Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On May 15, 2005, at 9:09 PM, Dave Land wrote: I didn't say that they *are* getting their instructions from Jesus, only that *they* believe so, and act as though they had that authority. You may disagree. I suspect it is the case. Bush seems to believe in some kind of phantasmal effect... I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, how do you know? I said I just feel it. Or there's this: I believe that God wants me to be president. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/149/story_14930_1.html Or then there's this: 'According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.' http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml? itemNo=310788contrassID=2subContrassID=1sbSubContrassID=0listSrc=Y == I don't think it matters what the rest of the administration thinks when the CinC is listening to voices in his head. -- 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: Br!n: Re: more neocons
JDG wrote: At 11:27 PM 5/11/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Are you of the opinion that American Foreign Policy is always led by selfless morality, or are there times when they too stoop to the level of the scummy French or the sneaky, dirty Germans, and do things where the self interest of the USA outweighs the moral thing to do? I would say that American Foreign Policy is almost always led by America's self-interest, and that there are only a few rare instances of American Foreign Policy being typified by selfless morality. OK, well we agree on that. And that is not a bad thing, it is America's duty to look after its own self interest. And of the world's countries, I think the rare instances are more likely in America's case than in most. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam, why is it that only other countries have self-interested agendas? Is it possible that now and then, America does too? I think it is, and that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second opinion. No, the question is the exact opposite. Why is it that you claim that it's _only_ America that acts only in its self-interest, and everyone else gets a pass? Point out where I said that. No one else gets a free pass. We constantly hear about war for oil or what not in the US's case, when there's no logical connection there. Look, I am not a War for Oil theorist, not in a direct sense, but you can't deny that if Saddam was a dictator in some oil-free tinpot African state, we would not be having this conversation, cos he would still be in power. But when there _is_ a connection between corruption and self-interest and nations that _oppose_ the United States - not a word. Other countries - Britain, for example - do sometimes act in ways that are not purely self-interested. That's why you have to analyze each case. Now, in the Sudan, we have a case of genocide going on where the US is saying Let's try to do something. And France is saying There's no genocide here. Now one of those two countries has massive oil contracts with the Sudanese government. I leave you to guess which one. And which one is more likely to be acting for selfish reasons. Umm, and after the US intervention, I will leave you to guess who would have 'new' massive oil contracts with the 'new' Sudanese government. Perhaps that is what you believe. I don't know. I like America, but I don't think it is perfect. You have a funny way of showing it. You know, I constantly hear, I like America from people who never have anything good to say about it and who oppose everything it does in the world - particularly when they are the _beneficiaries_ of what it does in the world. You'll forgive me if the simple statement doesn't quite convince me one way or the other. Well, that is your choice. I would not even be arguing about this if I did not feel strongly about freedom and democracy, of which America is a great champion. And how am I supposed to show it? By slavish adoration of every action America takes? That's not democracy, or freedom. Right now we are debating something about which I disagree with the actions taken by the Bush Administration. So, well, sorry if I don't sound grateful enough but that will be because I ain't. Does that make sense? I am arguing because I disagree, not because I am some dullard whose knees jerk automatically every time I hear America mentioned. To use an argument style that really peed me off, does this inability to intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out in Iraq, mean that support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit approval of the slaughter in Darfur? I Was Shocked Too Maru Andrew Well the argument probably peed you off because it's _true_. People said Don't invade Iraq. And we said That will leave Saddam Hussein in power. And they said, Don't invade Iraq. And we said The _only way_ to remove Saddam Hussein from power is to invade Iraq. and that statement is true, and hasn't been refuted by anyone on the list, and can't be refuted, because it is, in fact, a true statement. No, it can't be refuted because it is, in fact, too late to try any other approach. Maybe you don't care. Maybe you think removing Saddam isn't worth the cost. But you can't say that opposing the invasion wasn't functionally a stand in favor of Saddam remaining in power, _because it was_. In part it's your use of terms that peed me off. You use the term, a stand in favour, implying that I liked Saddam, that I favoured him. I did't, and never have. Opposing the invasion, was, surprisingly enough, opposing the invasion. As a consequence, he may have stayed in power, I accept that, but I did not favour him. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
A very nice futurist scenario about news
1. A colleague pointed me to this intriguing website, which features a look at media history from the vantage point of the year 2014. http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/(Need I mention that every bit of this was forecast in a little novel called EARTH?) 2. Fight the big lie of the periodic table! http://photos9.flickr.com/12560931_6246357501_b.jpg 3. Offered without comment: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4119 4. www.zabasearch.com= find yourself or anyone else for free, your date of birth and a satellite photo of where you live. A complete background check costs money, but anyone can access it. Interesting, and maybe a bit scary, but actually surprising how long it took to come about. 5. Interesting article comparing tolerant America with the Umayad renaissance in Andalusia that ended a thousand years ago because of surging waves of sanctimonious intolerance. http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3130 6. And Stefan suggests: Look quick before eBay pulls this! http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=15154item=4992718459rd=1 - Finally, I recently shared with some of you one paranoid scenario - by a friend of mine - suggesting that the social security initiative, combined with frantic denial of climate change and depletion of oil stocks, can all be neatly explained by a plan to create a vast pool of greater fools to buy up dog stocks before the fit hits the shan. (After all, the deniers of climate change and resource depletion aren't ACTUALLY stupid. They must have a reason. This one fits. Some of you have also heard MY crackpot theory - that this administration's list of assertive actions seem NOT to suit the needs of their official home constituencies - or even the insatiable wing of the American aristocracy. If you list everything, the only TOTAL beneficiaries are members of a certain foreign royal house. Are these notions crazy? One problem we face is that OUR friends are mostly members of the Enlightenment, or what a neocon inside the White House once derisively called the reality-based community.(For an excerpt from the Suskind interview see http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4119 ) Problem is that such people (Enlightenment modernists like people we generally hang around with) do not viscerally approve of conspiracy theories. And rightly so! 99% of conspiracy theories are just plain dumb and the 1% that have some degree of plausibility are often exaggerated out of all usefulness. Indeed, this is a deeply cultural thing. The bazaars in macho-belt countries are rife with silly conspiracies like the west wants to spread polio, that harm us immensely in the memic struggle for a better world. You and I know that isn't the way adults should behave. So what do we do in an era when several conspiracies do actually seem to be (1) plausible, (2) feasible, (3) match all visible evidence, and (4) fit the character and motives of the people in power? Reality-based modernists are at a huge disadvantage in conceptually being ABLE to detect what used to be normal in most other cultures -- -- that is, conspiratorial collusion by society's leader-caste, using their position in order to cheat and manipulate the system (sometimes in conjunction with hostile foreign powers) in order to screw the masses. Even typing those words felt turgid, immature, rash, even kooky... ...and yet, history inarguably shows that's exactly what happened in most human societies, a majority of the time! That we would dismiss the possibility of a recurrence of such behavior, when all branches of governance have been taken over by a single clade of elite rationalizers - the same clade that showed their trustworthiness in the SL Scandal, Enron, the Accounting Scandal, etc. - shows how desperately accustomed we have become to being able to trust in the modernist agenda. An agenda that is under attack as we speak. Do I actually believe these two particular paranoid scenarios? Only tentatively. As a scientist, what I REALLY want is to put them to experimental test. There are easy ways to check out both theories... and as far as I can see, these confidence building measures have been relentlessly prevented, adding fuel to a smoldering suspicion. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today Gautam, et al, I'm writing to retract my previous message. I reject your categorization of me as being out of the mainstream. Moreover, I found your message a little short on what I'll call intellectual honesty. First, you admittedly pulled your numbers out of your ... um ... head, whereas this thread was discussing *actual* numbers from a poll that has been conducted for 15 years by the Pew Research Center. Guess which ones I consider to have more weight? Second, your four groups of 20% are skewed to the right. Why didn't you have five groups: Very Conservative 20% Conservative 20% Moderate 20% Liberal 20% Very Liberal 20% -- Source: My Ass Using the above categories, which at least provide a centered spectrum, feel free to provide your own numbers. Third, I don't understand why your four categories only added up to 80%, leaving out 20% of the population. Do you think that the opinions of 20% of Americans don't count, or that 20% don't have any opinions? That is certainly heading in the direction of at least one finding in the Pew report: 63% of respondents feel that Most elected officials don't care what people like me think. Perhaps your story would be better served with these groupings (with no bullshit numbers): Extremely Conservative, Very Conservative, Moderately Conservative, Mildly Conservative, Lunatic Fringe. Returning to meaningful results of an actual poll, the categories and percentages under discussion are: Right-leaning: Enterprisers 9% Social Conservatives 11% Pro-Government Conservatives 9% Centrist/Unaffiliated: Upbeats 11% Disaffecteds 9% Bystanders 10% Left-leaning: Conservative Democrats 14% Disadvantaged Democrats 10% Liberals 17% As you can see, the Liberals *as defined by the Pew report* are the largest bloc. The mainstream, one might say. For the three general groupings that the Pewsters created, the percentages are: Right-leaning 29% Centrist/Neither 30% Left-leaning 41% Well, that is very curious, since self-identification has long given different results. For example, the Harris poll asks people to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The results have been: Year C M L 2003 33 40 18 2002 35 40 17 2001 36 40 19 2000 35 40 18 1999 37 39 18 1998 37 40 19 1997 37 40 19 1996 38 41 19 1995 40 40 16 1992 36 42 18 1991 37 41 18 1990 38 41 18 1989 37 42 17 1988 38 39 18 1987 37 39 19 1986 37 39 18 1985 37 40 17 1984 35 39 18 1983 36 40 18 1982 36 40 18 1981 38 40 17 1980 35 41 18 1979 35 39 20 1978 34 39 17 1977 30 42 17 1976 31 40 18 1975 30 38 18 1974 30 43 15 1972 31 36 20 1968 37 31 17 Among other things, it's a amazing to lump folks who call themselves conservatives among liberals. The questions sound kinda funny. It doesn't add to 100% because everyone doesn't self-identify. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Sun, 15 May 2005 12:11:23 -0400, JDG wrote First of all, that is not what Dave Land proposed. He proposed that 17% was the mainstream. It seems that we differ with respect to our understanding of what Dave might have meant. I'd rather not assume that either one of is correct until we hear from Dave, as he may not have found the right words for what he was trying to convey. Secondly, it appears that the Pew Report rather arbitrarily grouped things into threes. If one considers Conservative Democrats to be part of the Moderate/Centrist bloc, the analysis changes quite dramatically. I interpreted as a continuum in which the order is significant to the point where the rearrangement you propose would be nonsense. I'm sure that much of it has to do prioritizing key issues. For example, many people would never vote for a pro-segregation candidate or a pro-baby-killing candidate, regardless of the candidates' views on other issues. On the other hand, I know that if an election were held in 2002, I would probably have voted for a pro-choice pro-Iraq-war candidate over a pro-life anti-Iraq-war candidate. So, in that sense, I would have voted for a candidate with whom I very fundamentally disagreed. Is it fair to say, then, that you believe that the Pew study asked the wrong questions to describe the basis on which people have voted in recent elections? If so, I'd be curious to hear what kind of questions might have more accurately done so... and if you're aware of any polls or surveys that come closer, I'd love to see the results. As I said earlier, the survey at hand doesn't seem to do much toward getting past the usual political dimensions, so I'm open to seeing more realistic ones. Otherwise, I think we're stuck with the same old ideologies. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A dependable safety net (was Re: Social Security)
