Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 12:45 AM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re:TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today > Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > On May 18, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > >> Got an explicit example of this occuring exactly as you lay it out, > >> or are you simply engaging in supposition? > > > > To be fair, I think we should talk about the hypotheticals, even the > > ones that seem (to some of us at least) only remotely feasible or > > not > > particularly relevant, because if something is reasonably possible, > > eventually it'll probably happen. > > > > It seems to me that a lot of Dan's concern is based in the > > extremes -- > > the fringes, the things which happen rarely if ever, but which (to > > him > > at the very least) seem to pose some serious ethical or moral > > questions. > > If so, then I would agree that it is interesting territory to explore, > but I am pretty sure that Dan is wrong in his estimation of how such a > situation would actually work. I respond to this in another email. > > > > > > That an eighth-month abortion because of "malaise" has not yet > > (TTBOMK) happened doesn't necessarily mean it won't, and if (as I > > suspect is the case here) one feels an infant's soul is in peril or > > something like murder might be perpetrated, discussion of > > hypotheticals becomes crucial, if for no other reason than respect > > for the sensibilities of those involved in the discussion. > > I understand the kind of argument Dan is making. I want to know if > there is some record of such an occurance actually happening. > It is a simple and honest question, but not some debate ploy. > Dan's example goes against my personal experience ( which is a bit > tangetial to the subject, but still applicable AFAICT) I'll answer this quickly...I'm going someplace with my wife. Part of my experience is listening to my sister's experience as a nurse observing late term abortions where the mother's life was not at risk at a hospital she was working at. She found them very disturbing. I could ask her for specifics for the list, but she and her husband are _very_ stressed out over their work situations at the present time and I don't want to add to it. But, when she said this she was specifically asked about grave risk to the mother, etc. and replied in the negative. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today > In a message dated 5/18/2005 3:08:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in > > not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then > > that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? > > > That is the wrong formulation. Humaness is innate in the sense that it > apertains to any human fetus but it is also not present at inception. It develops > progressivley over time. There is no threshold over which a fetus crosses to > become human but clearlythere is a range of time over which it changes from > something that is potentially human to something that is human If you reread my example, I think you see that I allowed for that. My comparison was between a baby that was born two months premature and a fetus that is 3 days past due. The fetus 3 days past due is, typically, better developed than the baby born two months premature. I can understand you saying that at conception we don't have a human, at 21 we do, and somewhere in between we draw a line. But, that line should be based on the being itself, not what _we've_ done. If we can change the humanness by changing the order of actions slightly, then the humanness, or lack thereof, is not innate. So, I wasn't arguing, at this point, against all abortionsjust abortions after vivacity of the fetus. Roughly speaking...that's third trimester abortions. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Citgo gasoline
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:12 AM Subject: Citgo gasoline > So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela. There are a few other interesting factors about Chavez, 1) He did attempt a coup about 10 years before he was elected. That does not get democracy points with me. 2) He closed critical newspapers and TV stations. It was getting to the point where his official news was the only news. 3) Venezuela has been somewhat socialistic with government spending on housing for lower income workers for >30 years. I've been in some of those houses myself, >30 years ago. So, trying to do that is not new. Oil prices are high now, so Venezuela has a lot more money, so he's popularbut it remains to be seen if he actually does anything more for Venezuela's economy than Castro did for Cuba's. 4) Some of Chavez's political opponents were disappeared. Opposition parties were convinced Chavez had something to do with it. 5) Anti-Chavez demonstrations were attached just before he was forced out for a week. 6) He attacked Jewish schools because "Mossel was trying to kill him." I'm not sure why you consider him a champion of democracy. He was voted back in, so he should remain in power, but he is not a South American Jefferson or Washington. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and so on
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 3:38 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and so on > On May 18, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to > >> state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational > >> discussion. > > > > I've had an off-line conversation with someone who's on list and > > pro-choice. He has remarked on how clear my arguments were, but told > > me > > that he bet I'd not be able to get you or Gary to see them. > > That's entirely conceivable (so to speak), sure. > > > May I suggest that I am arguing with an unspoken presupposition of > > yours > > and Gary's. Those are the hardest for us all to get around, because the > > supposition is done so quickly, it's not recognized. In engineering > > applications, those are the ones that cause pretty capable people to > > miss a > > problem for weeksand is why engineering groups are often helped by > > "creative naivety" that is to say someone who has the tools to attack a > > problem, but hasn't worked in that area. > > That's sensible and consistent with my experience as a programmer. I > can't beta test my own software, because I know what it's supposed to > do, so I don't deliberately do things to break it. Someone else has to > do that. (This is true of proximally all programmers, FWIW.) > > Self-editing is similar. It's easy to overlook technical *and* > narrative problems in one's own writing. New eyes are often necessary > to catch the lacunae. (The work-around for self-editing is to let a > finished story rest for a few weeks or months, then revisit it.) > > OK, so what in your view is the unspoken assumption at play here? Thinking about it, I think the assumption is implicit with Gary, but more explicit with you. That one's humanness is not innate. That society has the right to declare the humanness of one individual and the non-humanness of another fairly arbitrarily. So, it was proper for Jackson to commit genocide against the native Americans because there was a consensus among American citizens that this was so. I think you have stated a consistent position on this...and I accept as valid the position that the definition of humanness is arbitrary, but your definition includes Jews, blacks, Native Americans, etc. I strongly differ with your presuppositions, and I think there are ramifications that you haven't considered, but that will be addressed in a reply to a long post of yours that I'm still thinking aboutand will be after I finish my analysis of economic data that will be rejected by JDG a priori. :-) We have significantly different beliefs on this matter, but I won't accuse you of being hypocritical; I acknowledge and respect your efforts at intellectual honesty. I guess what bothers me is that people that argue strongly against this sort of idea in other applications see no problem with accepting it here. Statements like there is no difference between the legality of terminating the life of a fetus that would do well on its own (if only it could be born) to save the life of the mother and terminating the life of a fetus that would do well on its own (if only it could be born) because of a health risk for the mother. The former is consistent with humanness being innate, and not arbitrary. The second isn't. The former is consistent with Christianity. I don't see how the second is. I think what frustrates me is that, for the most part, what I see as the source of the main difference in looking at things is ignored, and that one position on this is simply assumed to be true. In some ways, the explicit recognition that from my vantage point, that humanness in innate, not a bequeath of society, and that the abortion of fetuses that would be viable with normal care from any one of millions of adults is inherently problematic if one makes this assumption. It is only acceptable if one assumes that humanness is arbitrarily defined by society. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:17 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today > Something is clearly bothering you here, but unless you're willing to > state what it is, I can't see how it can be addressed in a rational > discussion. I've had an off-line conversation with someone who's on list and pro-choice. He has remarked on how clear my arguments were, but told me that he bet I'd not be able to get you or Gary to see them. May I suggest that I am arguing with an unspoken presupposition of yours and Gary's. Those are the hardest for us all to get around, because the supposition is done so quickly, it's not recognized. In engineering applications, those are the ones that cause pretty capable people to miss a problem for weeksand is why engineering groups are often helped by "creative naivety" that is to say someone who has the tools to attack a problem, but hasn't worked in that area. An example of this is assuming that X won't work because you've had bitter experiences with trying to get X to work 5 years ago. The reason for that has been addressed by new technology, so X is now a real solutionbut one that you dismiss instinctively due to your experience. (Not just you, of course, engineers/scientists I've worked with have talked about this negative part of experience). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:48 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today >Thank you for that quote. That is very close to my summary except "life or >health." >So are we splitting hairs over how much the health of the mother be >endangered? Only if you think that a full term fetus has no humanity at all. Are you arguing that it is for society to decide who is human and who isn't, and then proceed accordingly? If you consider two humans, and one person ends the life of another to save their own, then that is much more justifyable than killing another for health reasons. >Is it a bigger threat to not allow abortion at all, allow it in some cases >of phyical health of the mother, or to allow it if both a doctor and a >clinic decide the mother's health is endangered? It depends on whom is being threatened. If you believe that humanness in not innate, but society has a right to limit who is considered human, then that's a self consistent position. Is that your position? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:47 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today > On May 18, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of > > this > > are different: > > > > and I quote from his opinion: > > [...] > > > (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its > > interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, > > regulate, > > and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in > > appropriate > > medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the > > mother. > > > Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy > > out. > > How do you figure? The proviso includes "appropriate medical judgment", > which leaves psychologists right out, as only psychiatrists are also > MDs, and only psychiatrists would be (implicitly) entitled to render > *medical* judgment regarding a woman's health. > > A non-psychiatrist MD, furthermore, would not be able to make judgments > based on mental health -- or so I understand -- so Dr. Nick Riviera > can't just waltz in, say "Hi everybody," and prescribe an abortion > based on *anything* he pulls from a DSM. That's not true. A non-psychiatrist MD certainly can make a diagnosis and write a perscription for mental health reasons. I know that as a fact. My point is not that the MD can pull something out of his tush, it's that it is a _legetimate_ mental health diagnosis. > If you want to continue contending that a psychiatrist is likely to > risk his license and professional future by trumping up a faked > mental-health reason for a woman to have a late-term abortion, you > certainly can, but it'll be an extremely tenuous argument, I think. What's trumped up or faked? You think that a woman wanting a late term abortion won't be extremely anxious? DSM4 is _the_ diagnostic tool for mental health. This is _literally_ by the book...her mental health is in danger if she is suffering anxiety disorder because she is pregnant. > > All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. > > Even more odd. If it's a *free* clinic, what is the motivation to > perform an abortion on trumped-up grounds? Wouldn't that be more likely > with a bribable private practitioner? Because they don't believe it's trumped up. Since the fetus isn't human, the mental health of the mother is all that's needed to justify an abortion. Becasue they are true believers in reproductive rights. If the numbers are less than 1000/year, and some are needed to protect the life of the mother, why not specify that third term abortions are legally acceptable only when they are to protect the life of the mother. Most Americans are in favor of this. Why do the promoters of "reproductive rights" consider this such an affront to human rights? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today On 5/18/05, Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 08:46 PM Tuesday 5/17/2005, Dan Minette wrote: > > >The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the > >foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that > >the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's > >humaness. >I think that is a misreading of Roe v. Wade. Based on evidence >available at the time the Supreme Court ruled for no state involvement >in the first trimester, state regulation in the second, and only to >save the life of the mother in the third. You can argue about where >the lines are drawn but one side in the debate doesn't want any lines. As far as I can tell, your reading and Harry Blackmum's opinions of this are different: and I quote from his opinion: (To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. it is so ordered" Health is clearly in there, not just life. DSM 300.02 is a clear easy out. All it takes is a quick visit to the right free clinic to get this out. