RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie said: Charlie said: Ritu wrote: That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, ransom... profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. That's why it says ritu wrote by what you wrote, and jdiebremse wrote by what JDG wrote... :-) But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is Nick's. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 20/09/2006, at 6:04 PM, Ritu wrote: Charlie said: Charlie said: Ritu wrote: That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, ransom... profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. That's why it says ritu wrote by what you wrote, and jdiebremse wrote by what JDG wrote... :-) But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is Nick's. :) Well, why didn't you say that then? :p Sorry Nick. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie wrote: But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is Nick's. :) Well, why didn't you say that then? :p Because I expect the primary attribution to relate directly to the line one is responding to... :p Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
Hullo Dave, all,
I applaud your gesture of even-handedness as this is a useful reminder
for maintaining a civil tone and maybe, just maybe, getting to root
issues. A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved, and all. I
just wished our system actually worked as we are sold it does.
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South - and more recently listening to my California
mother in-law recount her pastor advocating first Bob Dole and then the
GwB tickets with strong admonitions to his flock against the other
candidates {with an amazing amount of vitriol towards Kerry}... all the
while declaring these Abramhoff-Delay empowered figures hold the true
chalice of god in their goals and actions. I've watched the
Republican-Church axis exercise all manner of illegal cross-pollination
from mailing list sharing to clergy passing out Republican flack-sheets
for the faithful to blanket parking lots, to bold political fund
raising in churches w/nary a peep from our bureaucracy.
Given this administrations' proclivity to seek the advocacy of such
imagination-rich organizations and fear-centric groups it's important
to note they've actively been shoveling public cash {$1B last I heard}
into churches sympathetic to administration talking points: and RoveCo
is counting on this to establish a one party state.
It's no accident so many religious ills are associated with
Conservative movements, because the incompatible views of these
religions each demand they are right, they each speak solo God's word -
and when you sprinkle in old paternal cultural excuses for squelching
social dissent it makes for a plethora of handy excuses ripe for
bipolar fanatics and the craven to abuse. This is true here in America
as well as in the Middle-East. Today, it's the swarthy guy with the
funny name getting hauled away in secret for rendition like a piece
of slaughterhouse meat, next it's the smart aleck guy who likes boys
who gets a rough version of justice, then it's the nay-sayer who makes
noise about religious paradoxes, etc.
But we have seperation, he's not going to push them as Christian
values means nothing when he pushes the same thing with the
religious tag stripped off, with a whole branch of criticism not
avaliable entirely due to the tag stripping.
AndrewC
He's right up to a point. The civil peace he enjoys now is several
centuries from King James personally splitting Presbyterian shins. I
don't know if it's laws or social expectations that keep religion in
check there currently. My knowledge of British law social customs is
weaker than of American, but I don't see any reason why greater
intolerance couldn't return there too. Get enough Red Bull mixed
drinks into a crowd of skinheads and you have riots, enough skinheads
in the population and all hell breaks loose across the nation.
Our own traditions in America stem from the steady flow of refugees
unable to practice their own flavors of faith. That and the Kings'
East India Company monopolies left a bad taste in our mouths and the
Founders and Framers took pains to exclude the abuses of power. It
worked - mostly, and for a while, but appears to be waning now for lack
of populace support and a concerted effort by the monied. I personally
believe religion is feel-good fantasy, but so is self-medicating with
alcohol Viagra and I can leave it aside for this discussion.
Both our systems share a common history generally marked by the Magna
Carta with touchstones around the English Revolution that
institutionalized the limits of a King. There is nothing that I am
aware of that would stop this from happening again here in America, or
in England, if the populace became fearful and overly paranoid and the
state became sufficiently overbearing and maniacal.
Madison Avenue as left the Agora and entered the Forum following a
trail of gold spilling from money-changer pockets. Anything can be
sold with enough funds singing carefully scripted topics laid out by
ever-fewer media owners - what's the difference between this and the
old Soviet/Pravda lock on public discussion we used to feel smug
comparing?
