Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > - Original Message - > From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:43 PM > Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: > RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3 > > > At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: > > >> You are conflating two separate things: > > >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before > > >> acting" > > >> and > > >> b) "agreement from other nations before acting" > > > > > >"Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off." > > > > Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. > > > > I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see > > them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. > > In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree > there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was > accurate in pointing out that the use of the words "permission slip" > intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school > for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough > the song could throw one off. :-) Thanks, Dan. Spot on. Moreover, what the President actually said was, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." We're talking about removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the security of the United States other than the specious connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, created through yet another trick of language, that of consistently referring to our unprovoked attack on Iraq as "the war on terror." With respect to the song: In attempting to form a civil response to the supercilious puffery of our listmate, "Let's call the whole thing off" was about as gentle as I could be. It sure beat the hell out of "sod off," which suggested itself to me. It was intended to send the literal message "let's call the whole thing off," while lampooning inflexible position-taking. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 10:23 PM 4/25/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: >> At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >> >> You are conflating two separate things: >> >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before >> >> acting" >> >> and >> >> b) "agreement from other nations before acting" >> > >> >"Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off." >> >> Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. >> >> I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see >> them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. >> >> As such, I guess that we don't have any common ground to stand on on this >> issue. > >In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a >difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing >out that the use of the words "permission slip" intentionally brought up >images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I >think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Dan, It looks like you are missing the point too. Dave's original point was as follows: "The president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of "hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness." The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission slip for an activity, the child doesn't "seriously consider the opinions" of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* To use Dave's formulation (which I don't entirely agree with, but I'm making a point) - The President's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the State of the Union address was carefully chosen to call up visions... intended to be so repulsive to suggest that the US must get the *permission* of other nations (particularly, China, Russia, and France) before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness.Dave very cleverly, however, substitted "seriously consider the opinions" for "getting permission" in order to score cheap political points. "Seriously consider the opinions" sounds fairly unobjectionable, "getting the permission of China, Russia, and France before acting" sounds much more objectionable to a lot of people - and that is what Bush was railing against - the very significant block of people who argued that the US should not launch Gulf War II without the approval of China, Russia, France, and the other members of the UN Security Council. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:11:08 -0400, JDG wrote > The problem, Dave, is that many people in general, and you and Nick > in specific, use the phrase "serious consideration of the opinions > of other nations before acting" while actually meaning "agreement > from other nations before acting". I'm quite sure that you don't know what I actually mean. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > With respect to the song: In attempting to form a > civil response to the > supercilious puffery of our listmate, "Let's call > the whole thing off" was > about as gentle as I could be. It sure beat the hell > out of "sod off," which > suggested itself to me. It was intended to send the > literal message "let's > call the whole thing off," while lampooning > inflexible position-taking. > > Dave Honestly, Dave, if supercilious puffery on the list is your problem, John doesn't appear to be doing it more than, say, you. So maybe if you were a little less arrogant and self-righteous he wouldn't seem that way? I know it's a lot to ask. In this discussion he appears to have a pretty good point - you _do_ seem to want the US to go begging to Europe for a permission slip before doing things to protect itself. I think Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. So does John. All your certainty otherwise doesn't make you right, it just means that you're unable to understand other people's points of view. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global do-gooder with trouble at home
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:17:00 -0400, JDG wrote > Do you believe that "the poor will always be with us"? I believe that there is truth in that sentence. I'm not sure what *you* mean by it. To me, the verse "the poor you will always have with you," means that we are called as Christians to be with the poor; to be generous in worship and in charity. It was spoken at table in the home of a poor person, a leper, in the company of the disciples. It was a statement about the disciples' priorities -- that as Christ's followers they would continue to spend their time with the poorest and therefore would have many opportunities to share their wealth with them. This passage echoes the Old Testament teaching, "Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be need on the earth, I therefore command you, 'Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.'" (Deut. 15:10-11) > Do you believe that ending poverty is simply a matter of spending enough > money? I believe that feeding hungry people, providing health care and education are easily done with money. We have the infrastructure and technologies to offer these for every person in the United States; only our will stands in the way. Some also say that over the last few years, we have reached the point in technology and global infrastructure development to feed every hungry person in the world; only our will stands in the way. > If yes, do you believe that our society currently has enough money > to spend in order to do so? I have no doubt that we have enough to provide the things I have described. I don't think those things alone will end poverty. Social justice doesn't arise from providing basic necessities. More than anything else, it means a priority on being the "land of opportunity" for all, which calls for listening to and investment in our neighbors and neighborhoods that goes beyond food, health care and education. For far too many of us, the only opportunities are along the lines of, "Do you want fries with that?" Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:21:00 -0400, JDG wrote > >How is it that people who > >are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so > >quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births > >they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? > > I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who > believes the above. Congress? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote > The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission > slip for an activity, the child doesn't "seriously consider the opinions" > of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* That's the point! Bush was saying that if the United States sought other nations' participation in the decision to go to war, we would be acting like a child, submitting to other authorities, disallowed to think for ourselves. We can't do that because we're a grown-up country, not a child. International relations cannot be modeled as a set of parents and children, so Bush and Cheney's use of the metaphor was wrong. But it was politically clever because the truth in the metaphor makes the whole statement seem true. Advertisers do this all the time -- say something true that is irrelevant... and say it again and again. The falsehood isn't *in* the metaphor, the falsehood *is* the metaphor because it implies that serious consideration of other nations' wishes would reduce us to the status of a child... which is baloney. It was not reasonable to reduce the whole question of how we cooperate with our *brother and sister* nations to "asking permission," since that is a context of submission, not negotiation. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Babble theory, and comments