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:49 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > JDG wrote: > > > > Since this health exception includes mental health, it means that any > > woman desiring an abortion is able to claim the health exception. > > Even one that could not get a doctor to back her claim up? I think such a woman could theoretically exist, but she'd have very very poor networking skills. If she's pretty upset about the possibility of giving birth, how could you not associate DSM4 300.02 General Anxiety Disorder with that? If need be, I'll give the specifics, but the name alone should tell you how straightforward such a diagnosis would be. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:25 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > JDG wrote: > > > And these Democrats voting against it were definitely of the "liberal > > Democrat" variety. > > But of course if the exceptions that the Dems wanted had been included, > the law wouldn't be having trouble in court. > A reason that affects the health of the mother is a pretty easy thing to find. If it prevents the normal relatively minor damage associated with childbirth, then it can be said to be for the health of the mother. If it makes her feel better, it aids her mental health. Any therapist worth their salt could find numerous DSM-4 diagnosis to back this up. _I_ couldin one minute I got 300.02 General Anxiety Disorder. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:52 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > Dan 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. > > Do you haave a cite for that. I found this: Sorry, Robert made me clarify this earlier...I wasn't referring to rank and file... I was refering to leaders, party activists, etc. Senate votes of Democrats, State party platforms, national platforms, etc. Your numbers are consistant with what I expect from self-identified Democrats, but strongly inconsistant with the leadership. "Reproductive rights" do seem to be defended at all costs by national leaders. > Los Angeles Times Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2003. N=1,385 adults nationwide. > MoE ± 3 (total sample). > > "Do you favor or oppose a law which would make it illegal to perform a > specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of a woman's > pregnancy known as a partial-birth abortion, except in cases necessary to > save the life of the mother?" > > ALL Democrats Independents Republicans > > Favor 57 53 56 65 > > Oppose 38 42 39 31 > > Don't know 5 5 5 4 > > Well down the page here: > > http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm > > > -- > Doug > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 8:46 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: TheAmericanPoliticalLandscape Today > births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a ^^^ delete the next lines were the replacement thought after I got an understanding of the publication. > I googled for that term and got this self-definition: and so on Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today On 5/17/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM > Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American > PoliticalLandscape Today > > >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger > pregnant > >women? > > I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure > and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be > dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally > tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. > >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus > until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. > > So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the > waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical > factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the > fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's > a legal abortion. > >Perhaps your right. I know that dead fetuses are sometimes carried to >term, less medically risky, sometimes. But now some hospitals are >always making them be carried to term because even on a dead fetus >many hospitals will not do a dilation and extraction - too >controversial. First, they could always induce labor...so I think there is a medical reason for carrying the dead fetus to term. I'm not sure why, once the woman is dilated, pushing is all that more dangerous than an extraction. There is the risk of the usual small complications for the woman that's associated with normal childbirth, but I don't see how the risk of death or serious harm is increased greatly by the extra time it takes for pushing a stillborn baby out. IIRC, delivery of even a dead fetus normally is considered safer than any intervention that could be tried. Let me ask a very simple question which bothers me a lot about the legality of third trimester abortions. If a woman finds a hospital and a physician that are agreeable, is it legal to do a dilation and extraction on a fetus that is normally developed, 8 lbs, and 3 days overdue? AFAIK, the answer is yes. How is that being less human than a 8 week 1 lb preme that takes tens of thousands of dollars a day of effort to keep alive? The courts have essentially decided that this is a fact. That is the foundation of Roe vs. Wade. But, I hope you can see how I'm troubled that the order of actions by someone else, not one's own state, determines one's humaness. I saw your quote from "Reproductive Health Matters, and I don't find it intuitive. Since the abortions are illegal, it would be very interesting to see the methodogy of estimation. Looking back at US history, is it really likely that the number of abortions was roughly 40% of the number of births (as it was in the '80s in the US)? I'm also wondering if such a I googled for that term and got this self-definition: " The journal offers in-depth analysis of reproductive health matters from a women-centred perspective, written by and for women's health advocates, researchers, service providers, policymakers and those in related fields with an interest in women's health. Its aim is to promote laws, policies. research and services that meet women's reproductive health needs and support women's right to decide whether, when and how to have children. " at http://gort.ucsd.edu/newjour/r/msg02430.html It's an advocacy magazine, as I guessed. I would not consider it any more objective than the GOP website. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 6:02 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape Today > 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. > > > > Most Democrats /are/ Americans. Right, but must Americans aren't Democrats and most Americans aren't Republicans. > I think your phrasing here is a bit misleading. > Are you speaking of Democrat polititians..activists.PACs Politicians, party leaders, and activists. The statement is probably not true for all Democrats, but such things do exista position is a majority position in a party, but a minority position overall. > Or are Democrats not Americans? > Very funny, since I'm a Democrat. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and the Democratic Party Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant >women? I guess the answer to this lies in the difference between this procedure and the procedure used sometimes with fetuses that are already known to be dead. They are simply delivered dead...which is clearly emotionally tramatizing, but can be the best action for the mother's physical health. >From what I've been told, sometimes women are asked to carry a dead fetus until they naturally go into labor, which sound very very difficult. So, AFAIK, the differences between these two procedures (not including the waiting for full term to deliver), is determined by legal, not medical factors. It is against the law to deliver than terminate the life of the fetusthat's murder. But, if the delivery is not quite completed, it's a legal abortion. Dan M. ___ 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" 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
Re: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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" > 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 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" 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: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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" > 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: US Pensions
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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: The American Political Landscape Today
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 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: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) > Dan M. wrote: > > Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. > > I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing > > the results. :-) > > I suspect as much when I read your original message and I have to > wonder, isn't withholding such evidence - indeed withholding that you have > a priori knowledge of this evidence - in those circumstances the equivalent > of baiting? No, I've just tried to get people to commit to their understanding of the validity of a type of data independent of it supporting or countering their viewpoint. > Then again, you recently offered to compare economic growth > during the Great Depression to that of World War II.. so I'm not sure > what you are thinking here. I'm thinking data are. We should fit theory to data, not pidgen hole data into what we already know is true. > >I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of > >Iraq. Ideally, the question would be "are you better off than you were > >under Hussein" or "are you better off than you were three years ago." But, > >a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of > >Iraq is "are things going in the right direction?" > > I don't think that the questions are at all comparable (and I actually > suspect that the withheld results you have might even be in my favor - > though I don't know for sure.) The "right direction" question is > inherently divorced from time.For example, the results to that question > would be quite different in the week immediately after the election or > immediately after the swearing in of the new government vs. say in the past > week. I do not believe, however, that this question inspires the > populace to make a comparison with life under Saddam Hussein. The time frame is a bit ambiguous, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that people consider the biggest changes of the last couple of years when they answer this. If most people thought the country was going in the wrong direction, then it would be hard to say that people consider things a lot better. The quote from http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050506/wl_mideast_afp/iraqpollpolitics_050506175337 is "And 67 percent of Iraqis now think the country is going in the right direction, the most optimistic response in the last year, the poll showed. Some 22 percent said Iraq was going in the wrong direction. Sentiment hit an all-time low in early October 2004, as US forces started pounding Fallujah from the air ahead of a November ground assault on the town, 40 kilometres (25 miles) west of Baghdad, the poll showed.Some 45 percent of Iraqis said the country was going in the wrong direction at the time, edging past the 42 percent who felt more positive." This poll was taken in mid-April. A poll taken a year ago asked about whether Iraq was better off than before the war. And, 56% said Iraq was better off before the war, while 70% were optimistic about the future. The source isn't as good for this poll, it is: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004319.asp which looks a bit biased. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Pensions
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:18 PM Subject: Re: US Pensions > At 09:51 PM 5/12/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: > >> Pardon my > >> bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the very > >> least, stupidly risky. > > > >You know, back when I started working, it wasn't. > > 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. Unfortunately, in the 80s, the US governments stopped insisting on sound accounting practices with pension funds. > >If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's tax > >cuts, > > "Paying for tax cuts" is a non-sequitur. It's all income transfer. What happened in reality is that taxes went from slightly progressive to virtually flat above, roughly, a 40k family income. > Social Security is also fully funded this year, so that is a non-sequitur > as well. So, you are saying that Reagan lied to me, but it's no big deal? > > Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and > > see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive. > > You're playing word games. No. I just like to look at data. > A poor person making minimum wage is paying a 15.3% tax rate. > > A CEO making $22 million this year is paying a 0.06% tax rate. > That's regressive under anybody's definition of economics. How much does the CEO as a fraction of what he pays? How much does the poor person get? > And oh yeah, that CEO earning $22 million is going to get a taxpayer-funded > check when he retires. And, if he didn't, the poor person would have gotten nothing. Look at how we look to cut Medicaid but expand Medicare. Programs that only favor the poor are on the bottom of the priority list. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) > Hmmm. I guess. I don't know what Saddam's track record was on that, nor how > free people are in a practical sense, given all that's going on... but they're > certainly free in principle. Here's one example. Karbala and is buried there. For Shiites, his tomb is the holiest site outside of Mecca and Medina, Among other things, Hussein prohibited the pilgrimages to Karbala, on the anniversary of Husayn's (the Prophet's grandson) death. They are now able to go. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Pensions
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re: US Pensions > When a worker relies upon an employer's pension plan, that worker is > essentially putting his or her savings nest egg in the same basket as his > or her income egg, and handing the basket into the competent (or > incompetent as the case may be) hands of his or hers managers.Pardon my > bluntness here, but this system is just plain stupid.Or at the very > least, stupidly risky. You know, back when I started working, it wasn't. Companies are/were legally oblidged to fund their pensions on an as-you-go basis. But, businesses were able to buy (sorry lobby for) a change in the law that allowed them to siphon money from the pensions, claiming they were "tremendously overfunded." So, they got the law changed to reflect some, shall we say, creative bookeeping. As a result, many pension plans are now terribly underfunded. > (Although considering another significant aspect of our retirement system > involves taxing the poor to write checks for the rich, employer pension > plans may look almost sane by comparison. But I digress) If the money were spent to fund SS instead of paying for part of Bush's tax cuts, that wouldn't be the case. Look at the taxes _and_ the benefits and see if, on average, SS is progressive or regressive. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oh dear...