On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:40:55 -0400, JDG wrote Secondly, Social Security has no investments, so that's a bit of a non sequitur. I wrote bout investments in *people*. Surely you wouldn't disagree that Social Security is an investment in people? Thirdly, Social Security it is inaccurate to describe Social Security as merely an investment in today's needy people. Oh, look, you don't disagree. After all, Bill Gates is going to get a Social Security check. Moreover, Social Security provides some *increased* benefits based on having worked longer, or worked for higher wages, which I would expect to be inversely correlated to need. I didn't say it was a need-based program. But it is a primary safety net for our neediest people. For example... I just received a message saying that one of my friends, the youth pastor at a large church, died yesterday. He leaves a wife and four kids. The last time I saw him, five months ago, he was leading the funeral for another friend who died leaving seven kids and a pregnant wife. These widows and their children are examples of people for who Social Security is the primary safety net -- and it isn't even much. Lastly, your position as described above would lead to the logical conclusion that one should not save so long as there are needy people - that that money would be better spend on charity than on savings. Reductio ad absurdum! Have I said one word against saving? The two places I've spent most of my life are Pittsburgh and Silicon Valley, which were centers of manufacturing. I saw the mills close in the former and semiconductor fabs largely disappear from the latter, with those businesses and their jobs go oversears. The best understanding of why that happened is that our failure to save, as a nation, has made capital far less expensive in places with high personal savings rates, such as Japan. Our reponse has been to encourage other nations to stimulate consumption, to increase their cost of capital, rather than encouraging savings in our country, to decrease our own cost of capital. I think that stinks. Consumerism is out of control. So, while I am in favor of encouraging savings, which would strength our financial foundations, I don't favor taking money out of the Social Security safety net to do so. The question is: Should the government construct policies such that as few people as possible need the safety net. What does that have to do with how dependable the safety net is? If there were only ten people who needed it, but it wasn't there for some of them, then we're not being good stewards of the neediest. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
On Sun, 15 May 2005 13:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote In particular, the categories are not continuous, obviously enough. Again with the tubular cured meat. Left, middle and right are not continuous! At what center are the centrists? What are the middle-of-the-road people in the middle of? From the report: The Republican Party's current advantage with the center makes up for the fact that the GOP-oriented groups, when taken together, account for only 29% of the public. By contrast, the three Democratic groups constitute 41% of the public. And: At the other end of the political spectrum, Liberals have swelled to become the largest voting bloc in the typology. Liberals are opponents of an assertive foreign policy, strong supporters of environmental protection, and solid backers of government assistance to the poor. This affluent, well-educated, highly secular group is consistently liberal on social issues, ranging from freedom of expression to abortion. In contrast, Conservative Democrats are quite religious, socially conservative and take more moderate positions on several key foreign policy questions. The group is older, and includes many blacks and Hispanics; of all the core Democratic groups, it has strongest sense of personal empowerment. And: Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%). And how about this one? Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) have a favorable opinion of Bill Clinton, the highest positive rating of 11 political figures tested. Six-in- ten have a favorable opinion of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and about the same number have a positive view of Sen. John McCain (59%). Who is mainstream, according to this report? Who, Gautam Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who is mainstream, according to this report? Who, Gautam Nick Not you, Nick. Most Americans don't think God has an opinion on marginal tax rates, and most of those who do don't share yours. I am comfortable with my own position as pretty near the median voter. Could you even _find_ the median voter? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This does not appear to be the case. People often vote *against* their self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved by the understanding that people vote their identities, not their interests. The Republican party did a superior job in the past election of appealing to the middle in this way. Dave This is true _only_ if you are so arrogant that you believe you understand people's self interest better than they do. Thomas Hobbes had something to say about that centuries ago. It wasn't true then that elites could (or would) understand most people's self interest better than they did, and it isn't true now. Maybe they _do_ vote their self interest, and you just don't understand what their self interest is. I know which one seems more likely to me. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You persist in making personal attacks on me. Knock it off. Dave You persist in being a jackass. Why don't _you_ knock it off? I'm still pissed at being maliciously quoted out of context, forget about being accused of a lack of intellectual honesty by someone who (as far as I can tell) couldn't find it with a map. So why don't you remove your head from your ass, and then I'll stop pointing out it's up there? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons
--- Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: No, the question is the exact opposite. Why is it that you claim that it's _only_ America that acts only in its self-interest, and everyone else gets a pass? Point out where I said that. No one else gets a free pass. Really? Then when did you mention the behavior of other countries, which are clearly acting for reasons of corruption or avarice, with far better evidence than anything for the US. Where did you mention this _even once_, in between your heated condemnations of - as far as I can tell - anything and everything the US does in the world? Look, I am not a War for Oil theorist, not in a direct sense, but you can't deny that if Saddam was a dictator in some oil-free tinpot African state, we would not be having this conversation, cos he would still be in power. You're not? Yet below you make the most facile of War for Oil arguments about the Sudan, of all places. That's remarkable. At any rate, so what? Oil is power. A state with oil is more important than one without oil, all other things being equal. Your point has relevance if and only if you believe that force can be used only when it is irrelevant to, or actually opposed to, the national interest. Umm, and after the US intervention, I will leave you to guess who would have 'new' massive oil contracts with the 'new' Sudanese government. Gee, Andrew, do you _think_ this might be why I don't believe you when you claim not to be anti-American? Do you seriously want to claim that helping in genocide (France, Russia, China) and trying to stop genocide (the US) are the same thing, morally? I guess being saved by Americans is worse than being killed by someone else, or something? If you're not a War for Oil theorist, then this is a pretty crazy argument. If you are, it still is, but at least it's consistent. You have a funny way of showing it. You know, I constantly hear, I like America from people who never have anything good to say about it and who oppose everything it does in the world - particularly when they are the _beneficiaries_ of what it does in the world. You'll forgive me if the simple statement doesn't quite convince me one way or the other. Well, that is your choice. I would not even be arguing about this if I did not feel strongly about freedom and democracy, of which America is a great champion. Ah yes, the rote statement. You just think, though, that in the Sudan we're trying to stop a genocide because of the oil there. It couldn't possibly be because _we think genocide is bad_. And how am I supposed to show it? Well, looking at the Sudan and saying, Gee, I prefer the people who are trying to stop the genocide to the people who are trying to help it, even though the people who are trying to stop it are Americans would be a start. No, it can't be refuted because it is, in fact, too late to try any other approach. Since no one has suggested anything that even vaguely resembles another approach with any sort of reasonable possibility of success, this is pointless. You can't oppose something with nothing. You can't say, I want to get rid of Saddam but I want to do it without war. Well, I want the tooth fairy to do it, but since that isn't happening, let's try something that might work. Opposing the invasion, was, surprisingly enough, opposing the invasion. And opposing genocide is, surprisingly enough, opposing genocide, except when the US does it, right? As a consequence, he may have stayed in power, I accept that, but I did not favour him. Andrew Well, that's more honest than some people. No one said you favored him. That's the difference between saying that's what you wanted, and that's the _effect_ of what you wanted. If you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. You can't separate them, however much you want to. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On May 15, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:59 AM Sunday 5/15/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: How does one go about persuading people to vote for candidates with whom they fundamentally disagree? Politics is quite mysterious. Perhaps it's because so often when people get to the polls they hold their noses and vote for the least objectionable of the available choices or the one they think is likely to either do the most for them personally or at least to do the least to harm them? This does not appear to be the case. People often vote *against* their self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved by the understanding that people vote their identities, not their interests. The Republican party did a superior job in the past election of appealing to the middle in this way. Isn't there a simpler explanation? Conservative Democrats are people who are traditional Democrats, based on families, etc., but are actually conservative. Thus, they identify themselves as Democrats but often do vote Republican based on their views of the issues. The old yellow dog Democrats in Texas, for example, were often very conservative. With all due respect, this type of analysis, when not cross checked by other techniques, can yield the results that are desired, instead of the results that are accurate. I think Gautam has overstated the present conservative numbers, but conservatives do appear to outnumber liberals by about 2 to 1. IMHO, staring at what empirical information that is available and trying hard to fit it with rough models is one of the best ways to get beyond ideology. Indeed, one could even do this to determine who has been able to find common ground across the political spectrum most and find out what techniques were used. I fear, though, that getting around ideology is a liberal coping mechanism for denying the fact that liberals need to retool and rethink their ideas in light of the last 40 years of experience. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote Not you, Nick. Most Americans don't think God has an opinion on marginal tax rates, and most of those who do don't share yours. When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another God-in-my-back-pocket prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm angry when I hear you misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, life and death issues. I'm certain that you know you are way out of line. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Isn't there a simpler explanation? Conservative Democrats are people who are traditional Democrats, based on families, etc., but are actually conservative. Thus, they identify themselves as Democrats but often do vote Republican based on their views of the issues. The old yellow dog Democrats in Texas, for example, were often very conservative. How can you reconcile this explanation with the data at hand? The Republican Party's current advantage with the center makes up for the fact that the GOP-oriented groups, when taken together, account for only 29% of the public. By contrast, the three Democratic groups constitute 41% of the public. This was from about self-identification. It was about core beliefs. Here are the self-identification numbers: Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%). Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of conservative politicians and the popularity of their politics. What will it take to debunk the myth that conservative politics and policies are popular? What will it take for people to care more about their politics? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