Look at how our {mis} leadership under GwB seeks this very week to
remove Habeas Corpus {or, where is the proof} from the American lexicon
- and even the John McCain / Republican rump rebellions fail to include
such terms again showing just how easily norms can change when
anxiety and fear-mongering are given loose reins. So much for the
staunch defenders of Liberty - more like wimps knee-jerking at shadowa
- and that Democrats are mute on this topic is a congenital lack of
courage and leadership. Now Busheviks want to codify this so
abduction, abuse, incarceration w/o facing accusers - or even proof, is
legal. This, and
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of food, clothing, and boots? That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just war, economics isn't how it is justified. Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. As long as it is free-range, shade-grown, organically grown, sustainably-harvested fair-trade coffee... Dave Hyphenated-Caffeinated American Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:06:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I arguing that that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it more profitable to question authority than to make the kind of assumption that you are arguing. Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions about peer-review in science? What is the assumption? That one must always question authority or that peer review has is based on consensus and not open to new data? It is certainly true that individuals who do peer reviews (like me) are people with expertise who therefore probably believe in the mainstream notions. Too often a novel idea will be rejected because it is well novel but this is not universally true and will not be true for long. When a paper is rejected the author has a choice of dropping the idea curse the stupid bastards who don't understand brilliance when they see it or go back and get more evidence. Even a negative and unfair review and rejection (I have had a few of these) can be of value because in the critique of the paper there are questions that can be addressed. New ideas are tested in the world not in the minds of experts. New evidence is collected, new experiments performed new predictions made and confirmed. The essence of peer review has to do with assessment of evidence. Most reviewers try to be fair even when they don't agree with the results of the paper. It is an imperfect process but it does better than most other ways of deciding things. This argument is very similar to the argument used by Creationists when I start pointing out the tremendous geological evidence against the young-Earth hypothesis. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:43:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I phrased that poorly. He was _always_ an extraordinary, Hall-of-Fame caliber shortstop, because his hitting more than made up for his atrocious fielding. His hitting was never quite as good as people gave it credit for (he was never, ever, in the same league as ARod) but he was always very good. Now he's moved from an excellent shortstop who hits his way into the HOF despite an awful glove to an excellent shortstop who hits his way into the HOF despite a mediocre glove. My point about watching Jeter play every day is that he makes clutch defensive plays just as he makes clutch offensive plays. He does little things well both on offense and defense. I can accept that his range is somewhat limited but to say he has a terrible glove is just not reality. The idea that his arm saves him when his range will not is just not right. The issue is getting a hitter out. It can be argued that great range can overcome an average arm just as easily as it is to argue that a great arm can overcome limited range. I just find it strange that you would say he is a terrible short stop. No one is arguing that A Rod is not a better fielder or that he is not a better power hitter. But Jeter just does not struggle the way A Rod does even when he is a terrible slump (as he did at the beginning of last year). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/19/2006 1:05:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory. Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in science. All scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts are by definition falseafiable. Many things are so well established and so imbedded in a net of other well established facts that they are virtually certainly true or at least mostly true (gravity evolution atomic theory) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Keep Propaganda Off The Airwaves
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rather than continuing to trade rhetorical points, perhaps you could start by specifying those things that are broadly-accepted factual inaccuracies - and not just partisan factual inaccuracies ... So that you can just dismiss them as partisan factual inaccuracies? If I can do that, then perhaps they aren't as factual as you think. Here's one, though: NOBODY in the Clinton admin was called by ANYBODY in Afghanistan who was ready to pick up the package or whatever was their code for capturing Bin Laden and refused to give the authorization. The film included such a scene, clearly intended only to make Clinton look bad. O.k., I can't find any reference to that specific code, but the following is a quotation from the 9-11 Commission final report, describing the words of a CIA officer : Hit him tonight - we may not get another chance (130) JDG - Propaganda, Maru... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:52 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracies or why the Red Sox collapsed In a message dated 9/18/2006 11:43:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry, I phrased that poorly. He was _always_ an extraordinary, Hall-of-Fame caliber shortstop, because his hitting more than made up for his atrocious fielding. His hitting was never quite as good as people gave it credit for (he was never, ever, in the same league as ARod) but he was always very good. Now he's moved from an excellent shortstop who hits his way into the HOF despite an awful glove to an excellent shortstop who hits his way into the HOF despite a mediocre glove. My point about watching Jeter play every day is that he makes clutch defensive plays just as he makes clutch offensive plays. He does little things well both on offense and defense. I have a question about making clutch defensive plays. What does that mean? Does it mean that a correlation can be shown between the percentage of times he gets hitters out and the importance of the situation? Is he much more likely to not get a borderline grounder when the Yanks are 5 runs up or 5 runs down and the opposing team has no one on base? The issue is getting a hitter out. Is that something that can be measured? If so, wouldn't a measurement be better than the instinctive averaging done by even an above average fan? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 21/09/2006, at 11:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in science. All scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts are by definition falseafiable. Many things are so well established and so imbedded in a net of other well established facts that they are virtually certainly true or at least mostly true (gravity evolution atomic theory) Sure, and that's the scientific small print that is implicit in every statement of fact. But it's often used wrongly, to state that the probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain of some things. Which is bunk. There may be details that need filling out (we don't know every twist and turn along the family tree from bacteria to elephants, for example) but that doesn't mean we're not certain that there was a long time in between and that fish and invertebrates are ancestral to elephants. Or in your own field, that we're not certain that the brain is the organ that is responsible for thought. Yes, we *could* be wrong. It could yet turn out to be the heart. But really, it's not something that troubles us. So it's a fact. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The coming Singularitarian
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Jonathan Gibson wrote: I read Cassini Division over the few quiet times I found at Burning Man last week (...) The first time I heard about this Burning Man was in a Malcolm-in-the-Middle episode. It sounds like Brazilian Carnival, but tamer :-P And at Carnival, I'm betting you don't have to put up with the kind of dust they get at TTITD. Julia big fan of the nearby regional burn, no desire to spend Labor Day weekend in Nevada ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
In a message dated 9/19/2006 4:45:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact. How it works is a theory. Finally - that's exactly what I was saying about evolution before. Same thing. No disagreement here. I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from theory. The facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type and nature of living things. This implies that evolution occurs. Is this a fact or a theory. The similarity between organisms in a region and between current and past organisms also implies evolution. Is this data fact or theory? The creationists would argue that this is pattern is just what god wanted to do for whatever reason god does everything god does. Even gravity is a theory. The facts about the way bodies interact with each other can also be explained with the same all purpose explanation used to counteract evolution. God did it that way because god makes all things move the way god wants to make things move. I would argue that what we have are pieces of data and we have theories to explain these pieces of data. Theories can in fact be provisionally true when no data exists that contradicts our theory (or hypothesis). More importantly the notion that facts are neutral and theories no matter how well conceived and documented are judgements about facts is open to conjecture. Scientist do not collect facts and then let the theories fall out,. They develop hypotheses based on some observations and then collect facts or perform experiments to verify or falsify their theories. The relationship between fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not easily seperated. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from theory. The facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type and nature of living things. That's the fact part of evolution, yep. This implies that evolution occurs. Is this a fact or a theory. The similarity between organisms in a region and between current and past organisms also implies evolution. Is this data fact or theory? The similarity is a fact. The progression is a fact. The analysis that therefore all creatures are descended from common ancestors is very close to certain. I'd call fact, because there has been no other explanation that stands up to scrutiny. How it happened this way, that's theory. I note that you introduced data. Yes, on the simplest level data is facts and analysis is theory, but as you say: The relationship between fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not easily seperated. Yep. There are some conclusions that are facts, and some data that is questionable or uncertain. As in all of science, there's no one answer to method and nomenclature that works all the time. But with 9/11, autism/vaccine crankery, creationism, alternative medicine, perpetual motion and so on, we're seeing groups that either corrupt this relationship and the nature of science, or just ignore or dismiss it entirely. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote: [...] do you let the programmers self-test in a vacuum If so, you probably go through a _lot_ of testers that way. And you have to wonder about the reports they gasp out in the last stages of hypoxia. Dammit, Ronn!, I can't read anymore listmail tonight. You made me laugh. And that hurts right now! :) (Aside from the pain, I did appreciate it.) Julia so now you know where I am in my catch-up ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it's often used wrongly, to state that the probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain of some things. Hey, you have inspired a neologism. Creationism is probapolitically true. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it's often used wrongly, to state that the probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain of some things. Hey, you have inspired a neologism. Creationism is probapolitically true. *snicker* Pleased to be of service... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
At 10:07 PM Wednesday 9/20/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:49 AM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote: [...] do you let the programmers self-test in a vacuum If so, you probably go through a _lot_ of testers that way. And you have to wonder about the reports they gasp out in the last stages of hypoxia. Dammit, Ronn!, I can't read anymore listmail tonight. You made me laugh. Aren't you the one who warns others about the dangers of drinking anything while reading list mail? And that hurts right now! Sorry. I hope you didn't pull anything loose. And I do hope you heal soon. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South - and more recently listening to my California
mother in-law recount her pastor advocating first Bob Dole and then
the
GwB tickets with strong admonitions to his flock against the other
candidates {with an amazing amount of vitriol towards Kerry}...
On the other hand, there seems to be a much stronger tradition of
Democratic candidates actually campaigning in Churches, than of
Republicans. Of course, these are in historically African-American
Churches, and for whatever reason it doesn't seem to generate much
outrage every four years.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