- Original Message - From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:38 PM Subject: Re: Oh dear... > *There might, I say might be a rare variant in which > Teal is Dusty Rose -- but "Their Dusty Rosenesses" > sounds much too run-on, at least in my handbook. ;) How about the social introduction: "Their Dusty Rosenesses, The Duke and Duchess of Demolition" ? Dan M. ___ 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" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 6:17 PM Subject: Re: The American Political Landscape today > It's nice to know that, despite the opinions of some among our > august body, we liberals are *not* out of the mainstream, we > *are* the mainstream. Although I consider myself a liberal, I think that the votes in elections are better indicators than an internet survey. Internet surveys are less reliable than 1936 phone polls. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:28 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > Dan wrote: > > >> I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the > >> Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move > >> away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because > > of its influence. > > > > If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US > > influence and find a greater percentage of working democracies for > > longer periods of time than those with greater US influence. > > Allow me to rephrase a little because I don't really think our influence > is a simple matter. I believe our influence via military/industrial > channels was negative but that our cultural influence was positive and one > the people of many countries wish to emulate. OK, but I was specificly referring to the leverage our government had with other governments. We clearly have a strong cultural influence in Arab countrieseven one of the Palestinians celebrating 9-11 was wearing a US sports tee shirt. Yet, that is an area where we have little leverage. We had a lot more leverage in Tawain and the Phillipeans. >Military/industrial people want control and large profits at the expense of the native people. The military wanted to keep Communism at bay. I think I can see that as their bias. > A people that elects a government that wants to distribute the wealth of > their country fairly among the people is much less profitable than a > dictator that takes his cut and allows the multinationals to do as they > will. OK, using that hypothesis, we should see multinationals all over the dictatorships in Africa and virtually none in places like India, which has been democatic for >50 years, right? It doesn't seem to work that way. Now, I'd be happy to agree that businesses are after profit, which is inherently an amoral stand. If a horrid dictatorship is sitting on easy to obtain oil, there will be a company that will more than happy to make a profit off it. If that dictatorship poses a threat to the US, there would still be US companies selling to it (e.g. Haliburton selling A-bomb triggers to Iraq in the 90s). But my point wasn't about the influence of the US culture or businesses, it was about the US government. Insofar as the military desire to see no more Communist governments came into play, I can understand why anti-Communist dictatorships would be embraced. When Communism fell, that needed did also, and the right-wing dictatorships lost their bargining chip with the US. This meant that the US's leverage with those countries increased, and, by my hypothesis, the percentage of dictatorships in countries in Latin America should have fallen significantly after the end of the Cold war. By your hypothesis, there should have been a much smaller effect. The military would still want control, and multinationals would still want profit. Only if one agrees that the military wanted to defend the US at virtually all costs can one argue for a strong military influence resulting in the preservation of right-wing dictatorships. I would agree to this bias by the military during the Cold war, but not afterwards. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) > On Thu, 12 May 2005 12:57:28 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > why would you suggest that attacks by some people > > indicate that most people are worse off? > > I didn't suggest that. I suggested that those people, as well as the hundreds > of thousands who demonstrated against our occupation on April 9th, are saying > that they would be better off it we left. But, the question was whether the people in Iraq was better off. Why make this arguement if it wasn't relevant? I googled for that demonstration, and saw multiple quotes that put anti-US demonstrators in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands. That immediately suggested who was behind it, and what was the political motivation...it was people on the outside of the present government trying to put that government in a bind. That government knows it is not prepared to provide security, so it doesn't want the US to leave immediately. It has said so. Yet, the US soldiers are resented. What is interesting is that the organizers could only get one middle size demonstration going. I think that the word went out from influencial figures (such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani) that these type of demonstrations were not useful. Everything that I see indicates that Sistani could get millions on the street by sending out the word. > Sadr City is a Shiite area, not Sunni. That was my point -- these are the > people who presumably wanted us to free them from Saddam. If the Shiites, of > all people, are fighting against us, who the heck wants us there? The elected government for one. Ayatollah Sistani for another. They both wants us out, but not right now. Heck, _we_ want us out, but not right now. >They're the ones who ambush our troops, they're the ones who put 300,000 people on the > streets on April 9th. I tend to doubt the 300,000 number for an anti-American demonstration. I looked it up at multiple places and didn't get that number. A good example of what I read is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40509-2005Apr9.html you see that Sadr, the one who's millita fought the US for a month around a year earlier, organized that demonstration. Personally, I think the change from fighting at the shrine of Ali for a month to a one day demonstration is a hopeful one. > > You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself has decided to work politically > > instead of militarily. Everything that I see indicates that the > > attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni. > > First, so what if Sadr is working politically? That is no indication of > whether or not he thinks the country is better off -- he hasn't backed off > even slightly from his position that he wants the U.S. out, and people are > following him, lots of people. As far as I know, nobody has linked Sadr > directly to the violence in Sadr City. He's a cleric, not a soldier. You don't remember the big fight in Najaf of about a year ago? It was with _his_ militiamen. They have stood down, and he has chanced tactics from military to political. He now organizes demonstrations, instead of gun battles. > Second, our troops have been ambushed in Sadr City -- it has become one of the > most dangerous places in the country for our troops. I don't think anyone > questions that the attacks are being done by Shiites, people who surely were > happy to see Saddam go, since it had been the center of anti-Saddam sentiment. > Look up what happened on 04/04/04, a rather infamous day, but far from the > only incident there. Which was during the time that Sadr was fighting US troops. Since his militamen have stood down, what fraction of attacks have been by Shiites and what fraction by Sunnis? > What do you think it means when the people who most wanted Saddam out of > power, the people we supposedly were rescuing from oppression, are killing our > troops and demonstrating in massive numbers for us to leave? I think that there are a few things involved. First, occupation troops are never popular, even if they are simply providing security. Second, we really screwed up both security and infrastructure. I think the average Iraqi cannot believe Americans are that inept. Third, the politics in Iraq is complicated. I wouldn't doubt that Sadr would call for US troops out _now_. Its a smart political move. The government knows it cannot maintain any semblance of stability without US help, so it cannot comply. He can turn resentment of the US into support for him in the future. The person I've been watching _extremely_ carefully for the past two years is Ayatolla
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3 > On May 12, 2005, at 2:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > It was the one written collectively at a retirement village filled > > with > > Catholic one legged seamen. > > There are hints and suggestions of lewd jokes right under the surface > of that statement, but I can't quite seem to get hold of one. > > Perhaps it'll come to me in a while. Not a lewd joke at all, if you google, you will find that it was written by the Peggy Parish. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
- Original Message - From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:54 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3 > > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Ohdear. This is what happens when you send > > > before reading all posts in the relevant thread... > > > > > > Debbi > > > who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was > > > the first to point out Their Tealnesses... ;) > > > IIRC, there was a children's book that referred to > > them: "Amelia Bedilia Meets Their Tealnesses." > > Cite! I demand that you back up your ridiculous > assertion with *hard evidence*! Or withdraw it > posthaste! > It was the one written collectively at a retirement village filled with Catholic one legged seamen. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing DictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
- Original Message - From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:18 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing DictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3 > Ohdear. This is what happens when you send before > reading all posts in the relevant thread... > > Debbi > who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was the > first to point out Their Tealnesses... ;) IIRC, there was a children's book that referred to them: "Amelia Bedilia Meets Their Tealnesses." Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons >I am not sure how your hypothesis is able to be proved false. By showing that countries which were less influenced/dominated by the US had a greater chance of becoming democracies. >What countries were not US dominated? The US had basically ignored Africa, for example...it had minimal influence there. It has had little to no leverage in the Middle East since OPEC. It has had tremendous influence in Latin America. It provided defence for Tawain and South Korea. It had a fair amount of influence on the Phillipeans. It has had only modest influence in SE Asia. >What do you count as expanding democracy? Governments going from dictatorships to elected goverments. Evidence of mature elected governments such as peaceful transitions between different parties. >What time lines do you have to show that it was Bush promoting democracy >that caused a rise in the number of democracies? It would be a matter of deciding the amount of leverage the US had at the time in a country vs. the state of a democracy. I don't think it was just Bush. I think that, after the Cold War, Bush I made the support of democracies a bi-partisan issue, after Carter made it an issue. In a sense it was Carter stating "we cannot support dictatorships", Reagan saying "we can if it is needed to fight Communism, and Bush I saying "now that we've beaten communism, we need not hold our noses and support brutal anti-Communists any more. Clinton supported that idea, and now Bush II does. >How do you exclude other factors? I'd assume they were fairly random. If we could reasonably control for them, that would be betterbut baring that assuming that they are random is standard technique. It is possible, of course, to get a false positive or false negativethat relates to the fact that international relations is not a science. But, I'd bet with a several sigma signal instead of against it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:26 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) > On Thu, 12 May 2005 09:42:47 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is > > taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these > > numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and > > Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people > > of Iraq? > > It could be meaningful, but it hasn't been done and isn't likely to be done. It has been done, and I have results from several polls, spread out over the last year. :-) You said it could be meaningful; why wouldn't it be. In particular, why would you suggest that attacks by some people indicate that most people are worse off? > But we have are numerous incidents in which the very people we are supposed to > be helping are attacking us, which tends to suggest that at least some of them > are not feeling helped by our continuing presence. This sets the bar very high, doesn't it. Everyone must approve of the change in goverment? >The inhabitants of Sadr City, for example. The evidence that I've seen is that the overwhelming majority of the local grown attacks are from Sunnis. Right now, there are negotiations with Sunni political leaders about going through Sunni tribal leaders to work out an amnesty program for many of the insurgents. You mention Sadr City, but Sadr himself has decided to work politically instead of militarily. Everything that I see indicates that the attacks in Iraq (which mainly kill Iraqis) are by Sunni. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:41 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On May 12, 2005, at 9:01 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began > >> not > >> following orders Reagan ordered him removed. > > > > Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is > > actually > > important. > > I thought the reference was to Roosevelt and Panama: > > <http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html> > > Not to anything the US did in recent years. When referring to an area > in which we have more than one historical effect, it doesn't hurt to > specify which historical effect you're thinking of rather than listing > off a long roll of names. Sorry, I thought that it was clear that it wasn't Rossevelt because he didn't do that. Every example was post WWII. >It's a little like not distinguishing between western Europe and mainland Europe... Well, I was thinking of the US sphere of influence in Europe. It was Western Europe. I said mainland later because the UK and Ireland were not invaded by the Germans during WWII, and were not candidates for US nation building after the war. I'd also be more than happy to exclude the sphere of influence of the US that was not in Western Europe, but in Europe, such as Greece and (sorta) Turkey. With I used both terms, I was thinking of Europe, west of the Iron Curtain, excluding GB and Ireland. The Nordic countries were included in both cases. But, I can see how my terms might have been unclear. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > > I think its arguable that many of the mentioned countries, the the > Philippians frex as well as many others (such as Iran) were able to move > away from their dictatorial governments _despite_ the U.S., not because of > its influence. If this were true, then one should look at countries with less US influence and find a greater percentage of working democracies for longer periods of time than those with greater US influence. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:57 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons >> Well, there's the Phillipeans, Tawain, and South Korea, and Panama, to >> name countries outside of Europe. >The Philippines, Taiwan , South Korea and Panama are not examples of the US >promoting democracy. For many long decades they were examples of the US propping >up dictatorships For many long decades the US was willing to live with anti-communist dictatorships. Yet, if you look at the Phillipeines, Taiwan, and South Korea, they are, after Japan, the best examples of strong representative government. If you want to argue that the US cut these dictatorships too much slack, and that we didn't push enough for democracy in these countries, I'd agree. But, I don't think it is just coincidence that these countries are the best examples of representative government, after Japan, in the far east. >Germany and Japan were the examples of the US promoting democracy. This was >in large measure due to the constitutions put in place. It was also, in large measure, a reflection of the ability of the US to force a governmental form on those countries. In the other countries, the US was not in the same position to do so. > > Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or > > pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of > > the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades. > > But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot > tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a > camp, but there were terrorists. >Actually a review of the occupation history shows almost no terrorist >activity. There were no US military deaths after the war in Germany due to >terrorists. It was minimal...but there were a bit more than a score of combat deaths in the months following VE day. >> It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to >> directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting >> other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America. >We propped up, supported and paid a dictator in Panama. When he began not >following orders Reagan ordered him removed. Actually, Bush was in power...I mentioned it because the timing is actually important. >There may have been an indirect influence in promoting democracy as older >dictators in Latin America saw there were limits to their power. The reason I think the timing is important is what transpired between Reagan happily dealing with Noreaga, and Bush removing him. The Cold War was won between those actions. For over 40 years, we were willing to support right wing dictatorships because we feared the alternative might be a Communist takeover. One exception to this was when we decided to drop support of Bastidas around '59. I think it is fair to say that was considered an object lesson by many. Now, I agree with the arguement that we were willing to look the other way far too often when our allies acted in an inhumane manner. Chile comes to mind here. But, until the end of the Cold War, I think it is fair to say that an arguement could be raised that we needed to allign with right wing dictatorships as the least bad option. In the '70s and early '80s, the swift victory of the US in the Cold War was not seen as inevitable. But, once the US won, this excuse for supporting right wing dictatorships vanished. The US no longer had a reason to fear that the removal of a right wing dictatorship would result in another Russian ally. Thus, it was the perfect time to assess whether the Cold War was an flimsey excuse for supporting right wing dictators, or whether the US would change policy now that this risk had been removed. Latin America was the perfect test case because the influence of the US was so strong. Unlike the Middle East, we and Western Europe have little dependance on Latin America. Panama, with the US interest in the canal staying open, and US soldiers in the canal zone, was good test case. I think the message that was sent was, now that the Cold War is over, we have no reason to have to accept right wing dictatorships. We now consider them against our interests. For the most part, I think the message was received. >> I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether >> representative government was just first developed in the West >>(in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative government is an >>artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring dictatorships, >> monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for the former. >There is an interesting Turtledove short, one of his best, where the Greeks >were conquered by Persia and generations later a historian is trying to >discover who their rulers were and what was all these records of them >counting to make decis
