. I don't see the line, Dan. Rather than dictators, terrorists and their cronies, he named whole countries the Axis of Evil. He also stated that he was referring to the governments. If need be, I guess I can go back through speeches where he talks about the people under the brutal thumb of the tyrant in those countries. There is no doubt that Bush is not precise when he talks. His bumbling of post-war Iraq is truely mindblowing. But, as much as I differ with Bush, I have trouble picturing him as bloothirsty for conquest. I wish what you said was true, but your editing of the President and my wishes can't change the fact that this is a guy whose first thought was to call his program for Iraq a crusade. There is no doubt that it was stupid to use a word that has different connotations in the Arab world than in the West. But, since one of the definitions of crusade is: A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse, within the US, it is an acceptable use of the word. M.A.D.D was called a crusade, and the Civil Rights movement was called a crusade. While the actual Crusades certainly don't merit this favorable of an interpretation, they aren't quite what the Arab's make them out to be either. The initial Crusade can best be seen as a counter-attack after the Arabs had once again beaten Christian forces. Christendom was at risk of falling to Arab conquest at the time of the first Crusade. One final tangent. I think I have a feel for Bush because he seems quite a bit like a lot of folks I know. Over the last 12 years, I've had a lot of experience dealing with conservative Christians. I've been in multi-year bible studies with both conservatives and fundamentalists (our church has had a great deal of theological diversity). During that time of shared faith, I've been able to achieve a spiritual intimacy one tends to get only in that type of session. We were able to keep our small community going even though we had significant theological differences. As you might guess, I was not shy about expressing my opinions in that forum. Yet, we regarded each other as Christian brothers and sisters whom we happened to disagree with on questions of interpretation and theology. I'll give just one example. I had, in a forum on gay clergy, some very sharp differences with conservative members of the church. We waved our arms and raised our voices. Yet, at the end of it, one of the men who I had the strongest disagreement with gave me a big hug and told me he was happy I came. So, let me ask a question of you and Nick, if I might. Have you had the chance to be in close fellowship that contains both liberals and conservatives, literalists, and non-literalists? I don't see the understanding that comes from such fellowship in your posts. In a sense, my argument is not that Bush was rightit's more that he was mistaken instead of evil. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: it goes on and on...
On 4/17/05, Frank Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Think Tank's Ideas Shifted As Malaysia Ties Grew Business Interests Overlapped Policy And about what in this article do you want to discuss here? I already think that the current US government is making bad policy and using questionable methods to get what they want. But alas, you cannot impeach the president for his actions because he was faithful to his wife. So we all have to wait until 2008, when GWB's second term runs out. So, what do you want to discuss? (PS: I'm ambi. *duck*) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic! Citizens declare themselves relatively unafraid of threats of undeclared rationality. Taxes. Happy tax day, fellow citizens! My favorite authority on taxes is David Cay Johnston of *The New York Times*, who won a Pulitzer for reporting on the terminally unsexy topic of taxes. His book *Perfectly Legal -- The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super-Rich -- and Cheat Everyone Else* is the single best work on public policy of recent years, I think. Johnston reports: Through explicit policies, as well as tax laws never reported in the news, Congress now literally takes money from those making $30,000 to $500,000 per year and funnels it in subtle ways to the super-rich -- the top one-one hundredth of one percent of Americans. People making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million, the latest Internal Revenue Service data show. And in income taxes alone, people making $400,000 paid a larger share of their incomes than the 7,000 households who made $10 million or more. The rest of us are subsidizing not only the super-rich, but also corporations. Fifty years ago, corporations paid 60 percent of all federal taxes. But by 2003, that was down to 16 percent. So individual taxpayers have to make up the difference, as corporate profits soar and wages fall. http://www.alternet.org/story/21760/ Another study found when all taxes were taken into account the US tax system in 2000 was flat by income quintiles. Since then Warren Buffet has commented that with the 15% dividend tax and other breaks he now pays a lower share of taxes then his secretary. Gary Denton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 8:52 PM Subject: Re: Peaceful change On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:25:07 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Actually, the definition of a good guy is anyone who wants to live in peace and freedom and would be willing to let his neighbor do the same. That's not really that bad of a definition. Whose definition is it? Yours? Bush's? Mine? Bush's. had to seek peace at the barrel of the gun, I don't see how we can automatically declare all such views evidence of bad theology. I haven't said that I think Bonhoeffer's theology is bad. I know Bonhoeffer's theology and George Bush is no Bonhoeffer. But, Bonhoeffer sought peace through a bomb...which is the same as seeing peace at the barrel of a gun. There are times when Gandhi's techniques are best, there are times when Bonhoeffer's are. But, it was faith in human