On 5/15/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 07:34 PM 5/12/2005 -0700,Nick Arnett wrote: Again, Nick, after all, Saddam Hussein's regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Whose ranking? I said one of the top 5, because I think that it would be difficult to place Saddam Hussein's Iraq lower than 5 among the worst regimes on Earth. I'm not going to argue with anyone who says that the DPRK or Zimbabwe is/are worse. After that, Iraq is in a mix with places like Turkmenistan, Myanmar, the Central African Republic, Togo, and Sudan. I think you'd be straining to place all of those as worse than Iraq, though, so Top 5 is about right. I could agree he was in the top 20. There are awful places that don't make American news and many of which Bush is embracing. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On 5/16/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You persist in making personal attacks on me. Knock it off. Dave You persist in being a jackass. Why don't _you_ knock it off? I'm still pissed at being maliciously quoted out of context, forget about being accused of a lack of intellectual honesty by someone who (as far as I can tell) couldn't find it with a map. So why don't you remove your head from your ass, and then I'll stop pointing out it's up there? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Way off his meds today and getting way out of line. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 16, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Gary Denton wrote: On 5/16/05, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You persist in making personal attacks on me. Knock it off. Dave You persist in being a jackass. Why don't _you_ knock it off? I'm still pissed at being maliciously quoted out of context, forget about being accused of a lack of intellectual honesty by someone who (as far as I can tell) couldn't find it with a map. So why don't you remove your head from your ass, and then I'll stop pointing out it's up there? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Way off his meds today and getting way out of line. I'm not reading Gautam's messages these days except as they're quoted by others (killfile and all that), and one might not expect me to come to his aid, but in the spirit of fairness, your first phrase strikes me as a personal attack. It is clear that I have gotten up Gautam's nostril this week, and I have found his messages more than a little intemperate, but I will not descend with him to the level personal attacks, and hope you'll allow me to invite you to resist the temptation as well. The relevant part of our etiquette guidelines requires that I read the offending message ALOUD... TWICE! and consider whether there may be a milder way to interpret his remarks. Then I am to ask whether the perpetrator meant the worse version of the message. So I'll ask (taking Gautam temporarily out of my killfile so I can see his no doubt thoughtful and honorable reply): When you said why don't you remove your head from your ass, did you mean something other than that you think I have my head up my ass? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Isn't there a simpler explanation? Conservative Democrats are people who are traditional Democrats, based on families, etc., but are actually conservative. Thus, they identify themselves as Democrats but often do vote Republican based on their views of the issues. The old yellow dog Democrats in Texas, for example, were often very conservative. How can you reconcile this explanation with the data at hand? The Republican Party's current advantage with the center makes up for the fact that the GOP-oriented groups, when taken together, account for only 29% of the public. By contrast, the three Democratic groups constitute 41% of the public. This was from about self-identification. It was about core beliefs. Here are the self-identification numbers: One set of self-identification numbers. The other, I gave for the last 30 years in an earlier post. For the last available year (2003) the numbers are: Conservative: 33% Moderate: 40% Liberal: 18%. Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%). That's true...Conservative Democrats have been self-identified as Democrats. But, the advantage the Democrats have had is slipping. For example, in 1980, 41% were self-identified Democrats vs. 24% Republican. In 2003, the numbers were 33% Dem, 28% Rep. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444 The Pew poll that was conducted seemed to do some rather atypical things to arrive at catagories. It is inconsistant with years of polling data that I've seen. I've reconciled those polling data with the election results that I've seen...without assuming cognative dissonence on the part of the voters. Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of conservative politicians and the popularity of their politics. I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Yet, if you look at http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm you will see, in the 1st poll, that unlimited abortions are favored by less than a quarter of the population. Those who consider themselves pro-choice and pro-life are close to equal. There is one other poll that has the majority of the people saying the Democrats are closer to their position, and there is one other poll that has less than 20% identify with the liberal position. What will it take to debunk the myth that conservative politics and policies are popular? It isn't a myth because you don't want to believe it. I try to read numbers straight. I consider myself liberal and I've felt, as such, that I've been in the minority since I left Madison Wisconsineven when I lived in Conn. What will it take for people to care more about their politics? A lot of people do care in Texasmany of them disagree with me, and, probably, even moredisagree with you. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
Well this discussion certainly hasn't moved beyond Red and Blue. In regards to recent comments, in issue after issue the conservative Democrats are more like the two groups to their left, the other Democrats, then to the Republican groups. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=948 Right now the debate is centered around foreign policy and that is why on national politics the GOP keeps getting narrow wins. War in Iraq - Was it the Right Decison? Enterprisers 94% Yes Social Conservatives 88% Pro-government Conservatives 72% Upbeats 66 Disaffecteds 50 -- oops, the center slightly supports this Conservative Democrats 28 Disadvantaged Democrats 15 Liberals 11 Perhaps the GOP should stop bashing liberals. Liberals are the only Democratic group where a slim majority believes since we are already there we need to stay and not send our troops home now. Politics does seem more about identity now and a few ideas that are repeated over and over again in the boom box media. French bashing for example. While praising Bush for acting out for America's self-interest it become morally beyond the pale and the basis for condemning entire countries like France when it is believed to have considered its own interests. There is way too much cheese-eating surrender monkey talk as you might expect when we have fallen into the politics of Eric Hoffer's True Believers and their particular psychological problems. Gary who once heard Rush totally misread Hoffer as supporting his dittoheads Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another God-in-my-back-pocket prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm angry when I hear you misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, life and death issues. I'm certain that you know you are way out of line. Nick Then _distinguish what you believe_ from that, Nick. I posted on how your use of religion makes me - someone from a different faith - enormously uncomfortable. It was ignored. Instead I just got more appeals to the Divinity for whatever policy you appear to favor today. I would say that someone who dragoons God into supporting his own policies is out of line, not someone who is perturbed by it. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is clear that I have gotten up Gautam's nostril this week, and I have found his messages more than a little intemperate, but I will not descend with him to the level personal attacks, and hope you'll allow me to invite you to resist the temptation as well. So I'll ask (taking Gautam temporarily out of my killfile so I can see his no doubt thoughtful and honorable reply): When you said why don't you remove your head from your ass, did you mean something other than that you think I have my head up my ass? Dave Not really, no. You're right, you've gotten up my nostril. I don't like being maliciously misquoted. I don't like being patronized by someone who is in no way my superior. I don't like people who distort religion to support secular political agendas. I don't like having the unimaginably pompous and self-important accuse me and others of such things. And when people do those things, I'm likely to react angrily. I don't use killfiles, because I guess there's some theoretical sense that, say, Gary might say something that is interesting, however low the odds are. But I probably would be better off doing so. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of conservative politicians and the popularity of their politics. I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Yet, if you look at FALSE. That is setting up a straw man to knock it down. I have never heard any politician defend all abortions without question. That is not the liberal position or the Democratic position. http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm you will see, in the 1st poll, that unlimited abortions are favored by less than a quarter of the population. Those who consider themselves pro-choice and pro-life are close to equal. There is one other poll that has the majority of the people saying the Democrats are closer to their position, and there is one other poll that has less than 20% identify with the liberal position. Because it isn't the liberal position but a straw man argument. What will it take to debunk the myth that conservative politics and policies are popular? It isn't a myth because you don't want to believe it. I try to read numbers straight. I consider myself liberal and I've felt, as such, that I've been in the minority since I left Madison Wisconsineven when I lived in Conn. What will it take for people to care more about their politics? A lot of people do care in Texasmany of them disagree with me, and, probably, even more disagree with you. Dan M. -- Gary working in local Texas politics Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
I also retract the meds comment. I was catching up with my emails and it struck me how intemperate, even for Gautam, his remarks have been in the last day. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
On May 16, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Not really, no. You're right, you've gotten up my nostril. I don't like being maliciously misquoted. I don't like being patronized by someone who is in no way my superior. I don't like people who distort religion to support secular political agendas. I don't like having the unimaginably pompous and self-important accuse me and others of such things. And when people do those things, I'm likely to react angrily. I don't use killfiles, because I guess there's some theoretical sense that, say, Gary might say something that is interesting, however low the odds are. But I probably would be better off doing so. Fair enough. You believe that I have my head up my ass, and you either don't believe that it is a personal attack OR that you are above the community etiquette of Brin-L. As for pomposity, well: Hello? Pot? Kettle here, with a bit of bad news for you... Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:25:52 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Jane Galt on retirement risk and pensions
On 5/15/05, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Ouch! Good catch! Quite obvious and I didn't even think of it.G Her real name is Megan McArdle. Despite the reference to Atlas Shrugged, she is not your typical Randian. Perhaps a kindler, gentler, smarter, more...generally feasible flavor. Although she did endorse Bush, which subtracts a few points...but her blog is well worth reading. One of the more thoughtful if still IMHO usually wrong soft-libertarians. She does put a human face on their ideology. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape today
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fair enough. You believe that I have my head up my ass, and you either don't believe that it is a personal attack OR that you are above the community etiquette of Brin-L. No, but when one of the list-owners is as egregiously offensive - and, frankly, malign - as you are, I'm thinking it's pretty much a lost cause. I regret saying it. I shouldn't descend to your level, however well-deserved that might be. As for pomposity, well: Hello? Pot? Kettle here, with a bit of bad news for you... Dave This from a guy who might well have been the basis for Poobah? Well, whatever. I would have to care about your opinion to be bothered by this - and I've realized that I don't, so why am I bothering? Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A dependable safety net (was Re: Social Security)