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:00 AM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) >> The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken, >> of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time >> should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at >> least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq? > > Several of these polls have been taken. Right, and I have a very recent one in my hip pocket, so to speak. I just wanted to see if folks would assign it a value before seeing the results. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons)
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: Re: Is Iraq better off? (was Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons) > At 07:54 PM 5/11/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >> I'm quite confident that you can handle this one on your own. > > > >Oh, please. > > > >I can't think of what I've said that is a measurement of this. I wasn't > >asking to argue about it or play games about it -- I really would like to > know > >if there is something. If I've said it, great. I just can't come up with > it > >right now. > > You misunderstand. I'm not referring to anything you've said before. If > I were, I could probably cite the disdain you expressed for "provable > likelihood of success" in an earlier post this week, or chastize you as to > why you think the increase in *hope* (definitely non-measurable) is so > unworth mentioning in Iraq. But anyhow, I actually wasn't referring to > any of that. > > Instead, I am just expressing my confidence that if you have even a modicum > of honesty you can come up with something that is measurably better in Iraq > today than it was under Saddam Hussein. After all, Saddam Hussein's > regime was one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth. Unless you believe that > Iraq is *stil* one of the 5 worst regimes on Earth, then I am *sure* that > you can come up with something - if you are willing to be honest about it. I think a reasonable measure of this would be the opinion of the people of Iraq. Ideally, the question would be "are you better off than you were under Hussein" or "are you better off than you were three years ago." But, a decent secondary question that indicates the opinion of the people of Iraq is "are things going in the right direction?" The interpretation of such a poll will be dependant on where it is taken, of course, but, at the very least, the changes in these numbers over time should reflect changes in attitude. Would you and Nick consider this at least some measure of the views of the people of Iraq? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Ray Ludenia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:41 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > > On 12/05/2005, at 8:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a > > lot > > tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a > > camp, but there were terrorists. > > Any cites on this Dan (or anyone else)? This is not something I've > heard about before. My source was brin-l about 2 years ago. I included as terrorists people who killed Germans who cooperated with the US by being mayors, etc., under US occupation. I've done a google on this, and found that the terrorism was much less effective than in Iraq, that maybe 20-30 allied soldiers were killed, and that several appointed mayors were killed. I'd argue that the comparisons the Bush administration make between Germany and Iraq are vastly overstated. The strength and effectiveness of the Werewolves, as they called themselves, was minimalbut it was still existent. The closest parallel, I think, was the killing of people who cooperated with the US...but the numbers in Germany and Iraq were orders of magnitude different. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On May 11, 2005, at 2:06 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >> > >>> I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions > >>> of human beings > >> > >> Nothing. > > [...] > > > But, it has worked a number of times, as well as not having worked a > > number > > of times. > > Has it? Apart from Germany and Japan post WWII, when in the history of > the US have we been successful in installing a democratic model of > government in any nation? (I'm really asking; I might well have > forgotten some things!) Well, there's the Phillipeans, Tawain, and South Korea, and Panama, to name countries outside of Europe. > > Western Europe and Japan are classic examples of this. > > Japan was beaten. Much of Western Europe was already skewing democratic > pre WWII. Well, let's look at the larger countries. Italy was first a monarchy and then Facist before WWII, there was only a brief democracy in Germany before the Facists came. Since the US didn't control Spain, it took decades for that country to become a democracy. Austria was part of Germany before WWII started. I think that democracy on mainland Europe can best be seen as a recent experiment with results that were mixed, at best. >And we had the backing of the rest of the allied forces in > both cases (post-Nazi Germany, post-imperial Japan) to help us. I think Japan was a solo show. Britian helped a little in Europe, but that was about it. > Times were probably a bit simpler as well. There were no pro-Nazi or > pro-Hirohito terrorist training camps; the context and the nature of > the enemy have both changed considerably in the last six decades. But, there were pro-Nazi terrorists for a couple of years. We had a lot tighter control there than in Iraq, so I don't think they could hide a camp, but there were terrorists. > Influence is a far cry from direct frontal assault. It is. But, one question I asked myself is whether our willingness to directly assult a dictator in Panama increased our influence in getting other dictators to retire elsewhere in Latin America. >And it is not our > responsibility to "fix" the world, particularly as there are still many > parts of it that don't *want* our kind of fixing in the first place. Well, we know that the governments would like things to stay as they will. How do we know that people don't want to vote if they can't? > Leaving aside that it's literally practically impossible to change the > world, But, we can act in a way that has tremendous influence on the world. >what right have we to force a democratic, nominally atheistic > government on, say, Saudi Arabia, which is a theocracy (essentially) > steeped in Islamic literalism? Would it be any different from, for > instance, forcing the Amish to accept the Internet? (On an ethical > level, I mean.) How do we know what the average person in Saudi Arabia wants if they don't get to voice their views. I think that there is very significant evidence that the Shiites and the Kurds favor representative government. Yes, we ran the election, but we didn't force >75% of the people in those areas to vote. The Sunnis appear to want to go back to the good old days when they were in charge. How that plays out will be critical to the future of Iraq. Giving the people a chance to choose their government, and to throw the rascals out a few years later if they don't like what they did doesn't seem like forcing things on people. I'd guess that many countries in the Mid-East would not have the church/state separation of the US. That's OK. The only possible way we could be forcing things on a people is if we insisted on minority rights. I guess one of the questions that is under debate is whether representative government was just first developed in the West (in the US to be specific) or if the desire for representative government is an artifact of Western Civilization, with many other people preferring dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, etc. I, as you could guess, would argue for the former. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:53 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On May 11, 2005, at 1:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > I'm not sure I saw an answer to my question in there . . . > > Not from me; I was lobbing a tangent. Weren't those outlawed in the same protocol that outlawed gas attacks? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 4:05 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > Since you asked... ;) > > On May 11, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > > > I just wonder what can be done to solve the plight of those millions > > of human beings > > Nothing. > > There is no way to save the world. There is no way to change human > nature. And what we define as a solution now might not apply in a > different social context 100 years from now. For instance 150 years ago > the answer to dealing with all the "backward" people "suffering" in the > Congo seemed pretty obvious. > > There's some question, too, regarding how much of the world actually > needs saving. Do we stop at oppressive regimes? Which ones? Only the > ones who can't nuke is in response? (So N. Korea is safe.) Just the > ones we don't get along with at the moment? (So Saudi Arabia's safe > too.) Or do we keep going with nations whose governmental structures > don't match ours closely enough to suit us? (Look out, Egypt!) Or do we > keep going based on how close to "holiness" -- some flavor of Xtianity > or other -- we think they are? (Bye-bye, Thailand!) > > Now with situations like Rwanda, I think things are obvious. With Iraq > they were grey. (Why haven't we done a Regime Change on Cuba yet?) And > then there are some are-they-or-aren't-they cases where no clear > solution presents itself, and that makes me think that possibly -- just > possibly -- we shouldn't be trying to "fix" things in the first place. > > Besides, I think we're seeing that an enforced change won't work. It > looks like the older means is still the better one -- be an example and > let change be effected internally to a given nation. Maybe supply > training and *some* weaponry to the "freedom fighters"; maybe not. The > USSR collapsed without a revolution. That it has happened before > suggests it can happen again. > But attempting to shoulder the responsibility of "saving" millions of > miserable people, ostensibly from some oppressive government-bugaboo of > the week? Not practical and not possible. Regrettable -- tragic -- but > I think true. But, it has worked a number of times, as well as not having worked a number of times. Western Europe and Japan are classic examples of this. On the whole, if you look at the amount of influence/leverage the US has had with a country, there is a strong correlation between that influence and representative governments. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons >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_. I think that overstates the case a bit. I'll agree that anyone who was opposed to the invasion, including me, would have to accept that his remaining in power was a highly probable outcome...so it should be accepted as the price of not invading. But, by the same token, people for invasion needed to accept the very good chance of other significant negative outcomes, including the tens of thosands who have died during the occupation. I know you agree with that. I wouldn't state that your stand was functionally in favor of these deaths, because I saw you guessing, at the time, that the total number of deaths in Iraq would be lower with the invasion than without. I guessed that the total cost of invading was higher than the total cost of containment. I'd rather say that both of us need to accept the costs as well as the benefits of our stands, then say we were in favor of the costs. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:36:04 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > > Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? > > > > Imagination is fine, but by itself it does not create energy, it > > does not feed people. All things are not possible for humans. > > Wrong. It does solve problems. Without imagination to see that there's > something to do other than fight about ideology, we're doomed. If these are just ideological fights, then how can folks like Gautam and Neli find so much common ground and find agreement on many issues? They come from vastly different ideological backgrounds, yet see a lot of common ground. Both of them do believe in practical solutions. I'm sorta in the middle of them, politically, but all three of us have a lot in common. Asking practical questions is not fighting about ideology. Looking at past events is not ideology. Gautam, Neli and I do not have the same ideologyexcept that we believe in truth, we believe that the proof is in the pudding. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On May 10, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > But, in fact, whether or not our forces were stretched > > thin, other countries won't really be helping much, > > because they don't have the military capacity to > > engage in a wholesale intervention. > > Or, apparently, the desire, for whatever political reasons might be > expedient at any given time in a given situation. > > > The complete > > collapse of deployable European/Japanese military > > capacity since the end of WW2 has been one of the > > untold, and most interesting, stories of international > > politics. > > That is an interesting thing to highlight. In some ways it can be seen > as good -- lots less risk of internecine warfare -- but obviously there > are situations where a European military presence might be desirable. > Any of this due to the old cold war era? (Japan and Germany are relics > of WWII, of course; I'm thinking more of nations that maybe didn't feel > a need to have a large military since their countries had US bases in > them.) > > > Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is > > good, but their intervention has been illegal and > > unapproved by the UN. You can be in favor of > > intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ > > you can say that intervention on moral principles is > > contingent on international consensus. You _cannot_ > > do both. They are fundamentally inconsistent > > positions. The French government, which has veto > > power in the UN, _aided_ in the Rwandan genocide and > > denies that there is a genocide happening in the > > Sudan. As long as they do that, UN approval is > > impossible, therefore legal intervention is > > impossible. You can either stand on international law > > or on the necessity of humanitarian intervention. You > > cannot do both. > I think I see where you're leading with this, but there's a big > difference between immediate pressing need -- genocide happening now -- > and something considerably more vague -- oh, maybe there's nastiness > afoot, we don't know, and oh by the way this guy did genocide, um, a > decade ago -- which makes it difficult to support a suggested parallel > between an illegal action in Rwanda and an illegal action in Iraq. It seems that you are arguing that situations like these need to be evaluated on a case to case basis. If so, I concur. If not, I won't agree or disagree until I figure out what you mean. :-) > There are too many extenuating circumstances to imply that supporting > *one* illegal action suggests that anyone should support *all* of them > or be a hypocrite. Agreed. But, I think a case can be made that "it's against international law" becomes a much weaker argument against a proposed action in light of the examples Gautam gave. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > > You can be in favor of > > intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ > > you can say that intervention on moral principles is > > contingent on international consensus. > > And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic > intervention by businesses and much more. Reducing such issues to either-or > choices doesn't feed hungry people. Nick, everything I know from Africa indicates that getting the food to Africa to feed hungry people is relatively easy. It's getting the food past the guys with guns who see benefit in people starving to death that's the problem. I've seen interviews with the heads of relief efforts in Africa talking about their frustration with this. Neli's best friend is a niece of one of the leaders of the people in Danfur...the ones being attacked. Would you consider her references authorative, or would you still insist that the guys with the guns are not the main problem? > Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? Imagination is fine, but by itself it does not create energy, it does not feed people. All things are not possible for humans. >We end up distracting ourselves from the real issues of poor and oppressed people with ideological >arguments, trying to settle whether or not a "conservative" or "liberal" strategy is right. The > problem is the argument is wrong. How about if we use this list to brainstorm new approaches, since the >old choices are both failing? I see an approach that has worked before, but I know a number of countries are against it because it's opposed to their ecconomic self interests. It is clear to me that the next step for us is to provide any support the African peacekeepers need to do their work. We should ask other countries for their support, but we should not withold the help if others are opposed to it. If the peacekeepers are attacked or theatened. , we need to defend them. That seems fairly straightfoward to me. Waiting for other creative solutions, as we did for years. As far as a long term solution goes, Neli and I have had a running conversation on that. She plans on being part of the solution, and we're doing what we can to be supportive. But, we know that we need to address immediate needs like Danfer and Rwanda with immediate action, not more discussions. > I don't have any problem ignoring the UN if it is paralyzed by ideological > arguments. But that doesn't automatically mean we go it alone. It depends on the power France has within NATO. If they can prevail, NATO won't help. A "coalition of the willing" is the most that could be expected then. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > Replying now 'cause I'm still about 600 posts behind- > > > JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > >Agreed, but if one is going to claim _moral_ > > >justification in pursuing war, one had better > > ensure > > >that citizens and foreign states will agree with > > >one's assertions. Otherwise, they will eventually > > discover > > >that such claims were, at best, misreprentation of > > >the actual situation. And that destroys the > > >credibility of that government. > > > As others have pointed out, there is no reason why > > any of the above should be true. > > As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' > should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a > softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles > pointed at your capital. > > > For example, Deborah, you have suggested that the US > > should be doing more > > in Sudan. The rest of the world believes that the > > US should *not* > > intervene militarily to protect the Darfuris.If > > Bush were to advocate > > such an intervention, would the morality of this > > intervention be based upon > > the opinion of the rest of the world? > > As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action > WRT Darfur, which is laudable. From what I've > learned, it is not possible for the US alone to > intervene there militarily, as our forces are > stretched too far elsewhere. Getting ANC (?) > countries to be major participants in such an > intervention would probably be morally better than > going it alone, as it shows respect for and confidence > in their abillity to police their own continent. But > because the Rwanda massecres (sp!!) happened so > quickly, sole intervention then would have been > justifiable to me. But, AFAIK the African intervention is illegal, because it is not approved by the UN. Three veto powers have a sigificant financial involvement with the genocidal government, so it is _very_ unlikely that any UN intervention will be approved. NATO has been asked to help with logistics, and France is arguing against saying yesas one might expect. If France can stop NATO from helping, the US will have to go alone in providing help. As far as needed other countries because the US is stretched thin, my understanding is that the main non-African country that could help would be Great Britain. As far as I can tell, the Africans are sort of a trip wire, but would be hard pressed to fight the government of Sudan straight up. With logistical help, that may be enough. If not, the only chance they have might be a credible threat from the US. In short, it seems to me that moral arguments have, to first order, zero weight at the UN, and little weight with some traditional allies, such as France. Persuading other countries that action is morally required doesn't appear to be effective in this type of environment. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical > At 10:16 AM 5/5/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: > >His hypothesis is > > > >... the political party with the Presidency would probably be > >somewhere just above sunspot activity ... > > > >Clearly, it is wrong. > > I think it is clearly nothing of the sort. The very premise of the > analysis is too badly flawed to be at all usefull. And again, I note that > there is no theoretical model to support the proposed conclusions. > > >Put another way, Dan is right when he suggests that the economic > >policy of an administration is meaningful. > > I don't think that I disagreed that the economic policy of a Presidency is > meaningful. > > >Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out > >of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. > > False. The Presidency does not change Party every four years. The > political cycle is thus irregular. > > Moreover, since 1953 there have been nine recessions. Yours and Dan's > analysis would ascribe 8 of those recessions to Republican Presidencies. Would you then, be happy with a comparison from 1920 to 1952? the number of recessions slightly favor the Republicans over that time. Also, I can do a rigorous stochastic analysis of the year to year, two year to two year correlations, (and others you suggest) in order to see if your idea that one year's growth is strongly correlated to the previous years is valid. But, I don't want to take the time to do it, if you know you will dismiss results that contradict your viewpoint out of hand Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: "Keith Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:11 AM Subject: Re: Co-dependency > At 10:26 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Keith Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > >Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:59 PM > >Subject: Re: Co-dependency > > > > > > > At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > > > snip > > > > > > >With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on > > > >abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain > > > >everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased > > > >more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. > > > > > > I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. > > > > > Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? > > > >Sure. There are a number of things that don't support this. First, there > >is a pattern of repeatedly finding spouses that are abusive. After > >divorcing an abusive spouse, an abused woman is more likely than the > >average woman to find another abuser. With the Stockhome syndrome, getting > >the woman out of the position where the man has power over her should lead > >to as low a level of still supporting the kidnapper months after being > >freed. Are there instances of them asking to be reunited with the > >kidnappers months after they are free? This happens quite frequently with > >abusers. I think that family dynamics and a co-dependant family of origin > >are much better explainations for this behavior. > > Have you read the original story of the bank robbery where the syndrome got > its name? Indeed, one of the women broke her engagement and tried to marry > one of the bank robbers. OK, there are instances, so the event rate isn't zero. But, if we look at a number of places where the syndrome is said to take place, such as in concentration camps, hijackings, prisons, I don't think we would see it anywhere near as prevalant as we do with battered spouses. About half of the battered spouses return to the abuser as they leave the shelter. > Incidentally, none of your examples provides an alternate theory of how > such psychological traits evolved. "Co-dependant" just does not have > biological/evolutionary roots where you can understand the origin of the > behavior. Well, it depends on what you you want. If you start with the idea that you must explain everything by expressing it in terms of the behavior of proto-humans as they evolve into humans, and how certain traits were genetically selected for, then no. But, that isn't science. Science simply provides models and predictions for observables. It does not require that biology make intuative sense when one is thinking about electromagnetic potential. It's not that there isn't a tie; it's that it is complex enough so simple general rules of thumb obtained at the atomic level need not apply at the level of organisms. If you want an explaination in terms of biologically selected traits; I think the answer is fairly simple, but it leads to complex systems. Humans have been selected for a tremendous ability to learn and adapt. In particular, humans learn a great deal during their childhood. If this were right, family of origin issues are crucial when understanding human behavior. And, we find this is true, that almost everyone's behavior, especially in their own initmate surroundings, is tied to the norm of their family of origin. > Evolutionary psychology, by considering the environment of primitive people > where women were captured back and forth between tribes for millions of > years cleanly accounts for capture-bonding as an essential survival > trait. That is speculation. We don't know what proto-human societies were like. We have some extremely limited knowledge of present day hunter-gatherer societies (but those societies are so small, it's hard to understand if they are anomolies or normative. Native American societies might have provides some examples, but since there were a wide range of types of societies in North America (including farmer/hunter hybrids) and since vast organized civilizations had existed here, and since good studies were not done before the societies were changed through interaction with Europeans, we can only gather some information here. In terms of Western European society, the furthest back that I can see, in terms of the development from pre-humans to human hunter/gatherer to nomad/animal herder
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:58 PM Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical > At 10:24 PM 5/5/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: > >> Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why > >> Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce > >> uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your > >> analysis is deeply flawed. > > > >This is one area where we differ. I believe that data come first, theory > >comes second. > > In Economics, the prevalence of spurious correlations makes that a > dangerous paradigm.I won't say that no serious Economists follow that > paradigm, but "data mining" is broadly looked upon with skepticism in > Economics. But, I asked a very obvious question: the effects of the implementation of two general schools of thoughts on ecconomics. It's not as thought I tried hundreds of correlations, until I got a 3 sigma one. > One reason for this is that Economics relies heavily upon time-series data, > and any two non-stationary time series will tend towards correlation over > time. > > To give an example from another case of mixing Economics and Presidential > Politics, there is a Economics professor - I believe at Yale - out there, > who on a bit of lark constructed an Economic model that predicts the > outcome of the two-way US Presidential race based upon economic factors. > By all the usual statistical tests, this model is very robust.And yet, > every four years that same model is spectacularly wrong.And so, after > each Presidential election the model is tweaked to account for the latest > observation - all to no avail. Every four years the model's future > predictions are invariably wrong. Do you know _why_ what I did and what he did are different? > So, to return to the original point, the data says that 8 out of 9 > recession have occurred under Republican Presidencies. Do you believe > that this is inherently significant? If you look at the policies that were undertaken by Democrats and Republicans, then I would expect recessions to be more likely, longer and worse when Republican economic techniques are used. In my time series, we looked at two 12 consecutive year spans when Republicans had the White House and one 20 year span when Democrats did. Try a number of different types of cyclical functions, and see how likely this type of occurrence would occur randomly. One would expect a cycle to have periodicity that one doesn't really see here. In short, I agree one has to be very careful about seeing correlations when one tries hundreds of different combinations until one sees a signal. But, when one asks the one obvious question about Republican vs. Democratic economic policy, one can use the statistics that are valid for asking 1 question, not trying hundreds of questions. It may be worthwhile to start a thread on statistics. I'd be willing to walk through the foundations of statistics and ways to check for valid vs. invalid use of statistics. As I've mentioned before; Monte Carlo techniques are very good at turning tacit assumptions into explicit assumptions, allowing one to more clearly see the question one is asking. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical > Unless you and Dan have some brilliant economic theory as to why > Republicans tend to cause recessions and Democrats tend to produce > uninterrupted economic growth regardless of the business cycle, your > analysis is deeply flawed. This is one area where we differ. I believe that data come first, theory comes second. Data need not fit the theory, but the theory needs to fit the data. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis On 5/3/05, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote > > > > > Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response > > > from my last message in your answer. > > > > Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to > > two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. > > > > Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even > > as the nation gains wealth. > > > > Nick > I think I am in the odd position of disagreeing with both of you. > > I need to find a source for some valid figures of poverty. I think the census bureau's figures are pretty well trusted. Somehow I amplification > ^^^ and Medicaid > don't trust the ones provided earlier. the GAO is fairly decent at that. Medicaid spending has gone through the roof as the result of so many elderly in nursing homes who have worked through their savings...or have earlier passed savings on to their kids. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Keith Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:55 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > At 12:40 PM 03/05/05 -0400, Damon wrote: > > >>BTW, a prediction I have not checked out is that there would have been > >>far fewer wars than average in Europe in the decades following the Black Death. > > > >Somehow I doubt that. The Late Middle Ages was in part typified by the > >frequency, and the new brutality of war. In Western Europe alone we still > >had the 100 Years War, which reached its bloody climax in the 15th C, not > >to mention the War of the Roses, Burgundy vs. Switzerland, etc. I'd be > >interested in seeing this research, but one thing you would have to > >account for is the changing nature and attitude towards war that developed > >in the Late MA. > > It seems in a short web search that nobody has correlated the deaths from > disease and deaths from wars. I would not expect the Black Death to > depress wars for more than the time for the population to come back up to > pre Black Death levels--perhaps a few decades. > > If anyone has pointers to decent numeric data, please let me know. Here's one site: http://migration.ucc.ie/population/4%20eupophistory.htm Population was not up to the 1300 level throughout the 100 year war. It was finally thought to reach that level in 1500. This was consistent with what I remember, but I bet Damon has a number of other authoritative sources. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