institutions. It was faith in the power of human law. By doing things the right we, we somehow evoke God's power and everything turns out for the best. That's rather ambiguous, isn't it. Whose definition of best? Ours or God's? Ours...or theirs. We cannot know God's will well, but scripture does give us some clues. The God I know does not want innocence to suffer, He so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son. It would be best if people were not tortured and murdered. I don't think one could say that this is simply earthly thinking, out of touch with God's will. I heard a news item about a Marine regiment in Iraq that had a large number of churches praying for it, and none of their troops were killed or suffered amputations. All that prayer worked, the report said. Does this mean that our prayers for Wes didn't work? What were they praying for, exactly? I'd guess safe return. and is the survival of all of those Marines proof that prayer works? No. I wrote earlier that this was bad theologythat we can somehow influence/control God's will. I believe that God loved Wes just as much as the people in the regiment that survived virtually unscathed. I also believe that God loved European Jews during the 1940s. I believe that God is involved in the world but doesn't intervene in the way the people who claimed that their prayers worked think he does. How can prayer, which is based in faith, ever be proven? If prayer works in such a manner then, one can look at the differences in survival rates for, say, cancer patients who are prayed for and those who are not. But, we have such proof. The lack of such proof, requiring faith, supports my understanding of prayer as dealing with changing our own hearts instead of changing God's mind. As far as I'm concerned, things worked out for Wes's company, which had a lot of losses, for the best, too, as long as we make the best of it, trusting that God redeems all. I wouldn't phrase it quite that way. I really don't see every outcome as being for the best. I see God as making us free; which requires the potential for bad things happening. It would have been better if Bonhoeffer's bomb had gone off and millions of Jews were not killed...or if the other European powers and the US stopped Hitler early. God's will was not that Hitler came close to exterminating German Jews (2/3rds killed). But, it does appear to be God's will to give us the chance to stop it, and to not directly intervene if we chose not to. I agree with Bonhoeffer, we were called to stop Hitler, and chose not to. But, I will be more than willing to accept as faithful Christians pacifists who think we were not called in this manner. There was nothing in the six-point plan that claimed that God was behind it or that it would surely work. It was presented with churches behind it in hope of success and under a moral imperative to try all other alternatives before going to war. It would be helpful for you to tell me why you differ with my differentiation between hope and wishful thinking. If Hussein stayed in power through a massive defeat, very strong sanctions, and allied control of most of his air space, then it is not reasonable to think that an unenforceable legal proceeding in the Netherlands would work when stronger actions have not. This is not what I call Christian hope. Is one required to try alternatives that have virtually no chance of working? Is one suppose to not use one's gifts of intellect and observation to determine probabilities of success by various techniques. Isn't someone who proposes an alternative required to give support for her argument, in terms of reason and fairly detailed analysis of history? But, in a world where theological understanding about the consequences of war and inaction in the face of dictators I feel angry when anyone bring up inaction or doing nothing, etc., in this thread. Nobody is suggesting doing nothing. OK, not doing anything that
Re: 24? **correction^2**
At 08:22 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: That should read 2500! , which, with iirc 7412 digits, Yes, 2500! = 1.628 10^7411 has 7412 digits, but 500 of them are zeroes 624, actually. 162424169263546896681057474396633653999428343665976117059851739595300015681181171091114301822189949967063775407379642957266480360849144773982699565766503949953039081536069313589385624248687168633365117877728319632346514905978458047074520807127737619451831790023662437656379915366899692425817099473955735537991551620610205879561628364536090561091825520933523438440298824173752468219542814600203368965255916069562338913433294969546310263930229454748650689662592679638050717072642347493989468072742236518740460239946352245451040613097756653973305720645026457997934905356924399618617581860376174835804874205168542257467008667252720784248969925977883224857503131037675382806351903130554386521130700598953600694590165036980214021274304347037205774546036842214862077129715702791830982471445806697511922924126875707763824427831458131252725129871400134654305773736954160374386043307314954277237484986013167770729137200202006247592856875946971039429028314584331171481048021391502558449541 56372 7 02572242931979348640772104241935322544694355717741028042721831057393383946811950229862119018492668601533950515675995793861869894105137524428488796590017749394464101657140531047449031317150211285312051145217906000448322292856476064080179041772517805638616704522178956984018390162683438304694297727727823412207694734265878202872900194730775246958252155279043555763913056000888393253937210136778443737969895720575345197710315491879632577212080296732791524306529332768002582234532193839787438122696823349137174760687670811121707247122877205618078452290605963728534389393406703483582596248272104119965697657195713053485619074455216492879719763758474871783557654928157780691218383646855409834599921063373144702996594627688077741944550267192758309026313016206320680530057452746436412708183108931890404685083431502083760663324657349706015263327982666486689576849283883469142513936741022368381903094157650249629927012864342540407330646247523995884057015184717062826800920338962166558742062917836 