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Warren, that is a good example of the kind of Atheistic thinking that I respect. It matters little whether one agrees or disagrees about the specifics; the general idea you propose is one most Christians should be able to discuss and compare with their own beliefs (and faith) without feeling insulted. Thanks. In my cynical youth I would have been more inclined, I think, to agree with the "Good news from the Vatican" sentiments. But in the intervening years my rebellion against (specifically) Christianity and (generally) religion has moderated some. So you are saying that age enfeebles the mind. But there is wisdom to be found in doctrines which have endured for centuries or millennia, and it might even be argued that an organic, flexible interpretation of scriptures is more in keeping with the idea of a living gospel or living god than a rigid, hardline insistence on literalism. As an atheist, then, I might be more religious than many who claim to hold faith. At the very least I might understand Christianity better than some who claim to preach its "truths". To 'know' Evil is to fight against Evil, or on Evil's behalf. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > I'm quite sure that you don't know what I actually mean. I'm quite sure that NOBODY knows what you actually mean. Nobody, not even Nick. Because it is NONSENSE. Damn that brain-destroying religion! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 26, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Honestly, Dave, if supercilious puffery on the list is your problem, John doesn't appear to be doing it more than, say, you. So maybe if you were a little less arrogant and self-righteous he wouldn't seem that way? There's a lot of projection going on around here on all sides. I know it's a lot to ask. You forgot to say "... given your meager gifts." In this discussion he appears to have a pretty good point - you _do_ seem to want the US to go begging to Europe for a permission slip before doing things to protect itself. He continues to assert that that is I want that. It is not what I have ever said. All his certainty about that doesn't make him right, nor you. I think Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. So does John. All your certainty otherwise doesn't make you right, it just means that you're unable to understand other people's points of view. Which is _actually_ what I've been saying about the administration. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: France supports unilateralism, preventive war
* Gautam Mukunda [Thu, 21/04/2005 at 08:27 -0700] > The amazing thing about this article is how _blatant_ > it is. > > http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1559253,00.html I would say I'm disgusted of Chirac if I weren't allready on the verge of sickness for so long. Typical of the janus-like Chirac the-weather-vane, trying to satisfy buddies in heavy industry and arm industry. Well, what can I say, if it isn't already obvious, "normal" people here with a brain and a heart are similarly disgusted. -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bad Hitchhikers
Forward from Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to nitro9, hou-sf-con Adams has now joined the race with Heinlein, Asimov, and Dick to see who can spin in their grave the fastest. http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html (Review - no spoilers - worse than anyone can imagine bad, links to very long dissections of the corpse)) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4461899.stm (BBC - "charming" but - "Did the script veer too far away from the source material or tie itself in knots trying to keep faith with it? Bizarrely, I think the answer is both." Is charming a BBC code word?) -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan: >Frank: > > The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, > > and the US is not a police force. The US is just the > > strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations > > can be stronger than the US, but at present these > > nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, > > this alliance might form, which might start another > > cold war. > > You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany > would prefer a world in which China were the major power? > Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect > the US to look after its security interests. There is a > lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing > that the US can be counted on to ensure that the > government of China does not conquer others (such as the > people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls > the tune. Germany would not prefer such a world, nor would France. But China would. Can you imagine an alliance between China, Russia and several islamic states? Mutual disgust drives them apart, even inside the islamic world, but if push comes to shove... > > >Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. > > There would be so many ways to challange the US short of > that type of war, that I can't see this. These 'so many ways' existed in the cold war, too, but we still lived in fear of the mushroom cloud. > > I have hoped for such altruistic interventions > > several times in recent years, but most of the time > > they either weren't altruistic or there was no > > intervention... > > Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why > didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the > genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe, > when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no > greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why > did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house? > If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense > to take responsibility for those areas where the US was > glad to just help out, as in the Balkans? > > Dan M. Because Europe was deeply split over the Balkans. Germany on one side, Britain and France on the other, the smaller nations on the third. When the civil war in Yugoslavia began, unified Germany had just turned from officially being occupied by the Four Powers to being a sovereign state. German chancellor Kohl had apparently decided to change the foreign policy from humble negotiations in which everyone gained to openly show Europe that Germany was powerful now, and assert support for Slovenia and Croatia. These states were part of Germany's ally Austria-Hungary in WW1 and firmly under German control in WW2 when Hitler encouraged Croatian massacres on Serbs. So Germany's step raised fear in Britain and France whose last memories of a powerful Germany were also extremely bad, and allowed Milosevic to present himself as an old brother in arms. So whenever Germans pointed out Serb atrocities, this was dismissed as German propaganda. It would probably been wise if Germany had let the smaller nations step forward and let them explain to France and Britain what was really happening, but the mood was too confrontational for that. So when as one of the last people Mitterrand realized that the Serbs were *really* the bad guys (when they tried to shoot down his plane), the civil war had become so intense that everyone feared if they stepped in *now*, a lot of soldiers would return in body bags. So in the end, the US was called in, and the Bosnians and Croats got better weapons, until they were strong enough to strike back. If you wonder why I haven't mentioned Russia: at the beginning, Russia was rather trying to reach a peaceful solution, only over the years, ties to Serbia formed and became stronger. If you ask when I would have wanted an intervention: when the fighting in Croatia was over, and an agreement between Croatians and Croatian Serbs was made, Bosnian Serbs began their actions. The Bosnian government asked the EU for help, but the answer was the EU could only help if Bosnia split off Yugoslavia like Croatia did before. After that step of declaring independence, the intervention never came. And back then, many Bosnian Serbs were still demonstrating together with Croats and Muslims that they were all one nation (late in the civil war there were at least three). What's your perspective on this? (for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty, not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: France supports unilateralism, preventive war