- Original Message - From: "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:33 AM Subject: US riches, actual and hypothetical > Here is a question that Dan Minette may be able to answer quickly. > > My goal is to get some grasp of the consequences of long term policies > by the two major US political parties. > > A while back, Dan figured out the rate of measured economic growth in > each US political administration, excluding the first two years. By > excluding the first two years he avoided effects from the policies of > a previous administration. Thus, the rate of growth for the > Republican Eisenhower adminstration was determined for 1954 - 1960 and > for the Democratic Kennedy/Johnson administration was for 1962 - 1968, > counting those years inclusively. > > Please start with the measured income of the US in 1948, or from > another base year for which information is readily available, perhaps > 1928, but no more recent than 1952. The idea here is to generalize > beyond short term actions and look at long term trends and policies. >From 1920 to 2000, if we exclude the first two years of a party having the presidency, the real GDP growth rate under Republicans was 2.5%/year, and under Democrats was 5.1%/year. The table I happened to grab didn't have 2003 and 2004, so the Republican numbers might change by 0.1% or so if we include those years. If the average growth rate during the 82 year period was the same as the Republican rate quoted above, then the GDP would be $4778 billion. If the average growth rate was the same as the Democratic rate quoted above, the GDP would be 36823. The actual number for 2002 is 10442. I think that Erik's point on this is fairly valid...that the Democrat's policy is closer to the "sweet spot", besides WWII helping the Democrats a bit, so I don't really think that continuous Democratic rule would have resulted in >3x the present GDP. In terms of per capita GDP, were talking about, roughly 16.5 k/pp for the Rep. scenario, 36 for the actual value in '02, and 127k for the Dem. scenario. Those are the numbers that have been requested; this time without much interpretation by your sponser. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:33 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 11:45 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: > >> O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: > >> > >> "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor > >> would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United > >> States of America. > >> But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the > >> test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people > >> understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to > >> the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." > >> > >> The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. > >>Either > >> the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must > >> pass a "global test" before pre-empting. > > > >No, it's not. > > I am shocked that you would deny this. If the above is not a > contradiction, then the best you can say for it is that it is irrelevant. No, the best I could say is that it is a nuanced position. Let me lay out two extremes and > There are two possibilities: > 1) Kerry's first clause - the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to > preemption. That's not what he said. An unlimited and unfettered right means that the US need not weigh the security or the soverign nature of other nations at all when it pursues it's own interests. (As an aside, the war in Iraq was not a preemptive war. The risk was not imminent enough.) He also used the words necessary to protect the United States. > 2) Kerry's second clause - the right of the US to preemption is limited in > some way - perhaps by the need to pass a "global test." Rightif there isn't a clear and present danger to US security, and other options short of war are open, then, according to this view, the US needs to be able to make a reasonable case for the war. While Gautam and I differed on the prudence of the war, I do think he made a good case for the advisability invading Iraq. Bush clearly did not. Looking at his '03 State of the Union speach and Powell's testamony; the case can be seen, in hindsight, to be built on a number of false statements. He may not have known they were false at the time, but he and Tenet should have known that they _could have been_ false. In other words, instead of making a nuanced argument based on the limited information that was available; presented a non-existant open and shut case for war. > Kerry's second clause presume that there exists at least some case in which > failure to pass a "global test" limits the US's right and ability to > preempt. If no such case exists, that is if every time the US would want > to engage in preemption that it would pass the global test, then Kerry's > talk of a global test is irrelevant. What, if some of the time a global test isn't needed: as in a clear and present danger to the US, and some of the time it is...when there is no clear and present danger. Let me give an extreme example of this. If, in 1962 missle crisis, no missles were yet set up, but the USSR would have a first strike capacity against the US if they were, then a pre-emptive strike by the US would not have to pass any sort of test. Even if there was a good chance that the USSR would respond by invading Europe, this clear and present danger to the US would be sufficient for the US's right of self-defence to take precident over the potential for mass deaths in Europe. It wouldn't matter if the Security Council passed a resolution 14-0 against this (with the US missing the meeting for some unknown reason), we'd still have the right. To give another extreme example, we would not have the right to invade Venezuala because the president thought that securing Venezuela's oil was important for the long term security of the US. Even if he were right, and it would enhance the security of the US (which is obviously debatable), it would not pass any reasonable global test. We'd have no case that we had a fundamental right to overthrow an elected government we didn't like. These two cases are deliberately extreme. Real cases (including the actual 1962 Cuban missle crisis) fall somewhere in between. Iraq was a case that was in between. Both Bush's and Kerry's positions are in between these two extremesBush tends towards acting as we will and expecting others to follow, and Kerry tends towards seeking consensus first. But, Kerry's position is no more that the US needs a permission slip than Bush's position is that there should be no constraints at all on the US acting in it's narrow, immediate self interest. > Yes, Kerry is willing to act without UN approval, but only when it passes > some kind of "global test."That's just a fudge for other areas of > international approval. > And why is it just one member of the Security Council being an > obstructionis
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical > At 08:33 AM 5/2/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: > >A while back, Dan figured out the rate of measured economic growth in > >each US political administration, excluding the first two years. > > > > * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the > >growth rate that Republican administrations achieved historically? > >Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or > >whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as > >well as they did. > > > > * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the > >growth rate that Democratic administrations achieved historically? > >Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or > >whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as > >well as they did. > > > > * And for comparison, what is the actual current GDP and median per > >capta US income? > > I'm not sure why you would find such an analysis to be at all interesting. > You are basically proposing running a model where GDP is a function of > the Party in the Presidency. > > I think that most economists would consider economic growth to be a > function of a large number of variables, and the political party with the > Presidency would probably be somewhere just above sunspot activity on that > list. This directly contradicts something Brad Delong has written on his blog. While what he writes isn't automatically the truth, I'm not sure why I should think that when he states the ranges of opinions of ecconomists on a subject, he would either deliberately mistate the range, or would not understand what ecconomists, as a whole, believe. It also says, in essense, that the ecconomic policy of an administration is virtually meaningless. > Nevermind the fact that generalizing the economic policies of Nixon and > George W. Bush and the policies of LBJ and Bill Clinton is painting with an > awfully broad brush It's more as though one looks at two distributions with different means. One can also look at pairs of potential policy as they change with time. This technique has worked for decades, if not centuries, in science; I don't see why it wouldn't work in economics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 11:16 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: > >Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with > > You got cut off here. the idea that the UN must approve the actions of the US. > >How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is > >required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll > >seriously consider any that indicates that that is Kerry's position. > > O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: > > "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor > would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United > States of America. > But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the > test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people > understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to > the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." > > The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. Either > the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must > pass a "global test" before pre-empting. No, it's not. The question is whether you have a solid case, not whether China would ignore a solid case. Clearly, Bush's case was not solid. The trick is not being dependant on the judgement of others. I'll give an example that shows this. The UN Security Council clearly would not approve actions agains the Soviet Union during the Cuban missle crisis. Kennedy proved to the world that the Soviet Union, all protests to the contrary, was directly threatening the security of the US. It's not about UN approval, it's about having all your ducks in a row. In a sense, your arguement is the flip side of Nick's. Bush is a unilateralist. He's willing to preach the truth, but not to entertain the possibility that others may have insight he doesn't. Kerry is an internationalist. He is willing to act without UN approval, but only when he has an overwhelming case that it becomes clear that a member of the Security Council is acting as an obstructionist. I would guess that Kerry would say that Clinton's actions in the Balkans fit this. At the time of the campaign, it was clear that Bush had blown both the setting forth of the need for war and the aftermath of the war. I won't argue that it was clear before the war that there were no WMDI don't think that was clear at all. But, it was clear that Bush was selectively believing only the reports that supported a massive threat, while ignoring those that decreased the threateven when the expertise supporting the latter far outweighed that supporting the former. Powell now admits to great embarassment for making a false report before the UN. I honestly think Bush doesn't consider this important, becasue he knows that the essence of the report is right, even though the data don't support it. So, if you want to fault Kerry for being a "mealy-mouthed politician, that's pretty fair I think. But, if you want to argue that he supports giving others a veto over US actions, that's not accurate. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:42 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 10:16 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > >> At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > >> > > >> >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't > >approve > >> >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few > >> >persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in > >Afghanistan > >> >and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the > >> >President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a > >> >coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. > >> >Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of > >other > >> >countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ > >allies > >> >to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other > >> >countries don't approve". > >> ^ > >> > >> O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, > >> "approval?"And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than > >to > >> "serious consideration"? > > > >But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was "serious consideration. > >It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. > > Precisely the opposite Dan.For one, John Kerry never articulated a > consistent policy regarding the Iraq War. He went from opposing Gulf War > I, to voting for the authorization of the use of force in Gulf War II > (which he later sent was meant simply to threaten force, not to actually > use it), to voting against fully funding the troops once they were over > there, to who knows what position he takes on the war today. > > John Kerry, however, much like Nick and Dave have done on this list, > however, very often made statements that conflated "serious consideration" > with "approval." For example, they would set the bar so high for "serious > consideration" that the only practical outcome of this would be "approval." But, Bush's idea is that he would only require the US to preach the truth; he cannot fathom that he can be wrong when he knows something a priori. Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with > Take also for example, the below quote of John Kerry: > > "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the > world only at the directive of the United Nations." Well, that would make things easier, so I'd like to see that too. I'll agree that Kerry was being deliberately ambigious in order to both get the nomination and win the election. This statement sounds like a lot more than it states, and I don't doubt that he made it during the primaries. But, there is an enormous amount of room between Bush's position and giving a veto power to foreign nations or organizations. How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll seriously consider any that indicates that that is Kerry's position. > I remember others, but trying to follow Kerry's public pronouncements on > Iraq is enough to make anyone dizzy. Suffice to say, your interpretation > requires that Dick Cheney did not believe that John Kerry was one of the > many Iraq War opponents who believed that explicit UNSC reauthorization > should be a prerequisite before launching Gulf War II. No, it only required Dick Cheney to believe that Kerry would give the UN a veto over any US action. Yes, Kerry jumped around a lot on Gulf War II. He voted for the war, against funding the extended war without raising the taxes to pay for it, but for funding it through taxes. But, I remember his stating explicitly, several times, that the US would allow no foreign power to have a veto right over US policy...particularly just before Cheney said this. Iraq is a unique situation because it is a war of choice against a country that posed no direct threat to the US. Containment was a very practical alternative in '03. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: "Keith Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency > At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > snip > > >With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on > >abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain > >everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased > >more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. > > I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. > Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Sure. There are a number of things that don't support this. First, there is a pattern of repeatedly finding spouses that are abusive. After divorcing an abusive spouse, an abused woman is more likely than the average woman to find another abuser. With the Stockhome syndrome, getting the woman out of the position where the man has power over her should lead to as low a level of still supporting the kidnapper months after being freed. Are there instances of them asking to be reunited with the kidnappers months after they are free? This happens quite frequently with abusers. I think that family dynamics and a co-dependant family of origin are much better explainations for this behavior. > Also, I presume you don't really mean there have been experimental > studies. I can't imagine an ethics committee permitting the behavior that > activates capture bonding/Stockholm syndrome. Actually, my wife did her master's thesis on the issue of relative power and the probability that an abused women returns to her abuser. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips > At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve > >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few > >persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan > >and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the > >President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a > >coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. > >Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. > > > > > > > > >The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of other > >countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ allies > >to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other > >countries don't approve". > ^ > > O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well, > "approval?"And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than to > "serious consideration"? But, he was referring to Kerry's position which was "serious consideration. It is Cheney who indicated no difference between the two. > >So, I think David might have been more accurate referring to Cheney dissing > >seriously considering the opinions of others than saying Bush had. > > I honestly don't see how "approval" gets translated into this. That's not what happened. Serious consideration was translated, by Cheney, into approval. I was referencing the original idea. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3
- Original Message - From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:44 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3 > It depends on whether one judges that the "enabling behavior" in the > particular case in question is overlooking the "severely antisocial > behavior" in question and allowing it to continue or responding to it and > therefore providing the one who exhibits the "severely antisocial behavior" > with the reward of seeing that their "severely antisocial behavior" has > provoked a response . . . Unfortunately, this list has had extensive experience testing this. I tend to ignore nasty one liners unless I can just turn thembut tend to counter arguments which actually have a point. FWIW, my friendly local therapist is of the opinion that ignoring these statements is probably the best thing to do. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . .
> I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad > categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't > believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe. > It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there > might be a god, the more likely that atheist is to be in the first > category. It seems to me that, if one is angered at the suggestion a > god does exist, one should seek to understand why. > > The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the > suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent. > > Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear. Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets angry at the suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues with respect to God has real validity. People who are very comfortable with their own beliefs can be very passionate about them, but are usually not hateful or angry towards people who happen to disagree with them. As for the pass given to Erik and Will, I've tussled with them a number of times over the past few years on that subject, and now tend to pick my spots instead of reacting to every statement. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:37 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency > > - Original Message - > From: "Keith Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:26 PM > Subject: Re: Co-dependency > > > > At 03:35 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > snip > > > > >I thought about this a while, and can't see the link. For example, how > is > > >a battered women who thinks the battering is her own fault, and that it > > >would stop if she were just a decent wife self-righteous? This type of > > >behavior is often associated with very low self esteem, which is not > > >associated with self-righteousness. It's closer to buying into the > > >abuser's world. > > > > Battered wife syndrome is closely related to Stockholm syndrome, more > > descriptively capture-bonding. Capture-bonding lies behind a frat hazing > > and military basic training among other things. It accounts for events > > like Patty Hearst and Elizabeth Smart. > > > > http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.pdf > > > > During an awful lot of human history you died if you didn't have the > > ability to bond to the people who had captured you and were abusing > > you. That why it is so hard for women to leave abusive situations, there > > capture bonding psychological mechanism has been activated. > > With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on > abusers returning to their spouse? ^ abused spouses returning to their abusers? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: "Keith Henson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency > At 03:35 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > > snip > > >I thought about this a while, and can't see the link. For example, how is > >a battered women who thinks the battering is her own fault, and that it > >would stop if she were just a decent wife self-righteous? This type of > >behavior is often associated with very low self esteem, which is not > >associated with self-righteousness. It's closer to buying into the > >abuser's world. > > Battered wife syndrome is closely related to Stockholm syndrome, more > descriptively capture-bonding. Capture-bonding lies behind a frat hazing > and military basic training among other things. It accounts for events > like Patty Hearst and Elizabeth Smart. > > http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.pdf > > During an awful lot of human history you died if you didn't have the > ability to bond to the people who had captured you and were abusing > you. That why it is so hard for women to leave abusive situations, there > capture bonding psychological mechanism has been activated. With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:36 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3 > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote > > On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > > * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > >> True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that > > >> context, since it was about an issue that called for serious > > >> consideration. I don't know wny you can't seem to see that. > > > > > > Well, religion-addled brains are good for one thing, anyway. This is > > > more hilarious than the 3 Stooges! > > > > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to > > get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior? > > Speaking for myself, I simply don't care what Erik or WTG have to say on that > subject, so I ignore it. It's probably the most codependent aspect of this > list that we overlook the severely antisocial behaviors of certain listmembers. > I found two interesting quotes on "permission slips" from the Bush white house. The first is a quote from the 2004 State of the Union Address. The second, is from a Cheney campaign speach of early September: >From the beginning, America has sought international support for our* operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people. There are a few interesting things about these two quotes. In the first, as JDG stated, permission slip refers to getting permission from the UN, not just listening to allies. The first quote doesn't offer that as an option. It offers getting allies in line vs. getting permission. I think it is fair to say we called in a lot of favors and twisted a lot of arms to get the coalition members to join us. The second reference did discuss seriously considering the views of other countries, although obliquely. Kerry suggested we work more _with_ allies to arrive at our objective. Cheney called that "denouncing when other countries don't approve". I think that this does reflect the mindset of the Bush Administration. Due consideration for the UN and other countries involves the obligation to preach to them, so they might see the light. But, if they don't, we proceed without them. No indication of seriously taking their opinions as worthwhile (except insofar as they support us) is given. So, I think David might have been more accurate referring to Cheney dissing seriously considering the opinions of others than saying Bush had. Bush actually didn't address this, he only had the options of others following us or needing to get a permission slip. Cheney was the one who publicly dissed Kerry's argument that we need to work more with our allies. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: DPRK Alternate History Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful changeL3
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: DPRK Alternate History Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful changeL3 > Dan, > > You asked what I would have done, had I been in Bill Clinton's shoes > > I think that my first criticism of Clinton's greatest failure would not be > his broad strategic decision to negotiate and cut and deal. Similar to > your central criticism of George W. Bush in regards to Iraq, my first > criticism would be in the *execution* of the broad strategic decision. I > am not convinced that it is a given that any negotiation and deal-making > with the DPRK beginng in 1994 or so would result in their taking our bribes > and then building nuclear weapons with us completely unawares. But, we have additional data, now. We know what happens when the payments are stopped; the material for 6 more weapons are processed, and the reactor is restarted, and 2-3 years later it is halted, with the ability to extract spent fuel rods for another 6 atomic bombs. We know that Clinton had, as a given, the extraction of enough fuel for 1-2 bombs, and the ability to kill hundreds of thousands in South Korea > Certainly, part of the execution would have been his lack of leadership in > overhauling the US Intelligence System in the post-Cold War environment, > even as failures of US intelligence began to mount. He didn't do as well as he should have; I'll agree with that. But, at least he listened to those that were best qualified instead of proof texting the intelligence reports for those that supported what he knew to be true a priori. He has/had more respect for data than GWB. > I don't have the information Bill Clinton did to fullly evaluate all the > options in the DPRK, so he may well have chosen the best strategic option. > He may have even executed it to the best that any US President would have > been able (which I find less plausible.) Suffice to say, now that the > DPRK has nuclear bombs, I feel Much, Much, Better that one of the DPRK's > wealthiest and most-proactive potential customers is safely off the market. Actually, that isn't suffice to say. With Clinton's actions, a situation where N. Korea had enough material for 7-8 bombs, and would immediately be producing enough for 6 bombs/year and would, within 3-4 years, be producing enough for 50 bombs/year was reduced to one in which they had enough for 1-2 bombs as well as the capacity to start secret production of enough material for 1 more bomb every few years in about 10 years. Now, that's not ideal, but it's better than Bush's way. If he proceeded as GWB did, then, given GWB's successes in curtailing N. Korea's nuclear production, N. Korea would be producing enough material for 50 bombs/year by the time GWB was elected..as well as being able to have >100 bombs, and enough to spare for a very good nuclear testing program. Why is this better than what Clinton did? You have said very many times that you preferred GWB's approach to Clinton's. On what basis would one decide is it turning out better? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Co-dependency > > > * [WINDOWS-1252?]"A stressful learned behavior associated with an > unhealthy > > focus on the needs of others and/or attempting to take > > responsibility for the behavior of [WINDOWS-1252?]others" (Brian DesRoches); > > Not bad. Addiction to self-righteousness, I like to call it sometimes. > I thought about this a while, and can't see the link. For example, how is a battered women who thinks the battering is her own fault, and that it would stop if she were just a decent wife self-righteous? This type of behavior is often associated with very low self esteem, which is not associated with self-righteousness. It's closer to buying into the abuser's world. Bush's attack on Iraq may be faulted, but not as co-dependant. Those who's immediate response to 9-11 was asking "how did the US provoke this" exhibited behavior that could be labeled co-dependant. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:25 PM Subject: Co-dependency > This article was pointed out to me by a friend: > > http://www.stickyminds.com/sitewide.asp?ObjectId=2275&Function=DETAILBROWSE&ObjectType=COL > http://tinyurl.com/98hsz > > There are four definitions listed for codependency: > > * “An emotional, psychological, and behavioral condition that > develops as a result of an individual’s prolonged exposure to, and > practice of, a set of oppressive rules” (Robert Subby); > > * “A set of maladaptive, compulsive behaviors learned by family > members to survive in a family experiencing great emotional pain” (The > Johnson Institute); > > * “A stressful learned behavior associated with an unhealthy focus > on the needs of others and/or attempting to take responsibility for the > behavior of others” (Brian DesRoches); > > * “We begin tolerating abnormal, unhealthy, and inappropriate > behaviors. Then we go one step further, we convince ourselves these > behaviors are normal” (Melody Beattie). > > Those more in the know than I, how good are these definitions? > > (The article was about software testing, BTW, and testers responding to > their work environment with codependent behavior. I'd be interested in > anything anyone has to say about *that* aspect of the article.) > These statements are not false, but Teri says that the essential definition of co-dependency is an enabling behavior. With drug addiction, co-dependants would deny the effects of the addition and cover for the addict. With spousal abuse, the abused person would blame themselves for the abuse, citing something they did wrong to cause the abuse. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: I am spamming your head I am spamming your head
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 8:51 PM Subject: Re: I am spamming your head I am spamming your head > On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:59 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > They sound a bit awful over here. My Logitech micro/headphones just > > don't cut it soundwise and my Altec-Lansing speakers don't sound a lot > > better to me. > > I have a pair of Altec-lansing computer speakers, and I have special > EQ settings called something like "shitty little desktop speakers" or > some such to make them sound less, well, shitty. > > > H.to be honest, I am the guy who makes the wheels go round, I > > am the force that keeps the project organized and ongoing. I also > > print, staple, duplicate CDs, and finance the project. > > Yes. Right after writing my message, I went to amycd.com and saw that > you are "executive producer," which often means "money guy." > > > Some guys go hunting and fishing. I coordinate musicians and artists > > and website creators and sell CDs. > > Not a bad hobby. At least it keeps you off the streets. > > > And I do the easy job. > > Creating music is hard hard hard hard hard. > > I have a friend, Ted Larson, who is one of those guys who, at a church > retreat, can decide at lunch time that he's going to write a song for > the campfire that night and do it. > My daughter, who's a junior at Lawrence, writes music that actually gets played in public. She conducts a bell choir and has written some music for them. She also does some music for the various parts of the service. According to her it's "no big deal." :-) I think writing music would be easy for me, just come up with note progressions. It's writing music that would not send people running and screaming to get as far away as possible that's hard. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis > At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: > >> >How is it that people who > >> >are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so > >> >quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births > >> >they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? > >> > >> I know that this is a common cliche - but name one person who > >> believes the above. > > > >Congress? > > Really? Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3 > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:57:07 -0400, JDG wrote > > > What is true is that in any event, the US did not impose multilateral > > sanctions on Iraq. > > In light of we have actually have done, can there be any doubt that we could > have and would have imposed *unilateral* sanctions? > > Are you saying that despite the fact that we were willing to go to war > regardless of international support, we might *not* have been willing to > impose sanctions any more? We'll bomb your cities, invade your country, > occupy and run it... but we won't impose sanctions? Why not? Perhaps because we thought that sinking French, Russian, German, and Chinese ships was a bad idea? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Balkans background