33993 5 141477580556616102759761599188076139416375666490347795870693771994374763723589255579113470055333978002998933446236448649956338643549877097069790252117694271543914179639916424071991406456604783979658667979051009689054775584486605430424545544714920455985028492775158386405002083658607397637102066859718496781089357617987825390662781413816362946370821897681257991937027979675382384665624733872791767882787048074812304136442761397202291044563080832580377638267813956876382413025080202917826793584257121650412123520882505429616566103075620837174268640282540480455850132783967073129880985093071992445252514130186381078712714063758016195279647093101266993274256523423961603133711408102269492141364126038642438865230137171125515326882761649529344271578108949579540468374457967645952172970201620014703437577823700858509535523206371008829195799121631083700283144039692410032342906345682704589559491712643349070579777699080753819211139663515875866484677383741356415521398949535078568904124 02614 6 417851841846502696350820325203824616665560520832407496598419273319746277101767272630092328860754001447275789011340343421192149628843700016255127264525232061521571665417524893885032804631307069036140537137332962373616673129910109329836565405603773308322627700426960957310406944879068486454621909899617111099891132419747980689647030598711956093285658271964342301981788004122423719427466860471549619840720735580943138949037248842220667778316694197328981603606337472374829869683690230088896904482452582891057068762307500842542017972441217463201313475255892144860947817662657335389079180168522288684999073151813383940807233211260324401898288236999703282558611871439220820191477688836626121913025091354615110514776308082965192829007410663160500772425443148810580457288706932823268304330190046616005217238366518173815298984406363839170954758990040942063174683763773141538560188400693772185589033349393713433957772644263653181308876835998360883454971583225565535950948408946546144063833763968681995 31042 9
Re: Peaceful change
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:41:32 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote At 10:54 AM Sunday 4/17/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:46:24 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote What about the idea that the Lord helps those who help themselves? It is baloney, or perhaps the substance that one finds at the south end of a northbound steer. Okay. :) How about James 2:17-26? It's fine with me. What about it? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 18:47:31 -0500, Dan Minette wrote So, let me ask a question of you and Nick, if I might. Have you had the chance to be in close fellowship that contains both liberals and conservatives, literalists, and non-literalists? I don't see the understanding that comes from such fellowship in your posts. Oh, indeed we have, many times, often together, but often apart. As for what you can see, well, there you go. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
At 08:22 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 11:41:32 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote At 10:54 AM Sunday 4/17/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:46:24 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote What about the idea that the Lord helps those who help themselves? It is baloney, or perhaps the substance that one finds at the south end of a northbound steer. Okay. :) How about James 2:17-26? It's fine with me. What about it? Is it also baloney (or worse)? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 24? **correction^2**
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Yes, 2500! = 1.628 10^7411 has 7412 digits, but 500 of them are zeroes 624, actually. Ah, ok, I should have mentioned that 500 of them are _trailing_ zeroes. I didn't count the middle zeroes Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change L3
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:14:08 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Whose definition is it? Yours? Bush's? Mine? Bush's. Cite please, in that case. But, Bonhoeffer sought peace through a bomb...which is the same as seeing peace at the barrel of a gun. There are times when Gandhi's techniques are best, there are times when Bonhoeffer's are. Did I suggest that I believe that Gandhi's techniques are best in all situations? I held him up as an example of the reality that regime change, even in the face of oppressive rule, can take place peacefully. I think his approach would be a wonderful way to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons, but not one that's flying toward me at Mach 5. I'm not asking the Marines to stop fighting and talk nice to the people who are shooting at them. Is one required to try alternatives that have virtually no chance of working? I don't feel required to respond to an argument from your premise. My premise is that when most of the churches of the world say that what you're about to do is wrong, it is imperative to stop and consider what they are saying, to at least meet with their leaders and listen. This may be a good place to point out that this type of argument I was reporting that I felt angry, not making an argument. but God asked us to let events unfold, rather than insisting on unfolding them our way. OK, can you tell me how to discern this? We cannot easily, which is why the moral presumption must be against actions that cause great evil, such as war, especially when many others in the body of Christ oppose it. When, according to our best understanding, we have an opportunity to decrease human suffering and death, when does God call us to let things unfold instead, increasing human suffering and death? When does God call us to say no when people ask for help? Who called for help? Exactly which Iraqis called for us to invade and occupy their country? Was there any evidence of even an partial consensus for that? It is exactly this kind of situation when we