5/16/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:40:55 -0400, JDG wrote snip Reductio ad absurdum! Have I said one word against saving? The two places I've spent most of my life are Pittsburgh and Silicon Valley, which were centers of manufacturing. I saw the mills close in the former and semiconductor fabs largely disappear from the latter, with those businesses and their jobs go oversears. The best understanding of why that happened is that our failure to save, as a nation, has made capital far less expensive in places with high personal savings rates, such as Japan. Unnh, wrong lesson. Capital is not that expensive in the United States. Perhaps you are conflating into capital both capital investment costs, including the regulatory environment, and labor costs. Neither of those relate to the personal savings rate except in indirect ways. Our reponse has been to encourage other nations to stimulate consumption, to increase their cost of capital, rather than encouraging savings in our country, to decrease our own cost of capital. I think that stinks. Consumerism is out of control. So, while I am in favor of encouraging savings, which would strength our financial foundations, I don't favor taking money out of the Social Security safety net to do so. The question is: Should the government construct policies such that as few people as possible need the safety net. What does that have to do with how dependable the safety net is? If there were only ten people who needed it, but it wasn't there for some of them, then we're not being good stewards of the neediest. Constructing safety nets is hard I wouldn't trust the job to those who think they aren't needed. Nick -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 12:25:52 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Didn't the Democrat's fight long and hard to keep third trimester abortions. How many pro-life Democratic senators are there? How many pro-choice Republican senators? I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to outlaw. I can't. Maybe you can point to a wide range of abortions that the Democrats favor outlawing that I've missed. Then I'll admit to being an extremist. Out of curiosity, if I'm an extremist conservative, why did 40% of the people to the left of me vote Republican in the last election? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Pensions
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 6:36 AM Subject: Re: US Pensions At 10:29 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: And what happens if the company goes bankrupt? The pension fund wasn't owned by the company...it was not considered a company asset. The problem was not that the pension obligations went to other creditors (the employees were creditors after all). It was that the company was able to use vodoo ecconomics to fund the pensions. Wow, how surprising. It really all always comes back to bashing Republicans with you, doesn't it? Well, supply side ecconomics was voodoo. Bush I was right. Creative accounting was allowed to overstate the values of the pension assets. First, we are talking about companies in bankruptcy.I find it very difficult to believe that everything would be hunky-dory if the company had just made even *more* payments in the past. Not everything. You may not know the dynamics of what's going on. Bankrupt companies are competing on price, _after_ they've been able to write off major obligations. As a result, their cost structures are lower, and they can undercut companies that were better offforcing them down. As a result of the bankrupt airlines competing (contributing to oversupply and a price structure that's impossible for most airlines which have not gone bankrupt to compete with, one by one the other carriers are going down. If one or two of the worst actually disappeared, then the rest could stay out of bankrupcy. Second, many of these funds are invested heavily in the company's own stock - perhaps not in the case of United - but it does exist, and this practice should be discontinued. That's one of the things that was allowed in the '80s. My memory was that was a change from the government regulations requiring prudent management of the pensions before that. So, by your logic, I can presume that you favored the Bush tax cuts, as cutting taxes for the rich surely builds support among the rich for helping the poor - without which we'd be leaving our grandparents to eat dog food No, because the net effect is to direct money away from the poor and toward the rich. Let me give a corporate parallel. If a particular company within a has high costs and higher income, the company is still profitable. Slashing the high costs in that company may be more detrimental than cutting lower costs in another. SS can be thought of as an entity. There are SS taxes, and SS payments. The SS taxes are not enough to pay for future payments, so I suggested a mechanism for slowing their growth. The net effect is progressive. I really don't see the problem with me assuming the properties of algebra in discussing economics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A dependable safety net (was Re: Social Security)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:09:51 -0500, Gary Denton wrote Unnh, wrong lesson. Capital is not that expensive in the United States. Perhaps you are conflating into capital both capital investment costs, including the regulatory environment, and labor costs. Neither of those relate to the personal savings rate except in indirect ways. I believe you are mistaken. The savings rate directly affects the cost of capital. It is almost as simple as classic supply-and-demand -- the more cash that is saved, the more money is available for investment. In the semiconductor business, for example, Japan beat us repeatedly by achieving economies of scale much faster than our companies by building larger fabs, at lower cost of capital, then manufacturing more product faster. In that business, scale has has a multiplicative effect because high semiconductor yields (the percentage of good chips on a wafer) rise rapidly with volume because the manufacturer acquires the key resource -- experience with that chip and process. For a long time, the U.S. semiconductor industry called for Washington to just keep out of any sort of trade regulation, but around 1985, the industry decided to call for political action, citing the difference in the cost of capital and its effect on their ability to compete. Our government's response, which met with some success, was to persuade Japan to increase consumer spending, thereby decreasing the savings rate. A major reason for the high personal savings rate in Japan was its lack of a Social Security system. So one *could* conclude that we should abolish Social Security in order to strengthen our capital-intensive businesses. I think it is easy to make moralistic argument about saving v. spending, but in reality, both are needed. Where I think we get in trouble is focusing too much on one or the other. FYI, this is a subject I wrote about in some depth around 1984-1985 as I reported on the chip business. One of the most memorable moments of my career as a business journalist was on the phone with Bob Noyce of Intel, hearing him take a deep breath, a long pause and say that he had changed his mind about government intervention. Constructing safety nets is hard I wouldn't trust the job to those who think they aren't needed. ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:18:26 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to outlaw. I can't. How many Democrats think abortion is a good thing? I mean come on, is the subject the goodness of abortion or is it the decision about whether or not it should be illegal? And here we are in the same old trap. Out of curiosity, if I'm an extremist conservative I didn't call you an extremist conservative. I was describing the idea you put forth. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 12:46 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On 5/16/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 11:34:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Poll after poll shows that a vast gap between the popularity of conservative politicians and the popularity of their politics. I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Yet, if you look at FALSE. That is setting up a straw man to knock it down. I have never heard any politician defend all abortions without question. That is not the liberal position or the Democratic position. I guess, after two people got so excited, I may not have communicated effectively. The Democrats support the legality of all abortions without question. To me, in the public policy sphere, that's the support that is critical. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:33 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:18:26 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to outlaw. I can't. How many Democrats think abortion is a good thing? I mean come on, is the subject the goodness of abortion or is it the decision about whether or not it should be illegal? And here we are in the same old trap. The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. The real important point to watch, IMHO, is whether someone states late term abortions should be acceptable if required for the health of the mother or the life of the mother. The latter is supported by most. With the former, one can always find a mental health professional who will state that continued pregnancy will have an adverse effect on the health of the motherso it's functionally on-demand. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A dependable safety net (was Re: Social Security)
On 5/16/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:09:51 -0500, Gary Denton wrote Unnh, wrong lesson. Capital is not that expensive in the United States. Perhaps you are conflating into capital both capital investment costs, including the regulatory environment, and labor costs. Neither of those relate to the personal savings rate except in indirect ways. I believe you are mistaken. The savings rate directly affects the cost of capital. It is almost as simple as classic supply-and-demand -- the more cash that is saved, the more money is available for investment. I was not objecting to that. Although that is a long term effect. Foreign capital and Fed actions have a large influence. In the semiconductor business, for example, Japan beat us repeatedly by achieving economies of scale much faster than our companies by building larger fabs, at lower cost of capital, then manufacturing more product faster. In that business, scale has has a multiplicative effect because high semiconductor yields (the percentage of good chips on a wafer) rise rapidly with volume because the manufacturer acquires the key resource -- experience with that chip and process. For a long time, the U.S. semiconductor industry called for Washington to just keep out of any sort of trade regulation, but around 1985, the industry decided to call for political action, citing the difference in the cost of capital and its effect on their ability to compete. Our government's response, which met with some success, was to persuade Japan to increase consumer spending, thereby decreasing the savings rate. Ahh, you were comparing Japan and the US in the mid-eighties. At that time the cost of capital in the US was high and in Japan was very low. Today the US is in the same position as Japan in the mid-80's. The Fed.Reserve here drove down the cost of capital in response to a major stock market decline. In the 80's the same thing occurred in Japan as well as government incentives for the major exporters to expand production in Japan. A losing battle - manufacturing follows low capital investment costs, low regulation and low wages - neither of which describes Japan or the United States today. A major reason for the high personal savings rate in Japan was its lack of a Social Security system. So one *could* conclude that we should abolish Social Security in order to strengthen our capital-intensive businesses. Except that the cost of capital, the interest rates, had been very low in the US for the Bush presidency despite the low savings rate. Personally, I think this was Greenspan partially saving Bush's butt, partially doing what the Fed is supposed to do, and helped by several foreign countries that don't want to stop their own export booms so they were purchasing huge amounts of dollar denominated bonds. Both of these actions are slowing and the economy weak as it is should significantly slip. I think it is easy to make moralistic argument about saving v. spending, but in reality, both are needed. Where I think we get in trouble is focusing too much on one or the other. FYI, this is a subject I wrote about in some depth around 1984-1985 as I reported on the chip business. One of the most memorable moments of my career as a business journalist was on the phone with Bob Noyce of Intel, hearing him take a deep breath, a long pause and say that he had changed his mind about government intervention. You are much more knowledgeable than I of manufacturing in the 80's.. In the 80's I was only worrying about a few mutual funds I was invested in and doing retail sales forecasts. Constructing safety nets is hard I wouldn't trust the job to those who think they aren't needed. ;-) Nick -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On May 16, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, that is your choice. I would not even be arguing about this if I did not feel strongly about freedom and democracy, of which America is a great champion. Ah yes, the rote statement. You just think, though, that in the Sudan we're trying to stop a genocide because of the oil there. It couldn't possibly be because _we think genocide is bad_. While one can argue that we're doing what we can in a limited way about the Sudan, it doesn't carry very well. Contrasted to what we chose to do in Iraq, the Sudan efforts are minimal to nonexistent. I realize our military's heavily committed. But let's not forget that it didn't really