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:05 AM, Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: * Gautam Mukunda [Thu, 21/04/2005 at 08:27 -0700] The amazing thing about this article is how _blatant_ it is. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1559253,00.html I would say I'm disgusted of Chirac if I weren't allready on the verge of sickness for so long. Typical of the janus-like Chirac the-weather-vane, trying to satisfy buddies in heavy industry and arm industry. Well, what can I say, if it isn't already obvious, "normal" people here with a brain and a heart are similarly disgusted. I can think of a recent event involving a nation we all know but which will remain anonymous, wherein the "leadership" decided to do something that a significant minority felt was morally or ethically repugnant despite any objections that were raised. As events unfolded it became increasingly clear that the minority were much more right than anyone wanted to believe. Intemperance, however, carried the day, and continues to do so in that nation. It seems to me that no one in that nation has the right to be casting any stones at another, and that many from that nation will understand your sense of sickened horror at what is perpetrated on your behalf by people whom you do not support. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bad Hitchhikers
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Gary Denton wrote: Forward from Brad Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to nitro9, hou-sf-con Adams has now joined the race with Heinlein, Asimov, and Dick to see who can spin in their grave the fastest. http://planetmagrathea.com/shortreview.html Review - no spoilers - worse than anyone can imagine bad, links to very long dissections of the corpse The reviewer is evidently a Vonnegut fan, what with the "Listen. ... And so on..." bits in the opening graphs. He also evidently absolutely hated the film: "You just won't believe how vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly bad it is." Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Balkans background
- Original Message - From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > What's your perspective on this? > > (for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty, > not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts) I think that the best background on what happened is presented at: http://213.222.3.5/srebrenica/ It is the Dutchbat report. I found the criticism of the United States in this report to be amazing. Not horrid, not unreasonable, but amazingespecially as it relates to our discussion If you don't have time, I'll be happy to summarize it; but I wanted you to have the chance to read it with your own eyes, and not through mine. If you read Dutch better than English, related sites have it in Dutch. If you do, then your Dutch must be unbelievably good, but I wouldn't put that past you. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > I think > Iraq was a threat to the security of the United > States. So does John. All your certainty otherwise > doesn't make you right, it just means that you're > unable to understand other people's points of view. After the years of discussion of this subject on the list, I still do not have a handle on how Iraq was a credible threat to the US. If Afghanistan was only an indirect threat (and only due to their harboring of known terrorists), how was Iraq a direct and imminent threat to the security of the US? North Korea is a direct threat since they have nukes and a delivery system that can reach, at the least, Alaska. But this is not the prime focus of our foreign policy, it is a secondary focus. (Iraq is the prime focus and it is where we direct most of our energy.) We have pretty much taken focus off the hunt for actual terrorists. This really pisses me off. Osama Bin Laden runs free and taunts us occasionally, and while it appears that Al Quaeda plans have been greatly balked, Osama runs free and is not killed in battle or suffering the humiliation of a truely fair and just trial. TIA for any responses to my questions and comments. xponent It Matters Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
> After the years of discussion of this subject on the list, I still do > not have a handle on how Iraq was a credible threat to the US. If you have not done so, you might want to read the "Duelfer" report http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/. It shows in detail how it could be both true that the presence of actual WMD's was overestimated, but at the same time the threat that Iraq, specifically Iraq under Saddam, posed to the US. The short summary is that Saddam was working to get sanctions lifted as fast as possible, while at the same time was working on ensuring that he could rebuild his weapon stocks as quickly as possible as soon as they were so he could deter any future actions against him. It was clear that the main lesson he learned after the first gulf war was the need for some trump card in the form of WMD's to hold of the US before he tried to further expand his power in the region. > > If Afghanistan was only an indirect threat (and only due to their > harboring of known terrorists), how was Iraq a direct and imminent > threat to the security of the US? It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent danger of being lifted which would have put in place a set of events that would have left Iraq mostly immune (or at least cause a much higher cost) to any future US action. So while the actual physical danger was not imminent in a literal sense, the possibility of taking permanent corrective action was in imminent danger of being removed. > > North Korea is a direct threat since they have nukes and a delivery > system that can reach, at the least, Alaska. But this is not the prime > focus of our foreign policy, it is a secondary focus. (Iraq is the > prime focus and it is where we direct most of our energy.) North Korea, being a direct threat, can not be the same kind of focus that Iraq is. The fact that they have two kinds of very real deterrence, Nukes + conventional shelling range of Soul, means that the US basically has no real military option there in the absence of a clear first first action on the part of North Korea. This is why events move rather slowly here. North Korea does not have much left to threaten with, and neither does the US. Thus it becomes a diplomatic game of trying to get China to take sides and force the issue. > > We have pretty much taken focus off the hunt for actual terrorists. > This really pisses me off. Osama Bin Laden runs free and taunts us > occasionally, and while it appears that Al Quaeda plans have been > greatly balked, Osama runs free and is not killed in battle or > suffering the humiliation of a truely fair and just trial. I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an country that has a large amount of US military presence should put this in perspective. The most affective way to catch a single person is with small teams focused on intelligence gathering, not large scale occupation of a country. There is definitely at least one special task force still out looking for Osama Bin Laden. Beyond using our military to pressure possible countries of hiding (and that number is very large, Al Qaeda has cells in many different places), there is not much our conventional forces in Iraq could do to help. Until I see a clear "smoking gun" type study that clearly shows how the military has dropped the ball on looking for OBL I will grant them the benefit of the doubt. Finding one terrorist in the world with a group of fanatical followers willing to cover for him is a non-trivial task. Finally I will close with an appeal to Occam's Razor. Many people have written about the supposed brilliance of Karl Rove and the Republican Political Machine. While it is true that Bush won his 4 more years, it was still a close election. This was because of the War in Iraq. While it is true it did not go as well as they hoped, even if it had been perfect, it was still an extremely risky political move to make. It was a move that politically did not have to be made (I could see it as a "hail Mary" type play, but it was not). Thus the explanation is either that he had some secret motive (daddy envy, paying off the Royals, wants to be seen as a cowboy and Afghanistan was just not enough) or he actually believed that the real answer to the short term threat posed by Al Qaeda was to promote long term change so that after Al Qaeda was dealt with, there would be a reduced chance at another group taking their place. I have no problem when people think Bush is being naive, or that the democratization of the middle east will never happen, or that war is never the answer to anything (though I do think they are wrong). I do have a problem with people who ascribe all kinds of odd conspiracy theories to the war in Iraq, claiming that they can see no justification for it, thus there must be some crazy explanation. One person is seriously trying to come up with a better world, the other is just tossing rocks (not that you, or some on this lis