are most susceptible to the temptation to believe that we are good victims and they are bad people, so anything goes. That's when it becomes most critical to listen to others instead of shutting them out. So, if we use reason to see who has the capacity to physically stop a dictator and the short list has one name, then it's presumptuous to trust reason. Must dictators be physically stopped? That is not only morally unclear, but it is certainly not political policy, so I can't see it as anything but a straw man. But, that's not what I am doing. I can understand the rational behind such a presumption. But, I do not accept denying that the result of not going to war would be that Hussein would stay in power for the foreseeable future. And we absolutely had to remove him from power as quickly as possible? Why? On what basis was there such urgency all of a sudden? That wasn't the question I was asking. The question is whether it was faith to believe that, if we act is manner X, God would change the course of the river (metaphorically). I don't think that is sound theology. Of course it isn't. Who do you think was making such a magical argument? I believe that when God intervenes, it is almost always through us. There's a statue of Christ in Germany, as I recall, that lost its hands in the bombings of WW II. Someone put a sign on it that say, Christ has no hands but yours. One way of phrasing it is to count on God to work wonders to get us out of having to deal with a moral dilemma is putting God to the test. I can't see that as anything but a straw man. Are you under the impression that I am advocating that we stand back and wait for a miracle? We could go on and on about this, I'm sure, but it seems to me that you're arguing for a God who is pro-war, an idea that I cannot swallow. Even when the Old Testament speaks of war, it has to do with human failure, not God's will. Anything that even suggests that God wishes for us to go to war seems like a terrible, triumphalist twisting of Scripture to me. What do you imagine God has to say to our soldiers who have had to kill in the line of duty? Congratulations for doing my will? Or, I understand and forgive? Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices - saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, we should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God's side. --Abraham Lincoln Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:30:09 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote How about James 2:17-26? It's fine with me. What about it? Is it also baloney (or worse)? I don't think it is baloney at all. I think it states a basic truth, that there is no such thing as faith without works. A faith that is only about being and not doing isn't faith at all. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 24? **correction^2**
At 08:49 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Yes, 2500! = 1.628 10^7411 has 7412 digits, but 500 of them are zeroes 624, actually. Ah, ok, I should have mentioned that 500 of them are _trailing_ zeroes. I didn't count the middle zeroes Neither did I . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 24? **correction^2**
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:49 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Yes, 2500! = 1.628 10^7411 has 7412 digits, but 500 of them are zeroes 624, actually. Ah, ok, I should have mentioned that 500 of them are _trailing_ zeroes. I didn't count the middle zeroes Neither did I . . . 2500! has 500 trailing 0s from the 500 numbers divisible by 5 another 100 trailing 0s from the 100 numbers divisible by 25 another 20 trailing 0s from the 20 numbers divisible by 125 another 4 trailing 0s from the 4 numbers divisible by 625 for a total of 624 trailing 0s. (Of course, you need a 2 to go with each 5 to give you a trailing 0, but as 2500! has as a factor 2^2495 (if I did my math right), that shouldn't be too much of a problem) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change L3
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our task should not be to invoke religion and the name of God by claiming God's blessing and endorsement for all our national policies and practices - saying, in effect, that God is on our side. Rather, we should pray and worry earnestly whether we are on God's side. --Abraham Lincoln Nick A quote entirely stripped of its moral and historical context - remarkably so, in fact. Lincoln is the historical figure you can _least_ enlist in your cause, Nick, because he is one whom most people agree is the paragon of the modern statesman who _also_ chose to fight an optional war far more terrible than any other his nation has ever fought, before or since. The Lincoln whom you quote approvingly _chose_ to unleash total war in a way that the West had not seen in centuries and the United States had never seen. He did this despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world (Britain and France, for example, _both_ supported mediation of the conflict and, de facto, the split of the United States into separate countries). There is just no possible way to take his example and use it to argue that we must not go to war in the face of great evil. That's precisely what he did. You are twisting his statement into an excuse for inaction - we do not know God's will, so we must do nothing. That's exactly wrong. What Lincoln was saying is exactly the opposite of that point - he was saying, we cannot know God's will, so we must do the best we can given what we _do_ know. Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that seems to have best expressed his intentions, says it best - With malice towards none, with charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God gives us to see the right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are in... With firmness in the right. Because he did believe in that, he authorized (for example) the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Georgia and South Carolina. That's not peaceful change. But it was a man doing the best he could in an uncertain world, and knowing that sometimes the best he could meant warfare of unimaginable horror. Lincoln contained multitudes, but none of those multitudes can plausibly be enlisted in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the face of great evil. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush cite-