have to be. No, it can't be refuted because it is, in fact, too late to try any other approach. Since no one has suggested anything that even vaguely resembles another approach with any sort of reasonable possibility of success, this is pointless. I thought I'd seen several suggestions. Such as punching up restrictions and allowing them some time and room to work, enforcing UN inspection rights, etc. And of course there was my suggestion, which remains overlooked. Maybe you didn't see it. The idea was to start in Afghanistan, rebuild that nation totally, get it firmly democratized and rabidly pro-American, and spread from there. Of course now it's beginning to look like even Afghanistan's a lost cause. Messing with the Koran was a stupid, stupid move. -- 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: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This does not appear to be the case. People often vote *against* their self-interest. This conundrum appears to be resolved by the understanding that people vote their identities, not their interests. The Republican party did a superior job in the past election of appealing to the middle in this way. Dave This is true _only_ if you are so arrogant that you believe you understand people's self interest better than they do. Thomas Hobbes had something to say about that centuries ago. It wasn't true then that elites could (or would) understand most people's self interest better than they did, and it isn't true now. Maybe they _do_ vote their self interest, and you just don't understand what their self interest is. I know which one seems more likely to me. There are ample cases in the US today of one set of people believing they understand others' self-interests better than those people do. Surely you haven't forgotten the abortion debates, for instance. It's not necessarily elitism to suggest that someone's interests are more clear to others than they are to him/herself. And it's not elitist to suggest that many times people -- even voters -- act out of contingency or a kind of reflex when voting, rather than weighing long-term cost/benefit perspectives. -- 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: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American Political Landscape Today)
On May 16, 2005, at 10:38 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another God-in-my-back-pocket prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm angry when I hear you misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, life and death issues. I'm certain that you know you are way out of line. Nick Then _distinguish what you believe_ from that, Nick. I don't think he has to. I don't see evidence of the nasty bite of fundamentalism in many of Nick's comments. What I see is someone working to reconcile a faith, but not someone using it as a beat-stick. I posted on how your use of religion makes me - someone from a different faith - enormously uncomfortable. It was ignored. Instead I just got more appeals to the Divinity for whatever policy you appear to favor today. I would say that someone who dragoons God into supporting his own policies is out of line, not someone who is perturbed by it. I don't see any evidence of Nick using any deity as a prop for supporting his policies, but then, maybe I missed something. It seems to me more that he's basing his ideas in his personal understanding of his faith, which -- and this is really remarkable -- is organic. Rather than falling back on a hardline stance that brooks no argument, Nick seems to be willing to discuss, concede and adapt. Also, as an atheist, I feel I can ask you why others' discussing -- or even basing their views in -- their religion makes you uncomfortable. Do you feel they're evangelizing, and thus minimizing your perspective? Or do you feel they're overlooking other ideals, possibly from your own background, that are equally valid? If either, what would be the harm in pointing out the lacunae? -- 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: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 1:33 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:18:26 -0500, Dan Minette wrote I'm trying to think of which abortions the Democrats are willing to outlaw. I can't. Late term abortions are always done for the health of the mother - this is extremely rare and you find few places willing to do them. How many Democrats think abortion is a good thing? I mean come on, is the subject the goodness of abortion or is it the decision about whether or not it should be illegal? And here we are in the same old trap. The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. Most Americans support Roe v. Wade. Do you? The real important point to watch, IMHO, is whether someone states late term abortions should be acceptable if required for the health of the mother or the life of the mother. The latter is supported by most. With the former, one can always find a mental health professional who will state that continued pregnancy will have an adverse effect on the health of the motherso it's functionally on-demand. It is possible to make that the physical health of the mother and had been done. I see you and I could have very different measures of what on-demand is. This was a rare procedure only used where the mothers life was in danger and after consultation with a specialist. The big battle which the GOP thought up and focused-grouped was over late-term abortions because they found that was a wedge issue they could get polemic political mileage out of. But it wasn't over late-term abortions. They even manufactured the term partial-birth abortion because it precisely evoked the disgust people feel about that. Much like they come up with Social Security privatization and the nuclear option on filibusters but in those cases they tried to ban those words when they quit testing well. The legislation did not mention late-term abortions it banned a procedure. The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? *The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association and the American Medical Women's Association oppose this ban. And why shouldn't they? The most respected medical associations in the country oppose a law that will imperil the lives of women who have been entrusted to their care. * *AGOG has stated its position clearly: Intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous.* *If it is ever enforced, this ban will put doctors in jail for providing the best and safest health care to women. This dangerous ban prevents women, in consultation with their families and trusted doctors, from making decisions about their own health.* Liberals care about babies - we also care about their mothers. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Dan Minette wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is viable. Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. So if you're going to argue viability as the dividing line, well, maybe you need to find another dividing line. Also, you understand I hope why full legalization is better. Finally, as a consequence of some states' laws, we have cases such as a preteen girl getting pregnant after being raped by her own brother, and state legislatures attempting to prevent the girl having an abortion. That, I think, is an example of what can happen when you don't have universal legality. -- 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: The American Political Landscape today
On May 16, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fair enough. You believe that I have my head up my ass, and you either don't believe that it is a personal attack OR that you are above the community etiquette of Brin-L. No, but when one of the list-owners is as egregiously offensive - and, frankly, malign - as you are, I'm thinking it's pretty much a lost cause. I regret saying it. I shouldn't descend to your level, however well-deserved that might be. Gautam, from here it seems that you're fairly sure of many of the views you hold. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, but in this case I'm not sure your certitude is helping much. There have been times when I've heatedly accused you of arrogance in one way or another; those comments weren't productive, and I apologize for them. But it might not hurt to consider that language communicates much more than ideas; it also communicates mindset and attitudes, and there have been times when I've seen a lot of belittlement of the perspectives of others in the statements you make. It might not be intentional but that is how it comes across. It may not hurt to ask yourself, sometimes, whether your sense of frustration is fair. It's possible that what you're trying to express isn't getting through, and reworking the logic of an argument, looking for analogies and so on can help. I've seen you do that a couple times, and your points do get clarified when you do. Sometimes it's possible for something to be blindingly obvious to you that just isn't so clear to others. When that happens I think it's usually more productive to attempt to explain what it is about the topic in discussion that is so clear. Finally, discussion and debate often require everyone involved to be somewhat flexible -- or at least be willing to be flexible -- and to occasionally concede that others might have a good point about any given topic. Anyone who values his ideas and opinions might not feel entirely sanguine about such concessions, but when one is able to integrate other perspectives, one's own point of view tends to be ... not strengthened, per se, not more set, but perhaps tempered, and somewhat modulated. The person you are now is not the person you were ten years ago, and it's safe to assume that you won't be as you are now in 2015. Views change, opinions change, attitudes change, particularly with broader experience. I don't think, for instance, that Nick is waffling when he reflects changes in outlook. That strikes me more as being personal growth. There are no rules saying you have to hold the perspective you do now forever. There is no threat in changing one's mind on any subject or ideal. And there really isn't anything of merit to be found in defending a given point of view to extremes. I realize I fall into these traps myself, and often; for what it's worth this is my take on things when I'm able to step back, breathe a little and think about what's really going on. When I get genuinely impatient with anyone in a discussion, often I think it's symptomatic of perceived threat. That doesn't, however, nullify the validity of the other's point of view, and it's unfair of me to proceed as though it does. -- 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: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:26 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today They even manufactured the term partial-birth abortion because it precisely evoked the disgust people feel about that. Much like they come up with Social Security privatization and the nuclear option on filibusters but in those cases they tried to ban those words when they quit testing well. The legislation did not mention late-term abortions it banned a procedure. Which is a particular type of abortion that is almost always used in the third trimester. Why isn't partial-birth abortion descriptive? The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. There have been some arguement that statistics on this procedure are not being kept very well. My brother-in-law and sister are both in medicine, and my sister talked about personally witnessing it at a small hospital she was at. As far as not being very available, that is only true if insurance refuses to cover itand it costs in the tens of thousands. Otherwise, market forces will always provide a supplier. Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be illeagal...the Democratic party's position favoring the Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:27 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On May 16, 2005, at 11:38 AM, Dan Minette wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is viable. Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered fetus. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:26 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today snip The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. There have been some arguement that statistics on this procedure are not being kept very well. My brother-in-law and sister are both in medicine, and my sister talked about personally witnessing it at a small hospital she was at. As far as not being very available, that is only true if insurance refuses to cover itand it costs in the tens of thousands. Otherwise, market forces will always provide a supplier. Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be illeagal...the Democratic party's position favoring the You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. Why do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most Americans? About 40% of Republicans oppose efforts to make it more difficult to get abortions. About 25% of Democrats support efforts to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. It was a lie then that a governor was not permitted to speak at a national convention because he was pro-life and it suits some people to keep repeating the lie about those extreme Democrats. (He was not allowed to speak because he hated Bill Clinton and appeared on national media repeatedly saying he was not fit to be President and had not indicated a change in his views once Clinton won the primaries.) Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is viable. Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered fetus. I'm not arguing for that at all; I'm just suggesting that the test of viability is somewhat vague. Are there better tests? Possibly. Maybe an EEG that confirms what we could call consciousness can be used. I really don't know *what* kind of test would suffice. What I'm pretty sure of is that there's a lot of arbitrary thinking afoot when discussing pregnancy and birth. There are some who contend that life begins at conception, and yet they celebrate birthdays as being *genuine* anniversaries of the beginning of someone's life. That to me is an example of how an arbitrary idea clashes with observable behavior, which suggests at least one intellectual inconsistency. To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. We can't even agree, in many cases, on what basic terms mean, such as life or viability (or self-sufficiency, to look at it another way), and of course there's the elephant in the room -- what human actually means, when it starts, etc. These problems only indicate, to me, that consensus will *not* be reached easily, and might *never* be reached, and since laws require either consensus or submission to arbitrary decisions made by others, there would be no benefit to be found in illegalizing *any* kind of abortion. It makes a lot more sense to me to address the causes of unwanted pregnancy and strike at the root; the causes could be social, personal, or may other things, and probably are fairly intricate, not the kind of thing that can be addressed by a single law or any other simplistic solution. But once the horse is in the barn (to twist a cliché), it's too late to ask what to do about the open door. -- 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: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:15 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On May 16, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is viable. Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered fetus. I'm not arguing for that at all; I'm just suggesting that the test of viability is somewhat vague. I realize that you were arguing somewhat hypothetically concerning my definition. I was pointing out the result of using two different terms of viable. Are there better tests? Possibly. Maybe an EEG that confirms what we could call consciousness can be used. I really don't know *what* kind of test would suffice. What I'm pretty sure of is that there's a lot of arbitrary thinking afoot when discussing pregnancy and birth. There are some who contend that life begins at conception, and yet they celebrate birthdays as being *genuine* anniversaries of the beginning of someone's life. That to me is an example of how an arbitrary idea clashes with observable behavior, which suggests at least one intellectual inconsistency. What inconsistancy? It celebrates an arrival date, not the beginnning of life. I don't think that anyone really argues that a embreyo is not alivethe arguement is that they are not human...with the rights of humans. Mothers and fathers are usually very excited about quickening, I can tell you that. I know that Teri thought our three children were alive before they were bornshe had the bruises to prove it. To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. We can't even agree, in many cases, on what basic terms mean, such as life or viability (or self-sufficiency, to look at it another way), and of course there's the elephant in the room -- what human actually means, when it starts, etc. But, there is a very very simple definition that is being ignored..location in DNA space defines species. If you use a functional capacity definition, then you either include adults of other species or exclude a significant fraction of humans that are now alive. What's wrong with arguing that humans are those animals that are in the human region of gene space? and since laws require either consensus or submission to arbitrary decisions made by others, there would be no benefit to be found in illegalizing *any* kind of abortion. What about civil rights laws that overturned the so called right of free association? There wasn't a consensus on those. It makes a lot more sense to me to address the causes of unwanted pregnancy and strike at the root; the causes could be social, personal, or may other things, and probably are fairly intricate, not the kind of thing that can be addressed by a single law or any other simplistic solution. I'd agree with that. I have little patience with folks who are pro-life but won't agree to decrease abortions that way. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be illeagal...the Democratic party's position favoring the You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. The unfettered right to abortion alienates many voterseven self-defined Democrats. But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. Why do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most Americans? That's not really what I'm getting at. The origional claim was that the liberals were the mainstream because they were the mode of the Pew poll. Eric pointed out the mathamatical error in this analysis fairly clearly. Conservative Democrats were considered liberal. From reading the website, I'd say that conservative Democrats were more conservative on social issues and more liberal on issues such as government spending and taxes. About 40% of Republicans oppose efforts to make it more difficult to get abortions. About 25% of Democrats support efforts to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I was almost one of the 18 year old delagates for McGovern. I know personally that, in most places, a pro-life Democrat has a hard time within the party. I dropped out of politics because of that. I'm not claiming that this is a universal situation, but I've I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. No, it's because the Democratic leadership seems to fear a slippery slope on abortion. If they make one single concession for any reason whatsoever, then it's Katy bar the door. Personally, I see simularities between this and the NRA's position on gun control. Even though I'm a liberal, I realize that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. I don't see the reason to look at the data sideways to deny unpleasant realities. That's a losing strategy. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 02:03 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Of course now it's beginning to look like even Afghanistan's a lost cause. Messing with the Koran was a stupid, stupid move. Does that mean that you believe that the assertions in the _Newsweek_ story was accurate, even though they have apparently at least partially backed away from them? (IOW, they haven't said absolutely that they made them up or that their source did.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On 5/16/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be illeagal...the Democratic party's position favoring the You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. The unfettered right to abortion alienates many voterseven self-defined Democrats. But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. Why do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most Americans? That's not really what I'm getting at. The origional claim was that the liberals were the mainstream because they were the mode of the Pew poll. Eric pointed out the mathamatical error in this analysis fairly clearly. Conservative Democrats were considered liberal. From reading the website, I'd say that conservative Democrats were more conservative on social issues and more liberal on issues such as government spending and taxes. I stayed out of that clearly wrong argument - the mode is not the median. Pew reported Liberals were one side, what they call Enterprisers was another. The liberals have been at 18 to 25% all of my life. Conservatives hit a high point under Reagan. Always the center of American politics are the self-identified moderates. I have a libertarian leaning firend who was bothered by the questions even though they clearly pegged him as a conservative Democrat which is usually the way he votes. About 40% of Republicans oppose efforts to make it more difficult to get abortions. About 25% of Democrats support efforts to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I was almost one of the 18 year old delagates for McGovern. I know personally that, in most places, a pro-life Democrat has a hard time within the party. I dropped out of politics because of that. I'm not claiming that this is a universal situation, but I've I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. No, it's because the Democratic leadership seems to fear a slippery slope on abortion. If they make one single concession for any reason whatsoever, then it's Katy bar the door. Personally, I see simularities between this and the NRA's position on gun control. I think you are seeing a shake-up of that auto pro-choice position and the NRA example my have been accurate. Even though I'm a liberal, I realize that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. I don't see the reason to look at the data sideways to deny unpleasant realities. That's a losing strategy. You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives but in my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising to see a large number of mainly white liberal families get together like we did Saturday for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in the park in DeLay's district. Dan M. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
The Newsweek story is being Rathergated in the conservative controlled media. Even though the substance of the story was accurate and the source stands by his statements the documentation cannot be verified so the conservatives jump up and down and say 'see - no story the media just lies.' Problem is there were many other stories from many other sources talking about the desecration of the Koran as part of the psychological harassment published in many other mainstream media. Sources like the New York Times, the UK Guardian, Daily Mirror, Washington Post... conditions just hadn't gotten so bad then it wasn't the spark that ignited the riots in places that would really notice the Koran being trashed. http://rawstory.com/exclusives/newsweek_koran_report_516.htm A soldier who played the part of a POW in an Army training exercise in the 90's said that the instructor concluded with ripping up and kicking the Bible and said it was a standard part of psychologically getting to the prisoners. On 5/16/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 02:03 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Of course now it's beginning to look like even Afghanistan's a lost cause. Messing with the Koran was a stupid, stupid move. Does that mean that you believe that the assertions in the _Newsweek_ story was accurate, even though they have apparently at least partially backed away from them? (IOW, they haven't said absolutely that they made them up or that their source did.) -- Ronn! :) -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today On 5/16/05, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today Are you a doctor? Why do you want the government making medical decisions? Because I don't think it's a medical decision. You assume your conclusions when you make that statement. You assume that a 2 week overdue infant is not human, but an 8 week premature baby is. I don't think humans should be killed. But, the point is not even that abortion is right or wrong. It's that Democrats are taking positions that are favored by only the most liberal 10%-20% of the nation and holding fast to those positions. Setting aside the debate of whether abortion should or should not be illeagal...the Democratic party's position favoring the You may have hit enter to fast judging by how that trails off. The unfettered right to abortion alienates many voterseven self-defined Democrats. But you are returning to your argument which was immediately jumped on. Why do you think Democrats are for unlimited abortions? Why do you think incorrectly that most Democrats don't hold the positions of most Americans? That's not really what I'm getting at. The origional claim was that the liberals were the mainstream because they were the mode of the Pew poll. Eric pointed out the mathamatical error in this analysis fairly clearly. Conservative Democrats were considered liberal. From reading the website, I'd say that conservative Democrats were more conservative on social issues and more liberal on issues such as government spending and taxes. I stayed out of that clearly wrong argument - the mode is not the median. Well, I'm glad to find someone who agrees with my understanding of statistics. I've been getting hit from left and right on that, so to speak. :-) Pew reported Liberals were one side, what they call Enterprisers was another. The liberals have been at 18 to 25% all of my life. Conservatives hit a high point under Reagan. Agreed. But, self-identified Democrats had a much larger lead on self-identified Republicans back thenwhich is interesting to mefor the most part, it seems to be a function of Dixiecrats changing their voting for president before their party lables. Always the center of American politics are the self-identified moderates. I have no arguement with that. But, as food for thought, I just saw the 2004 Harris poll on this and it has Conservative 36% Moderate 41% Liberal18% If liberals get 2/3rds of the self identified moderates in a coalition, and the conservatives got 1/3rd of them, it would still favor the conservatives. No, it's because the Democratic leadership seems to fear a slippery slope on abortion. If they make one single concession for any reason whatsoever, then it's Katy bar the door. Personally, I see simularities between this and the NRA's position on gun control. I think you are seeing a shake-up of that auto pro-choice position and the NRA example my have been accurate. I see the first hints of one, and I think that will be a good thing if it happens. Even though I'm a liberal, I realize that there are fewer liberals than conservatives. I don't see the reason to look at the data sideways to deny unpleasant realities. That's a losing strategy. You can pick and choose issues to show there are fewer conservatives but in my neighborhood I agree with you. It is sometimes surprising to see a large number of mainly white liberal families get together like we did Saturday for a Family Fun day and Dump Delay picnic in the park in DeLay's district. We're more lucky a bit north of you, in the Woodlands. Brady isn't really all that bad, he's good friends with some very liberal folks we knowand he helps out folks in his districthe got Nymbe (Neli's sister) a visa for example. Perry is the idiot I want to give rid of. I don't see why Julia likes him so runs away before she throws something at me Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The AmericanPolitical Landscape Today)