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 07:23 PM 19/04/05 -0700, "Warren Ockrassa" wrote: On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:27 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Why? Morality is not the product of an opinion poll. Something is either the right thing to do or it is not. Umm, I can think of a lot of historical precedent that might indicate otherwise. Ethics (I prefer not to use "morality") is very much an artifact of culture, society, weltanschauung. To my mind ethics is all about opinion polls -- the opinion of an entire society, in some cases. So, the Holocaust would have been ethical if Germany had won? At least as "ethical" as the extermination of various native peoples. It was ethical to the Nazis at the time it was taking place. Just as it was ethical for slavery to be practiced, here and elsewhere, for a long time, just as it was ethical for the original tribe of Israel to, occasionally, utterly murder rivaling peoples, even to the point that a psalm was written singing of the joys of dashing out the brains of enemies' children against stones. From my point of view today, and I suspect from yours and most others', those actions are all reprehensible. But to no small degree I suspect that's because we're living in a world and a time that affords us the luxury of extending the epithet "human" to *all* people, even those we oppose or who oppose us. Agreed. Further, I think I can describe what it takes, namely an expanding economy, to keep a population in a mode where it extends "human" to all. In stone age times where there was plenty of room to expand, it was not good for your genes to go out trying to kill neighbors. Different situation when the future looks bleak and you are facing the problem of your children starving. That is, since we're not (on the whole) caught up in an urgent need -- a constant, driving need -- to (1) fend off starvation and (2) guard against enemies literally at the door at all hours of the day and night, we're able to be considerably more magnanimous to others than our forebears were. We're not in "survival mode" -- and I think that the only way for broad-based inclusive idealism to flourish is in an environment that is reasonably stable, secure and affluent. That's a digression; what I'm suggesting is that ethics is contextual. People individually -- I think anyway -- don't set out to deliberately do bad things, at least most people most of the time. There are exceptions of course, but I think that for the most part most of what any person does makes sense to him or her *within the context of his/her ethical landscape*. Others might not see a given action in the same light, of course, but to the individual I think actions and decisions spring from a place that is not intentionally bad, though at least some behaviors might be rationalized, occasionally tortuously. I'm inclined to think that societies *usually* behave in the same way -- a culture or nation does not set out to do terrible things; the things it does are, to that culture or nation, ethically sound actions. Whether it's burning witches, performing human sacrifice or attempting genocide, those behaviors make sense to -- they fit into the ethics of -- those who perpetrate them. And ethics in this case goes back (no surprise) to what is good for your gene's inclusive fitness. Thus, had WWII been won by Hitler's minions, yes, there would be strong argument (rationalization, I might call it) that the extermination of the Jews as an ethnic class was fully justified, and it would be *extremely difficult* if not impossible for someone raised in that worldview to think otherwise. That doesn't mean I think it would be a good thing, and it doesn't mean I think it would be ethical, but then, I'm applying my society's ethics to the situation, not working within the ethics of the hypothetical Third Reich of 1000 years. The issue I have with the word "moral" is that it suggests, to me, an absolute, a code of conduct implicitly derived from a superhuman source. But if I can't accept the presence of that source, I'm not personally comfortable with the word, and I get, along with that, the sense that what we call "moral" is really nothing other than ethics dressed up to look like divine edict -- when in fact "morality" is every bit as plastic and fluid as ethics, and for exactly the same reasons, because to me they both spring from the same source: Social consensus. And social consensus springs from a tribe of related people doing what was best to get their genes into the next generation. Depressing. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On 4/26/05, Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 07:23 PM 19/04/05 -0700, "Warren Ockrassa" wrote: > >On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >>From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >>>On Apr 19, 2005, at 6:27 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >>> > Why? Morality is not the product of an opinion poll. > Something is either the right thing to do or it is > not. > >>> > >>>Umm, I can think of a lot of historical precedent that might indicate > >>>otherwise. Ethics (I prefer not to use "morality") is very much an > >>>artifact of culture, society, weltanschauung. To my mind ethics is all > >>>about opinion polls -- the opinion of an entire society, in some cases. > >> > >>So, the Holocaust would have been ethical if Germany had won? > > At least as "ethical" as the extermination of various native peoples. > > >It was ethical to the Nazis at the time it was taking place. Just as it > >was ethical for slavery to be practiced, here and elsewhere, for a long > >time, just as it was ethical for the original tribe of Israel to, > >occasionally, utterly murder rivaling peoples, even to the point that a > >psalm was written singing of the joys of dashing out the brains of > >enemies' children against stones. > > > > From my point of view today, and I suspect from yours and most others', > > those actions are all reprehensible. But to no small degree I suspect > > that's because we're living in a world and a time that affords us the > > luxury of extending the epithet "human" to *all* people, even those we > > oppose or who oppose us. > > Agreed. Further, I think I can describe what it takes, namely an expanding > economy, to keep a population in a mode where it extends "human" to > all. In stone age times where there was plenty of room to expand, it was > not good for your genes to go out trying to kill neighbors. Different > situation when the future looks bleak and you are facing the problem of > your children starving. > Keith Henson Your generalization is weak, Henson: there are plenty of examples of civilizations going on the war path without a bleak future. Germany, circa WWI- they went to war at least partially *because* they were doing so very well, and felt they weren't getting their share of international influence. Not because their economy was crashing, or threatening to. Japan, prior to WW2, went rampaging through the Pacific. Was their economy crashing as well? US- just about any war. See the Civil War. Was the enthusiasm on both sides for a blood bath a result of disastrous, prolonged depression? What about the French Revolution? Historians agree that at the time, everybody, peasants included, were doing economically better than previously (Although it is true the vast bulk of gains were going to the upper classes. But the lower people did gain). What unleashed the Terror? Not the expectation of a deep depression. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:16:31 -0700, John DeBudge wrote > The short summary > is that Saddam was working to get sanctions lifted as fast as > possible, while at the same time was working on ensuring that he > could rebuild his weapon stocks as quickly as possible as soon as > they were so he could deter any future actions against him. Would these folks have us believe that sanctions were about to end? That we would permit this? > It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent > danger of being lifted If sanctions were in imminent "danger" of being lifted, how did we manage to start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the capability to keep the sanctions in place even without international cooperation, since we managed to go much, much further than just sanctions. Isn't this a bit ridiculous as an argument for war or imminent danger? We had to take extreme measures because the less-extreme measures that *we* had in place were in "danger" of ending? If we could go to war without U.N. approval, we sure as heck could keep sanctions in place without U.N. approval. All this argues for is keeping the sanctions going, to prevent the danger from Iraq from *becoming* immiment. Using this rationale for going to war is like saying that I had to shoot a prisoner because he was about to escape, which I knew because I was about to let him escape! This brings a whole new definition to "doing nothing about Iraq," since it posits that we would stop doing even what we were already doing! > I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an > country that has a large amount of US military presence "Large amount?" Talked to any military people about this? We are and have been vastly under-staffed for the job we're trying to do there. Intitution tells me that's a major reason we're seeing so many troops return with PTSD. We are spread very, very thin over there. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
Count Maru wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant > > (although they could conceivably suprise someday) > > but the Electoral College itself does have some > > interesting properties as compared to a straight > > majority vote: > > > > From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny > > By Will Hively > > September 30, 2004 > > I have a quibble with the article. It doesn't address > the way low population states are spotted (overall) a > few extra electors as compared with high population > states. This intentionally skews the overall number > of electors and the allotment of electors for dense > population areas. This 'skewing' was decided by the Founding Fathers. It was a compromise between a vote of the people and a vote of the states. In my proposal I have the president directly elected by the people, but I also have some compensation for the (small) states (House+Primaries). I have some other problems with the article. Natapoff seemes to want to reach a conclusion that the Electoral College was good for the US, and he arrived there. He poses a situation where 51% vote for one side and 49% for the other, and but many of the 51% are concentrated in one state, while the 49%, winning two states, would win the election. He asserts the 51% are the bad side, and does not take into account that it might be the other way around. He also states that a high voting power is a safeguard against tyranny (voting power being the amount one voter's decision can influence the overall result). Then he uses some math to explore the voting power in his ideal system, in which people in all states vote similar, but fails to adress the real situation where most states lean heavily to one side or the other. If someone lives in such a state, his voting power is near zero: either if the vote is close nationwide, then his own state clearly falls to one party, and while his state matters in the nation, his vote does not matter in his state. If the other party becomes stronger, his state might become close, and his votes matters there, but his state doesn't matter in the nation where the other party won by a landslide. If someone lives in a swing state, however, the voting power is very high when the nationwide vote is close, because then his vote matters in the state and the state matters in the nation. If the nationwide vote is leaning to one side, his voting power is near zero. So in a nationwide vote leaning to one side, people in all states have a voting power of near zero. In a close vote, people in swing states have a high voting power while the others still have a power near zero. In contrast, if the election was direct, all people would have an equal voting power. If it was close, it would be much lower than in a swing state in the current model, but the sum of the voting powers of all people would be similar to the sum in the current model; just the inequality of voting power would go away. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates! www.egscomics.com +++ Sparen beginnt mit GMX DSL: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bad Hitchhikers
On Apr 26, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Gary Denton wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4461899.stm (BBC - "charming" but - "Did the script veer too far away from the source material or tie itself in knots trying to keep faith with it? Bizarrely, I think the answer is both." Is charming a BBC code word?) This is the killer paragraph: "A lot of effort has gone in to keeping the film as faithful to Adams' vision as possible. But somewhere in the production process the crew has lost sight of the fundamental aspect of the books - they were immensely funny." If the production has lost sight of the humor of the Guide, the production has lost everything. There is no reason whatsoever to read the books or listen to the BBC recordings except to laugh your ass off, even at the bits you've heard or read dozens of times before. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
Frank Schmidt wrote: > Count Maru wrote: >> Erik Reuter wrote: >>> The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant >>> (although they could conceivably suprise someday) >>> but the Electoral College itself does have some >>> interesting properties as compared to a straight >>> majority vote: >>> >>> From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny >>> By Will Hively >>> September 30, 2004 >> >> I have a quibble with the article. It doesn't address >> the way low population states are spotted (overall) a >> few extra electors as compared with high population >> states. This intentionally skews the overall number >> of electors and the allotment of electors for dense >> population areas. > > This 'skewing' was decided by the Founding Fathers. It > was a compromise between a vote of the people and a > vote of the states. In my proposal I have the president > directly elected by the people, but I also have some > compensation for the (small) states (House+Primaries). Urk...you mistake what I was talking about. Several decades ago congress set a limit to the number of representatives sent to congress. The effect this has today is that in my state a representative has 500,000 to 600,00 constituents while in the least populous states a representative has a scotch over 400,000 constituents. This gives an inordinate amount of power to those in less populous states and I resent that people in the hinterlands get better representation everyday that I do. This would be addressed by returning to the system where every representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it? > > I have some other problems with the article. Natapoff > seemes to want to reach a conclusion that the Electoral > College was good for the US, and he arrived there. He > poses a situation where 51% vote for one side and 49% > for the other, and but many of the 51% are concentrated > in one state, while the 49%, winning two states, would > win the election. He asserts the 51% are the bad side, > and does not take into account that it might be the > other way around. Pretty much the same way the war is justified in a sense. xponent I Supported The War For Humanitarian Reasons And Remember Feeling Alone Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Balkans background