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 8:54 PM Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3 On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:14:08 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Whose definition is it? Yours? Bush's? Mine? Bush's. Cite please, in that case. My apologies in advance for the length of this, but it's at an Aussie site which requires registration and the url seemed to reflect the registration. Anyways, this speech is representative of what I think Bush's views are. Dan M. quote Full text: Bush speech on Iraq and the Middle East November 7, 2003 - 8:33AM Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy United States Chamber of Commerce Washington, D.C. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all very much. Please be seated. Thanks for the warm welcome, and thanks for inviting me to join you in this 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. The staff and directors of this organization have seen a lot of history over the last two decades, you've been a part of that history. By speaking for and standing for freedom, you've lifted the hopes of people around the world, and you've brought great credit to America. I appreciate Vin for the short introduction. I'm a man who likes short introductions. And he didn't let me down. But more importantly, I appreciate the invitation. I appreciate the members of Congress who are here, senators from both political parties, members of the House of Representatives from both political parties. I appreciate the ambassadors who are here. I appreciate the guests who have come. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit, the nonpartisan spirit of the National Endowment for Democracy. I'm glad that Republicans and Democrats and independents are working together to advance human liberty. The roots of our democracy can be traced to England, and to its Parliament -- and so can the roots of this organization. In June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan spoke at Westminster Palace and declared, the turning point had arrived in history. He argued that Soviet communism had failed, precisely because it did not respect its own people -- their creativity, their genius and their rights. President Reagan said that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today. A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan. Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct. The great democratic movement President Reagan described was already well underway. In the early 1970s, there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle of that decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections. Soon there were new democracies in Latin America, and free institutions were spreading in Korea, in Taiwan, and in East Asia. This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America* had collapsed. Within another year, the South African government released Nelson Mandela. Four years later, he was elected president of his country -- ascending, like Walesa and Havel, from prisoner of state to head of state. As the 20th century ended, there were around 120 democracies in the world -- and I can assure you more are on the way. Ronald Reagan would be pleased, and he would not be surprised. We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy. The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world. Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle
Radical National Rifle Assoc.
I have always been a supporter of personal firearms, as well as the *reasonable* regulation of guns (no, I don't have a definition of reasonable), but guys making comments like the ones Ted Nugent made (see below) make all gun owners look like dangerous, radical fundamentalists. He is doing more to help the anti-gun camp than helping the NRA. Gary ~ Gun control means using two hands Maru Ted Nugent to Fellow NRAers: Get Hardcore Apr 17, 12:32 PM EST With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense. Speaking at the NRA's annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members. Let's next year sit here and say, 'Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,' he said. No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life. Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston's downtown convention center. He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed. Remember the Alamo! Shoot 'em! he screamed to applause. To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want 'em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot 'em. http://tinyurl.com/c7fff http://makeashorterlink.com/?H283248EA http://entertainment.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=188232 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 24? **correction^2**
At 09:30 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:49 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Yes, 2500! = 1.628 10^7411 has 7412 digits, but 500 of them are zeroes 624, actually. Ah, ok, I should have mentioned that 500 of them are _trailing_ zeroes. I didn't count the middle zeroes Neither did I . . . 2500! has 500 trailing 0s from the 500 numbers divisible by 5 another 100 trailing 0s from the 100 numbers divisible by 25 another 20 trailing 0s from the 20 numbers divisible by 125 another 4 trailing 0s from the 4 numbers divisible by 625 for a total of 624 trailing 0s. (Of course, you need a 2 to go with each 5 to give you a trailing 0, but as 2500! has as a factor 2^2495 (if I did my math right), that shouldn't be too much of a problem) Heck, I just counted 'em . . . Actually I Told The Computer To Count Them For Me Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