At 09:51 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Not you, Nick. Most Americans don't think God has an opinion on marginal tax rates, and most of those who do don't share yours. When you write stuff like this, as if I'm another God-in-my-back-pocket prosperity-Gospel preacher, I'm pissed off. I'm angry when I hear you misrepresenting ideas that are very important to me, life and death issues. In fairness Nick, what Gautam wrote is also my assessment of your positions. You seem to couch an awful lot of your political viewpoints in Christian terms. And I don't see much difference in couching positions on abortion or homosexuality in religious terms vs. couching positions on marginal tax rates or foreign policy in religious terms. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today)
At 07:52 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%). But the Pew Center seems to have arbitrarily assigned conservative Democrats to the left-leaning bloc, and further arbitrarily decided to come up with three groups for each of left, center, and right. For example, 80% of the Upbeats voted for Bush, but that group gets assigned to the center, rather than the right. If you correct for this and move conservative Democrats to the center and move Upbeats to the right, you reach much different conclusions. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Etiquette Guidelines
In my humble opinion, the Etiquette Guidelines are not intended to be a bludgeon. In general, if you are a Party to the discussion, I think that you should probably refrain from quoting the Etiquette Guidelines in response to other parties in a discussion. There are more than enough Third Parties on this List who could interject to calm down a heated discussion by reference to the Etiquette Guidelines, rather than letting participatns wield them against each other. Moreover, in general, I think that one generally has the best luck in correcting someone's actions by pulling them aside *privately* and speaking with them, rather than announcing your criticism of that person to the whole list. In today's discussion, I think there is enough lack of eitquette to be spread among several parties. While its unavoidable that the context of this message will probably be interpreted as being a criticism of only one person, suffice to say that I have criticized more than one person. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: -no public funds should be used to fund abortions -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before getting an abortion -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion -partial-birth/dilation and extraction abortions should be prohibited -abortions after viability should be prohibited -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited As long as we are dealing with extremist strawman hogwash here, I am sure that you'll have no problem identifying which of these restrictions is consistently supported by liberal Democrats - especially since I've given you a list of examples to get you started. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
needs sharing
The following article shows how our controlled media have limited discussion of a major scandal... the smoking gun showing that Cheney et al knew they were lying about WMD in Iraq. Unfortunately, Krugman still buys into the notion that going into Iraq to toss out Saddam was a mistake... when that is simply the wrong tack to take. The neoconservatives are persuasive because they use rationalizations that are *essentially* right, in order to support their ongoing reign of towering stupidity. I believe, and many americans believe, that this country DOES have a duty to actively and vigorously promote democracy. Toppling Saddam was a legitimate goal in and of itself. Because it was right and decent and in our self interest. And because - as our southern brethren so colorfully put it - 'he badly needed killin'. BUT! 1) Cheney and the neocons deserve no credibility at all on this issue, since they had Saddam in their hands in 91, only then (on orders from you know who), left him in place, consigning the Iraqi people to 12 years of hell, for which they (rightfully) cannot forgive us. 2) They went after Saddam this time in the worst and most stupid of all possible ways. A combination of imbecilities that, in sum, look almost deliberate. Their almost criminal military, social, diplomatic and public-relations incompetence should be matters that we use in criticizing them. By allowing them top frame the debate, over whether we should have saved the Iraqis from a monster, we let them put us in a position of saying Saddam in charge was somehow preferable. We must use jiu jitsu and stop letting them frame the argument their way. === Staying What Course? By Paul Krugman The New York Times Monday 16 May 2005 Is there any point, now that November's election is behind us, in revisiting the history of the Iraq war? Yes: any path out of the quagmire will be blocked by people who call their opponents weak on national security, and portray themselves as tough guys who will keep America safe. So it's important to understand how the tough guys made America weak. There has been notably little U.S. coverage of the Downing Street memo - actually the minutes of a British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, during which officials reported on talks with the Bush administration about Iraq. But the memo, which was leaked to The Times of London during the British election campaign, confirms what apologists for the war have always denied: the Bush administration cooked up a case for a war it wanted. Here's a sample: Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (You can read the whole thing at www.downingstreetmemo.com.) Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, the case was thin and Saddam's W.M.D. capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world. But the Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power, and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us, when we can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport? At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960's search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose. Meanwhile, America's strategic position is steadily deteriorating. Next year, reports Jane's Defense Industry, the United States will spend as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the Pentagon now admits that our military is having severe trouble attracting recruits, and would have difficulty dealing with potential foes - those that, unlike Saddam's Iraq, might pose a real threat. In other words, the people who got us into Iraq have done exactly what they falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing: they have stripped America of its capacity to respond to real threats. So what's the plan? The people who sold us this war continue to insist that success is just around the corner, and that things would be fine if the media would just stop reporting bad news. But the administration has declared victory in Iraq at least four times. January's election, it seems, was yet another turning point that wasn't. Yet it's very hard to discuss getting out. Even most of those who vehemently opposed the war say that we have to stay on in Iraq now that we're there. In effect, America
Re: Which political group is mainstream (was Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today)
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:18:29 -0400, JDG wrote At 07:52 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: Taken together, the three Democratic groups make up a larger share of registered voters than do the three Republican groups (44% vs. 33%). But the Pew Center seems to have arbitrarily assigned conservative Democrats to the left-leaning bloc, and further arbitrarily decided to come up with three groups for each of left, center, and right. For example, 80% of the Upbeats voted for Bush, but that group gets assigned to the center, rather than the right. There's nothing particularly arbitrary about the ordering, given that the survey is intended to fit respondents into a continuum of political attitudes. The arbitrary part is where to draw dividing lines, but that's even informed by inflection points in the results. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etiquette Guidelines
John, In my humble opinion, the Etiquette Guidelines are not intended to be a bludgeon. I agree and pledge to continue to use them to provide gentle correction, and never as a bludgeon, as you have done here. In general, if you are a Party to the discussion, I think that you should probably refrain from quoting the Etiquette Guidelines in response to other parties in a discussion. There are more than enough Third Parties on this List who could interject to calm down a heated discussion by reference to the Etiquette Guidelines, rather than letting participatns wield them against each other. Point taken. Would that it worked that way. It does seem to me that some folks get a pass for abusive behavior. I will only take so many public hits before I decide to counter them. In particular, I will not brook sustained personal attacks. Moreover, in general, I think that one generally has the best luck in correcting someone's actions by pulling them aside *privately* and speaking with them, rather than announcing your criticism of that person to the whole list. That may be. I hope we'll get there. In today's discussion, I think there is enough lack of eitquette to be spread among several parties. While its unavoidable that the context of this message will probably be interpreted as being a criticism of only one person, suffice to say that I have criticized more than one person. While I may be the most obvious target of your comments, I don't feel in any way abused by your appeal to better behavior. I hope that other recipients of your gentle reproof are as receptive. Thank you sincerely, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:31:19 -0400, JDG wrote At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Certainly if we change the question at hand to Have liberal Democrats supported legal restrictions on abortions, then your points would be relevant. However, we were discussing whether defend all abortions is a standard liberal Democratic position or not. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Etiquette Guidelines
At 06:56 PM Monday 5/16/2005, Dave Land wrote: John, In my humble opinion, the Etiquette Guidelines are not intended to be a bludgeon. I agree and pledge to continue to use them to provide gentle correction, and never as a bludgeon, as you have done here. In general, if you are a Party to the discussion, I think that you should probably refrain from quoting the Etiquette Guidelines in response to other parties in a discussion. There are more than enough Third Parties on this List who could interject to calm down a heated discussion by reference to the Etiquette Guidelines, rather than letting participatns wield them against each other. Point taken. Would that it worked that way. It does seem to me that some folks get a pass for abusive behavior. I will only take so many public hits before I decide to counter them. In particular, I will not brook sustained personal attacks. Moreover, in general, I think that one generally has the best luck in correcting someone's actions by pulling them aside *privately* and speaking with them, rather than announcing your criticism of that person to the whole list. That may be. I hope we'll get there. In today's discussion, I think there is enough lack of eitquette to be spread among several parties. While its unavoidable that the context of this message will probably be interpreted as being a criticism of only one person, suffice to say that I have criticized more than one person. While I may be the most obvious target of your comments, I don't feel in any way abused by your appeal to better behavior. I hope that other recipients of your gentle reproof are as receptive. Thank you sincerely, FWIW, I've noticed some less-than-exemplary behavior today on other, quite different lists. Maybe we can blame the CME which hit Earth over the weekend . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting I attended? I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it in large part to the issue of moral values. Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life people can't be heard in the Democratic party. I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. And the fact that: a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a pro-life Senator in the Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. pro-choice Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) b) Harry Reid is about the only pro-life speaker at a Democratic Convention in a long, long time At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place according to the AMA. Haven't you just made Dan's point?Liberal Democrats wouldn't even restrict 0.004% of abortions????????? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 03:29 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: The point is, most Americans believe that abortions should be illegal some of the time. Most Democrats support the legality of all abortions, even for development beyond viability. One quibble here. Even after being born, you can't really argue convincingly that a human infant is viable. Without active, constant nurturing it's dead, and that need for nurture goes on for about two years, at minimum, after birth. OK, then you are arguing for a different dividing line. I was thinking of viability as a biologically independent organism (no direct, continuous, connection to the bloodstream of another), and you seem to be arguing for being able to carry one's own weight. If one wishes to argue for the rights of a mother to kill their one year old, then that would be consistent with arguing for the right to kill a post-term undelivered fetus. Actually, Dan, Warren has a very valid point.Your definition would exclude several types of organisms from being biologically independent. Moreover, what you really mean is capable of being biologically separate. I don't think that the word independent really applies to newbies - even without considering the role of incubators, respirators, and IV's in the process. Moreover the entity is not actually separate until birth, what you really mean is being capable of separation. At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Warren wrote: To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. But infanticide is also a deeply personal decision, and certainly not expected to be an easy one. Do you also believe that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of that oven entirely as well?Or do you believe that it is acceptable for legislatures to intervene in that decision? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:02 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:31:19 -0400, JDG wrote At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Certainly if we change the question at hand to Have liberal Democrats supported legal restrictions on abortions, then your points would be relevant. However, we were discussing whether defend all abortions is a standard liberal Democratic position or not. If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide
JDG wrote: Moreover, what you really mean is capable of being biologically separate. I don't think that the word independent really applies to newbies - even without considering the role of incubators, respirators, and IV's in the process. Moreover the entity is not actually separate until birth, what you really mean is being capable of separation. The entity is separate even before birth: topologically, the entity is totally separate from the entity's host. An intestinal parasite is more attached to its host than the entity to the entity's mother. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not arguing for that at all; I'm just suggesting that the test of viability is somewhat vague. I realize that you were arguing somewhat hypothetically concerning my definition. I was pointing out the result of using two different terms of viable. ...Underscoring my point. ;) What I'm pretty sure of is that there's a lot of arbitrary thinking afoot when discussing pregnancy and birth. There are some who contend that life begins at conception, and yet they celebrate birthdays as being *genuine* anniversaries of the beginning of someone's life. That to me is an example of how an arbitrary idea clashes with observable behavior, which suggests at least one intellectual inconsistency. What inconsistancy? It celebrates an arrival date, not the beginnning of life. Not anywhere I've ever been, or indeed even heard of. DOB is used to calculate age in years. If the thinking (conception = life) were truly consistent, DOB would be totally irrelevant for calculating age in years. That no one has ever in the history of birthdates been feted, at 3 months after emergence, for being one year old simply highlights the inconsistency. To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. We can't even agree, in many cases, on what basic terms mean, such as life or viability (or self-sufficiency, to look at it another way), and of course there's the elephant in the room -- what human actually means, when it starts, etc. But, there is a very very simple definition that is being ignored..location in DNA space defines species. If you use a functional capacity definition, then you either include adults of other species or exclude a significant fraction of humans that are now alive. What's wrong with arguing that humans are those animals that are in the human region of gene space? We are ever so much more than the sum of our genes. If genes are to be the only measure of what is human and what is not, then the death penalty will have to be abolished, war will have to cease instantly, and no one will ever be able to unplug anyone connected to life support -- because those people all have exactly the same human rights as everyone else. No, the genetic test is far too facile to work here. and since laws require either consensus or submission to arbitrary decisions made by others, there would be no benefit to be found in illegalizing *any* kind of abortion. What about civil rights laws that overturned the so called right of free association? There wasn't a consensus on those. Not sure what you're referring to here. -- 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: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 5:15 PM, JDG wrote: At 04:51 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Warren wrote: To me abortion is a personal decision. I don't expect it to be an easy one when we're talking about a fairly anatomically developed fetus, and I am proximally sure that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of the oven entirely. But infanticide is also a deeply personal decision, and certainly not expected to be an easy one. Do you also believe that legislatures need to keep their mitts out of that oven entirely as well?Or do you believe that it is acceptable for legislatures to intervene in that decision? The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes human. The question is what human actually means. -- 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: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:23:09 -0400, JDG wrote If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Nick We already have. Kellogg-Briand, 1928. They won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. It was signed by, among other states, Germany, Japan, and Italy. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:09 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. Well, Nick, here's my problem. Dan wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. And you responded very, very, forcefully with: Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Yet. you have now conceded that liberal Democrats defend all abortions from any legalized restriction - while at the same time holding that this is dramatically different from 'defending abortion.' Is it fair for me to say that you are trying to stake out a *very* nuanced position here? I would also point out that the statement you agreed with used the phrase defend all abortions, which is the same phrasing Dan M. used in his original remark, and which you may perceive as being different from defneding abortion which you objected to in your most recent clarification. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:14 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote: I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Nick We already have. Kellogg-Briand, 1928. They won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. It was signed by, among other states, Germany, Japan, and Italy. I'd also point out that if we want to extend the analogy, that if something is considered to be undesiribale, but should still be available as a legal resort, then one generally supports restrictions on it. We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I even made the question multiple choice! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 7:23 PM, JDG wrote: We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I even made the question multiple choice! This could be because the label liberal fits, hmm? ;) -- 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: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes human. The question is what human actually means. If the answer is homo sapiens its actually a rather easy question. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Infanticide Re: The American Political Landscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 7:34 PM, JDG wrote: At 07:03 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Warren wrote: The problem there is that your reasoning does not reduce. There is a distinct difference between, say, a blastocyst and an infant. The question is not even when the zygote becomes human. The question is what human actually means. If the answer is homo sapiens its actually a rather easy question. It's the easiest answers of which we should often be most suspicious. As I suggested in my note to Dan, extending the epithet human to every member of the species is an ideal and nothing more; in reality we barely allow that label to be placed on fellow countrymen with whom we do not agree, let alone other cultures. The issue of what it is to be human lies at the core of some of our most divisive debates, I think. Abortion, capital punishment, end-of-life issues and elective wars (any elective war, not just the one frequently bandied about here) often, I think, boil down to the basic question of what we mean when we say human. (Hmm, an aside -- it occurs to me that perhaps *all* wars are definable as elective. Someone always chooses to attack.) As an example, unless one believes in the idea of a soul I don't think it's possible to suggest -- realistically -- that many members of this species (by strict definition) are human in many ways. That sounds callous and brutal, or rather that suggestion can be used to reach callous and brutal conclusions, but unless we analyze what's really meant by our definitions of these seemingly transparent terms, there's no way any kind of discussion can go forward. The problem as I see it is partly that many *do* believe in the idea of souls, which is -- sorry -- really not much more than superstition. There's never been anything like proof -- nor even evidence of a meaningful nature -- to suggest such a thing as a soul exists. Thus a discussion that begins with assuming the presence of a soul, to me, is based on a false premise. Is a one-week-old zygote human? Genetically, sure, maybe even potentially. Actually? I don't think the question is so easily answered. Same for someone who's completely brain dead and on life support. Now, how about a third trimester fetus? Or someone in a PVS who appears to evince consciousness in rare and random ways? Those questions should be even more difficult to answer. What about people who do brutal things deliberately? Is the label human applicable to, say, the BTK killer? Or the freaks of nature who raped and murdered those poor girls in Florida, or that Illinois creature that beat his daughter and her best friend, then stabbed them to death? Easy labels are troubling to me. They rarely seem to apply universally when they're analyzed, and for that reason alone I think it's very risky to behave as though such abstractions represent anything but a hint about the way the world really is. This further suggests that we should not feel confident enough about those labels to begin using them to make universally-applicable decisions such as laws. Until we can find or agree on a true, working definition of human, then, it seems very clear to me that there are some grey areas to which no law should be applied, because there will always be some cases in which those laws are inappropriate or insufficient to address circumstances. The other problem I see with such an apparently straightforward definition is that it overlooks the simple truth that we share this planet with several other intelligent species. It arrogates to us alone certain traits that we can't be sure don't exist in other organisms, such as self-awareness or consciousness (whatever *that* word means...), and I'm not comfortable personally with applying to h. sapiens alone possession of those traits. -- 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: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:23:09 -0400, JDG wrote If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. Which is what I was referring to by saying defend abortions. It is amazing how close our language is on this. . I would have used endorsing abortion for saying it was inherently a good thing. Also, by talking about aborition as reproductive rights one does defend it as a fundamental human rightwhich actually goes beyond simply defending the legality of it. Finally, given the fact that I was specifically referring to polls on the legality of abortion, I still don't see why it was such a stretch to see that this is what I meant. I'm always happy to clarify, but I'm not sure why calling my ideas radical is considered a reasonable way to ask for such a clarification. All I did was look at the data and drew a conclusion from the numbers...while giving others a chance to draw their own conclusion. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. It must not also be the least worse option. Killing in self defense is legal for this reason, even for private citizens. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Well, if there were an international constitution for a Federated Republic of the World that supported rights for all and that was backed by the World Police Force which was backed by the International Guard, then that would be a reasonable thing to do. In the absence of the ability to enforce such a law fairly, it is merely words on paper, as WWII showed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