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > read it with your own eyes, and not through mine. If you read Dutch > better than English, related sites have it in Dutch. If you do, then > your Dutch must be unbelievably good, but I wouldn't put that past > you. :-) Right idea, wrong troll. It is interesting that no matter how hard some people try to hide their identity, a little observation can reveal a lot, at least for those who tend towards fuzzy thinking. Reminiscent of people cheating on a test -- if someone copies from another who fails to answer all the questions correctly, then is not difficult to identify who may have cheated. The only way to avoid being identified this way is to copy from someone who correctly answers all the questions. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> It depends on how you define imminent. Sanctions were in imminent >> danger of being lifted > >If sanctions were in imminent "danger" of being lifted, how did we manage to >start a whole war there? Seems to me that it's a given that we had the >capability to keep the sanctions in place even without international >cooperation, since we managed to go much, much further than just sanctions. > >Isn't this a bit ridiculous as an argument for war or imminent danger? We had >to take extreme measures because the less-extreme measures that *we* had in >place were in "danger" of ending? If we could go to war without U.N. >approval, we sure as heck could keep sanctions in place without U.N. approval. > All this argues for is keeping the sanctions going, to prevent the danger >from Iraq from *becoming* immiment. I am pretty sure that this is not true. What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral sanctions on Iraq. The UN Security Council did so. During the late 90's and early '00s there was a *serious* movement led by France, China, and Russia in the UNSC to lift sanctions.This led up to Colin Powell proposing "smarter sanctions" at the UNSC in 2001. Moreover, I believe that these sanctions required periodic renewal.. if in fact periodic renewal was required, then France, China, or Russia could have vetoed the extension of the sanctions. At any rate, even if periodic renewal was not required, France, China, or Russia were more than free to unilaterally decide to abrogate the sanctions, and could use their veto on the UNSC to avoid any consequences for this.You may recall an incident in the early part of this century when China was caught violating the sanctions by selling anti-aircraft equipment to Iraq. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to evade the US in an >> country that has a large amount of US military presence > >"Large amount?" Talked to any military people about this? We are and have >been vastly under-staffed for the job we're trying to do there. Intitution >tells me that's a major reason we're seeing so many troops return with PTSD. >We are spread very, very thin over there. None of which at all contradicts the term "large amount." JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote >> > At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: >> > >> You are conflating two separate things: >> > >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before >> > >> acting" >> > >> and >> > >> b) "agreement from other nations before acting" >> > > >> > >"Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off." >> > >> > Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. >> > >> > I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see >> > them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. >> >> In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree >> there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was >> accurate in pointing out that the use of the words "permission slip" >> intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school >> for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough >> the song could throw one off. :-) > >Thanks, Dan. Spot on. But Dave, finish connecting the dots! Dan said he use of the words 'permission slip' intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign."You said, to paraphrase, the use of the words 'permission slip' brought to mind images that undermined "seriously considering the opinions of other nations." Do you view a child bringing home a permission slip as a child engaging in "serious consideration of the opinions of his or her parents?" Or do you view a child brining home a permission slip as a child getting the *permission* of his or her parents? >Moreover, what the President actually said was, "America will never seek a >permission slip to defend the security of our country." We're talking about >removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the >security of the United States Do you believe that: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Thank you for your answers. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:12 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote > >> The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission >> slip for an activity, the child doesn't "seriously consider the opinions" >> of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.* > >That's the point! Bush was saying that if the United States sought other >nations' participation in the decision to go to war, we would be acting like a >child, submitting to other authorities, disallowed to think for ourselves. We >can't do that because we're a grown-up country, not a child. > >International relations cannot be modeled as a set of parents and children, so >Bush and Cheney's use of the metaphor was wrong. But it was politically >clever because the truth in the metaphor makes the whole statement seem true. >Advertisers do this all the time -- say something true that is irrelevant... >and say it again and again. > >The falsehood isn't *in* the metaphor, the falsehood *is* the metaphor because >it implies that serious consideration of other nations' wishes would reduce us >to the status of a child... which is baloney. It was not reasonable to reduce >the whole question of how we cooperate with our *brother and sister* nations >to "asking permission," since that is a context of submission, not >negotiation. There you go again, conflating "serious consideration" with "asking permission." As best as I can tell Nick, yours and Dave's arguments requires the non-existence of people arguing that UNSC re-authorization was a *prerequisite* for Gulf War II. In fact, as you well know, there were a *great*many*people* making this argument. Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist upon conflating "asking permission" with "serious consideration"? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 05:13 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >> I think that the fact that al-Zarqawi is able to > evade the US in an > >> country that has a large amount of US military > presence > > > >"Large amount?" Talked to any military people > about this? We are and have > >been vastly under-staffed for the job we're trying > to do there. Intitution > >tells me that's a major reason we're seeing so many > troops return with > PTSD. > >We are spread very, very thin over there. > > None of which at all contradicts the term "large > amount." > > JDG For that matter, I've talked to a _lot_ of military people about this, and, while I think we're grossly under-staffed over there, in no way is that a unanimous opinion. Of the four military officers who are currently military fellows at MIT, for example, the Marine and the Army officer (the two combat veterans in the bunch, interestingly enough - both from Iraq, one from first Iraq, the other from the second) vociferously disagree with me on that. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
North Korea's Nuclear Diplomacy Gets Hotter
http://www.spacewar.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05m.html What is the strategic purpose of North Korea's nuclear weapons drive? Does it want to use them against the United States, South Korea or other nations? Or is it seeking to sell nuclear material to terrorists? If not, is the program aimed at gathering greater bargaining strength with the United States? The question has dominated South Korean security officials and scholars since North Korea's nuclear weapons program became public in 1993. Few analysts in Seoul believe North Korea will use nuclear weapons because it knows such a move would be catastrophic. At the least, U.N.-backed sanctions would lead the North's already faltering economy to collapse, resulting in political turmoil. Pyongyang says its pursuit of nuclear weapons is defensive to cope with U.S. "reckless moves for military aggression," but analysts dismiss the claim because if North Korea had no weapons, the United States would have no reason to attack it. This is why many analysts in South Korea say the North's nuclear threats are aimed at gaining leverage. With the nuclear card in hand, Kim Jong Il's regime seeks massive economic assistance from the outside world and diplomatic ties with Washington, which can ensure its political and economic survival. For this purpose, North Korea employs a "strategy of ambiguity" in dealing with U.S.-led anti-proliferation efforts. It has asserted its right to have atomic weapons, but has remained vague about whether they already exist, leading to confusion. Some experts say Pyongyang's claim of a nuclear arsenal is a lie, while others say it could be real. If North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship for the past 10 years is aimed at buying time to develop nuclear bombs, it may have succeeded. The United States and South Korea believe the North has made one or two bombs. North Korea declared in February it had nuclear weapons. But Pyongyang's attempt to use the nuclear threat to win economic aid and political concessions has failed to yield results. The country's economy has become weaker, forcing Kim's regime to ease communist economic rule. The nation is also under more political pressure from the outside. The United States has floated the possibility of taking North Korea to the U.N. Security Council for action if it continues to refuse to return to multilateral talks, following Pyongyang's apparent move toward additional weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea has refused to return to the six-nation process that also involves the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. June, which marks a year since the talks were last held, is widely considered a deadline for a return to negotiations. Washington's Proliferation Security Initiative, an international effort that allows for the seizure of missiles and other potential components of weapons of mass destruction shipped from North Korea and other countries of concern, could also be used against the North. "It is a very effective tool to deal with the problems of proliferation that might resort from any place of the world," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week. Analysts in Seoul say Kim must make a decision because U.S. patience is wearing thin. Kim Tae-hyun, a professor at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, says the United States is waiting one last time before seeking tougher options. "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stepped up efforts to maintain the dialogue momentum to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem, dispatching chief U.S. nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill to Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo," he said. Hill, assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific affairs, flew to Seoul Saturday and met with South Korean officials before leaving for Beijing Tuesday. "What we are focusing on is the diplomatic track and the need to get the talks going, and more importantly, once they get going, to achieve progress in the talks," he said after meeting with his South Korean counterpart, Song Min-soon. In Beijing, Hill said he was trying "to get the six-party process going." "We have got five countries that are there and one that continues to stay away, so as soon as we get the North Koreans to the talks, we look forward to vigorous negotiations," he said. South Korean officials, however, say Hill also hinted for the first time his nation could explore other options to prevent North Korea from building a nuclear arsenal. "As North Korea gas refused to return the bargaining table for almost a year, U.S. patience is rapidly running out," Kim said. "If North Korea's nuclear diplomacy is aimed at securing economic and political benefits, it should recognize time is running out and move to get them." xponent Poodles Of War Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
At 09:09 PM Tuesday 4/26/2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: This would be addressed by returning to the system where every representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it? IIRC, the figure of 8000+ members of the House I mentioned a few days ago was based on each representative having the same number of constituents, and that number being what it was before the total number of representatives (or something like that: I'm sure of the first, anyway. Of course, I don't happen to recall a reference . . . ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 07:53 PM 26/04/05 -0400, Maru wrote: On 4/26/05, Keith Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: snip > Agreed. Further, I think I can describe what it takes, namely an expanding > economy, to keep a population in a mode where it extends "human" to > all. In stone age times where there was plenty of room to expand, it was > not good for your genes to go out trying to kill neighbors. Different > situation when the future looks bleak and you are facing the problem of > your children starving. > Keith Henson Your generalization is weak, Henson: there are plenty of examples of civilizations going on the war path without a bleak future. Germany, circa WWI- they went to war at least partially *because* they were doing so very well, and felt they weren't getting their share of international influence. Not because their economy was crashing, or threatening to. The psychological traits leading to war (through xenophobic memes) evolved in the stone age. There it served the function of reducing the population of hominids who had "escaped" their predators, perhaps as long as 2.65 million years ago when or ancestors started making sharp edges by breaking rocks. Mapping these traits into the modern world is not easy, but I would say that tribes and nations who *start* wars generally do it after a build up of xenophobic memes. And the conditions for that class of memes to thrive is a bleak outlook. (It makes sense that *anticipation* of bad times would be selected because there is probably an advantage to attacking first if the whole area is subject to similar ecologic woes.) "Bleak future" generates "unprovoked" attacks. Of course humans also jump into war mode when they are attacked. I have not looked into the income per capita trends in Germany prior to WW I or the public perception of the future. I seem to remember that war as being both sides fearing attack. Japan, prior to WW2, went rampaging through the Pacific. Was their economy crashing as well? I think if you look at the data, a rapid rise in population was pushing down income per capita during the years leading up to the war. US- just about any war. See the Civil War. Was the enthusiasm on both sides for a blood bath a result of disastrous, prolonged depression? That one I have researched. The south was anticipating an economic disaster because it was clear that one way or another slavery was going to go. Directly or indirectly slavery was a large factor in the income of the white population in the south. The war didn't do that much damage to the south, but the economy took better than 100 years to recover from the loss of slaves and it could be said it never has. Of course the evolutionary *point* of wars was to kill a lot of the population to get it back into ecological balance. Wars in the last century or so don't hold a patch on biblical wars where they killed all the loosers except the young virgins (and sometimes even them). What about the French Revolution? Historians agree that at the time, everybody, peasants included, were doing economically better than previously (Although it is true the vast bulk of gains were going to the upper classes. But the lower people did gain). What unleashed the Terror? Not the expectation of a deep depression. I have not looked into the details of the run up in that instance. Perhaps someone on this news group can suggest some pointers? The number to plot would be projected income per capita. A sharp drop after an extended run up is perhaps the most likely to set off social disruptions. If the economic growth (particularly in food) is below the population growth, a country is headed for trouble. You already knew that. It is instructive that some 30 years before the steam went out of the IRA, the Irish birth rate dropped by almost half to near replacement. After a long delay, economic growth got ahead of population growth and support for the IRA dwindled. I really don't know if war is the norm and it is inhibited by opportunity to do other things, or if war is the exceptional case when a population is under stress. Keith Henson ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote > What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral > sanctions on Iraq. In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? Are you saying that despite the fact that we were willing to go to war regardless of international support, we might *not* have been willing to impose sanctions any more? We'll bomb your cities, invade your country, occupy and run it... but we won't impose sanctions? Why not? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:58:51 -0400, JDG wrote > >We are spread very, very thin over there. > > None of which at all contradicts the term "large amount." Oh for heaven's sake, John. The statement was about being able to find a fugitive. In that context, we do not have a large number of troops in Iraq. Perhaps you have some other context in mind, but in that context, it isn't even debatable, is it? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:26:55 -0400, JDG wrote > Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing > against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist > upon conflating "asking permission" with "serious consideration"? I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that the metaphor "a child asking for a permission slip from an adult" is apropos to the United States seeking consent of the United Nations? You seem to be saying that it is not a reasonable metaphor to describe the relationship between our country and the U.N. If that's so, then how can you defend Bush and Cheney's repeated use of the metaphor? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Troop Levels in Iraq Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 19:45:39 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > the two combat > veterans in the bunch, interestingly enough - both > from Iraq, one from first Iraq, the other from the > second) vociferously disagree with me on that. I'm pretty sure that just about any Marine will tell you that the whole job could be done by one platoon. And mean it. Marines are special. Nick Card-carrying member of the Marine Corps League ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: North Korea's Nuclear Diplomacy Gets Hotter
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:09:45 -0500, Robert G. Seeberger wrote > Pyongyang says its pursuit of nuclear weapons is defensive to cope > with U.S. "reckless moves for military aggression," but analysts > dismiss the claim because if North Korea had no weapons, the United > States would have no reason to attack it. Somebody needs to alert these analysts to the fact that we did attack a country that was without nuclear weapons (or any other WMDs) and no active program to build them. Was this some sort of satire that went right by me? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> >How is it that people who >> >are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so >> >quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births >> >they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? >> >> I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who >> believes the above. > >Congress? Really? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 08:57 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: >> Why do you continue to dismiss the possibility that Bush was arguing >> against precisely this line of argumentation, and continue to insist >> upon conflating "asking permission" with "serious consideration"? > >I have no idea what you are talking about. > >Are you saying that the metaphor "a child asking for a permission slip from an >adult" is apropos to the United States seeking consent of the United Nations? Yes, I am saying that the child/permission slip line is a metaphor for the US seeking the consent of the UNSC on foreign policy positions.I am saying that it is *not* a metaphor for undertaking serious consideration of other countries' viewpoints. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3 > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote > > > What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral > > sanctions on Iraq. > > In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could > have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? > > Are you saying that despite the fact that we were willing to go to war > regardless of international support, we might *not* have been willing to > impose sanctions any more? We'll bomb your cities, invade your country, > occupy and run it... but we won't impose sanctions? Why not? Perhaps because we thought that sinking French, Russian, German, and Chinese ships was a bad idea? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis > At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: > >> >How is it that people who > >> >are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so > >> >quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births > >> >they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? > >> > >> I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who > >> believes the above. > > > >Congress? > > Really? Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 26, 2005, at 7:20 PM, JDG wrote: > But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ... I didn't come up with the "permission slip" metaphor, but hear this: I. Understand. The. Difference. > Do you believe that: > Thank you for your answers. They weren't questions. They were talking points with question marks. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's > budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
JDG wrote: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation. -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 attacks. -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? The lifting of sanctions may have been a possibility before 9/11. Not after. -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account either. No evidence whatsoever. -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Exhaustive searches and a billion dollars and not a trace of WMDs. -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Pre-war inspections and two years of occupation and no evidence of WMDs except some shells Sadam probably lost in the '80s. -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - elements of the Saudi government could do the same. Thank you for your answers. You're certainly welcome. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
From: Nick Arnett >On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote >> Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's >> budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? >Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...? Its relevant cos it agrees with your comment. Name one person Congress When That time that Dan said. Hopefully Helpful Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:35:02 -0400, JDG wrote > At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: > >> >How is it that people who > >> >are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so > >> >quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births > >> >they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? > >> > >> I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who > >> believes the above. > > > >Congress? > > Really? Yes, really. There is less health insurance available, more children living in poverty, which directly and indirectly increase the infant and child mortality rate -- and ours is among the worst in the world. We claim to have some sort of moral imperative to solve Iraq's problems because we are the most powerful nation in the world. Where's that power being applied to the lives of our own children? The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion. I don't have any problem with taking a negative view of abortion, but how about some consistency about life? It should be against the law to abort a fetus, but it's okay to let increasing numbers of children live in poverty? We can do better. We can show that we really do care about children, with our budget. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:31:45 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote > From: Nick Arnett > > >On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > >> Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's > >> budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? > > >Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...? > > Its relevant cos it agrees with your comment. > > Name one person > Congress > When > That time that Dan said. Medicaid. Babies. Ah. For a moment there, I forgot what Medicaid is. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