- Original Message - From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > What's your perspective on this? > > (for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty, > not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts) I think that the best background on what happened is presented at: http://213.222.3.5/srebrenica/ It is the Dutchbat report. I found the criticism of the United States in this report to be amazing. Not horrid, not unreasonable, but amazingespecially as it relates to our discussion If you don't have time, I'll be happy to summarize it; but I wanted you to have the chance to read it with your own eyes, and not through mine. If you read Dutch better than English, related sites have it in Dutch. If you do, then your Dutch must be unbelievably good, but I wouldn't put that past you. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: "Frank Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 4:36 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > Dan: > >dland: > > > > Dan Wrote: > > > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, > > > >> > > > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and > > > >> therefore is in a position to "let" or "not let" > > > >> nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps > > > >> we might consider other nations as adults, instead > > > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs > > > >> to discipline. > > > > > > > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never > > > > found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A > > > > police force that looks the other way lets them > > > > run a city. > > The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, > and the US is not a police force. The US is just the > strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations > can be stronger than the US, but at present these > nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, > this alliance might form, which might start another > cold war. You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany would prefer a world in which China were the major power? Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect the US to look after its security interests. There is a lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing that the US can be counted on to ensure that the government of China does not conquer others (such as the people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls the tune. >Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. There would be so many ways to challange the US short of that type of war, that I can't see this. For all of it's displeasure, Europe is making no moves to stop its reliance on the US's defence of it's interests. Japan and South Korea are working to lessen theirs, but that has been with the encouragement and cooperation of the US. > > 1) Is the African violation of international law by > > temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? > > 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called > > upon? > > If the US against the international legal system, they > should think about the reactions. Other nations might > not trust the US to keep their treaties with them any > more. And then the US people will wonder once again > why the world hates them so much... > > If, on the other hand, the US could prove that they > didn't do it for themselves but to stop a horrible > genocide, and accidents with US troops killing > civilans are rare, the US might even get a better > reputation. > (I don't believe for a second that starving Iraqi > children were the main reason for the invasion. But > I heard lots about WMD, which were not present, and > Saddam being behind 9/11, which was not true.) No, but it was a factor in the discussion going into it. Gautam has listed 4 criteria for a war of choicewhich have been ignored by anyone but me. I think they are a good way to frame the debate, and am not sure why others would not wish to consider them. A war of choice must 1) Be in the best interest of the nation fighting the war 2) The goals of the war should have a reasonable chance of being reached. 3) Other reasonable means have been tried. 4) The war will, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region. Starting a war will kill civilians, there is no way around it. If the number of civilians killed by the government in a year is greater than the range of civilians expected to be killed during the war and the rest of the year after the war, then the civilians are better off with the war than without. It is a considerationthe other considerations of US national interest were very complicated. > Now for Sudan, if the African intervention, aided by > NATO, actually benefits Sudan more than any of the > intervening forces, I'd be impressed. I think true > altruism is a good excuse for going against a legal > system if that system is deadlocked by non-democratic > nations. > I have hoped for such altruistic interventions > several times in recent years, but most of the time > they either weren't altruistic or there was no > intervention... Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe, when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house? If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense to take responsibility for those areas where the US was glad to just help out, as in the Balkans? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:53 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > In the final analysis, we're not that far apart. At the risk of being > considered an America-hater, Bush is a kind of ur-American: we tend to > be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when we are > certain. Weaker countries have to consider other countries' viewpoints. I'm trying to think of times in history when the most powerful country in the world sought considerable more consensus than the US has in the last 20-30 years. Do you have examples? > The other question -- to what extent "a decent respect to the opinions > of mankind" requires that the US should give a measure of veto power to > those opinions -- is the business of diplomacy, so I will continue to > "just hope" that our diplomats will make that call wisely. Veto power quite a bit to give up. Countries reactions to the actions of the US must be considered of course, but I don't think that means we give up the right to stop us from doing things that we are convinced are both in our own interest and does not significantly harm others. The founding fathers thought such a decent respect required us to explain our motives, not check for approval. Are you saying that there are circumstances under which the opinions of the governments of Germany, France, Russia, and China would be enough to stop us acting in a manner we have determined to be in our best interests as well as morally acceptable? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:43 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3 > At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: > >> You are conflating two separate things: > >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before > >> acting" > >> and > >> b) "agreement from other nations before acting" > > > >"Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off." > > Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. > > I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see > them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. > > As such, I guess that we don't have any common ground to stand on on this > issue. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words "permission slip" intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The > president's use of the phrase "permission slip" in the state of the > union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United > States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of > "hall pass." That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest > that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before > acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. The obvious question here is whether "seriously consider" means more than just "seriously consider." The US is unique in that it can project meaningful military power. The strongest example of that is the Balkans, where Europe was unable to project power 500 miles from the German border against a relatively weak Yugoslavian army. Thus, the heavy lifting in any significant military action must be done by the United States. Do you think that, after seriously considering objections, it is OK for the US to go ahead, or must it get approval. For me, the argument that the United States should have had Russia approval (needed for UN approval) to stop the genocide in the Balkans is not very strong. The Russian government had reasons to turn a blind eye to this genocide. I think that the decision as to the wisdom of invading Iraq need not give a strong weight to France's position, since they appeared to be in a position to gain significantly if Hussein stayed in power. So, if your argument is that Bush tends to be pigheaded and plow ahead without regard to other views when he is certain, then I will agree. But, if it that, for the US to properly consider the views of other nations, that it must give veto rights over certain foreign policy actions to other nations, then I would tend to differ with that. An extremely good set of articles that relate to this are available at: http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/871 I think much of the argument can be framed as a difference between two worldviews: If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise then we should start acting in accordance with the rules that should govern nations in a Kantian paradise now. If we want the world to be a Kantian paradise, we need to live in the world, recognizing that the present rules are Hobbsnian. If we act as though it were presently a Kantian paradise, we invite disaster. I'll agree beforehand that the first position may actually be more idealistic than the views of folks on the list, but I think I heard that type of argument a good deal in the last couple of weeks here. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 5:11 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > On Apr 25, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:32:37 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > >> Preventing someone from causing grave harm to us and our allies is > >> not codependant behavior. > > > > Of course. But how do we decide that someone is about to cause grave > > harm? > > That's the hard question, not whether to respond. Ideally, like the > > police at > > their best, we do absolutely everything we can to avoid coming to such > > a > > confrontation, then do everything we can to allow the other party to > > back > > down. > > Most police forces have a "Crime Prevention Unit." It does not, > generally speaking, preemptively invade the homes of potential criminals. It does > run programs that aim to address the causes of crime. If we're going to use > a criminal justice model to describe international relations, perhaps > that's what's needed, as opposed to a SWAT team. OK, I never meant to advance the criminal justice model for international relationships. I was merely pointing out a counter example to the notion that interfering with the actions of another country presupposes that the leaders of the other country are children. Do you think that the criminal justice model as a good one? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 12:57 AM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > Dan, et al, > > OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way > too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and > clear. > > So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with "Dan > Wrote:", but consider this my reply: > > The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase "there are > simply no good options." I worry when I hear language like that. I can understand that, but if you look at the preface (now that N. Korea has nuclear weapons) I think it is clear that JDG now considers military options less attractive than they were before. I think this is fair, with capacity for 6-8 atomic bombs, as well as a decent delivery system, N. Korea's government's ability to drag people down with it has increased from roughly a quarter million to roughly 2.0-2.5 million. Plus, with the fuel that can be extracted during the present shutdown, there should be an additional capacity for 6 more bombsallowing N. Korea to obtain a good deal of money from the right sources by selling these bombs while maintaining the deterrent of 6-8 bombs. >It triggers the "desperate times call for desperate measures" meme, in which > people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or > badness of options, and start just "killing 'em all and letting god sort > 'em out." That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the > least bad options that are left. I agree with that. I interpret "no good option" as indicating that the demonstration that the proposed path is an extremely unappealing option is not sufficient to reject the path. Rather, it most be compared with the other extremely unappealing options to see which is best to do. The real risk of the US going into a "killing 'em and letting God sort 'em out" mode is a very significant attack on the US. By very significant, I'm referring to something that will kill multiple tens of thousands of people. The main worry for me is a shielded A-bomb in a shipping container, sent to a US address. It hits a major port, such as NY, LA, or Houston and is set off before or as customs inspects it. > -- And now, my "not-as-good option" in replying -- > > Dan Wrote: > > >> On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: > >> > >> > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, > >> > >> Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a > >> position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear > >> weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead > >> of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. > > > > That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is > > filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run > > a city. > > OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly > useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for > international legal systems. OK, you don't like the analogy...the point is that one often lets adults do things by not setting up boundaries. But, given the track record of the international legal system with regard to genocide...in particular the fact that international law required government to step aside in the Balkans, I'm not sure that always abiding by it is called for. I asked an unanswered question about the past and potential for future genocide in Sudan. 1) Is the African violation of international law by temporarily stopping the genocide in the Sudan wrong? 2) Would it be wrong for NATO to help them if called upon? > (Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to > act on their behalf. > What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what "community" > employed the US as its police force? The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the obvious one. The North Korean government letting their own citizens starve to death is clearly acceptable under the UN; I won't argue that point. >These are not (just) rhetorical > questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in > violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In > what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their > behalf? I wasn't > > One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often > > associated with codependancy. > > I'm glad you brought up codependency. A common -- in fact, almost defining > -- facet of codependent behavior is trying to solve someone else's > problems when they didn't ask you to. Like invading a country to rid it of > a dictator. How sure are you of this? My wife is a psychotherapist and the key for her has been enabling behavior. Letting one's drug addict son have free room and board wit
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:01 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: > > > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, > > Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a > position to "let" or "not let" nations like the DPRK gain nuclear > weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead > of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often associated with codependancy. > > there are simply no good options. > > Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are > plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* > resort, not the first. OK, let's go back 11 years. Clinton had the three options...he chose to pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with enough in hand for two nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, they had a clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years. Much better than 50/year. At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the government, but not changing how the government was run. If Clinton wasn't given a third "half loaf" option at the last minute, You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America
- Original Message - From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its "Reform") Say About America substantially inferior system. > > First of all, you don't have to depend completely on future generations as > they haven't capped the voting age yet (and seniors participate in greater > numbers than any other age group), second, because Social Security is in > everyone's interest, it's highly unlikely that they would be interested in > scrapping it (look at recent poll numbers) and third, the 12.4% _is_ > forgone consumption, isn't it? If and only if the president doesn't pass other tax cuts...relying on this tax revenue to run the rest of the government. Then it is a transfer of taxes from one income group to another. But, you knew that. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:03 PM Subject: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > Pray. > > Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good > options. Were there good options when they could kill 200k in Seoul without nuclear weapons. It's not nuclear weapons, per se, that are the problem. It's the ability of those weapons to enhance the damage that could be done. So, since the three options that Clinton had in '94 were: 1) The buy half a loaf option 2) Invade and have hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans killed 3) Let things progress, and see N. Korea producing 40-50 bombs/year by 2000. You said #1 was a failure. Which one of the others would you have picked when Clinton had this choice? It appears to me that Bush has chosen #3.except that construction on the big reactor has not restarted yet. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 1:45 AM Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Dan Minette wrote > > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over > > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc... > > > > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already > mentioned > > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any > answer > > but > > Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself "what are the differences > between > > N. Korea and Iraq?" "Is there any difference in the estimated number > of > > civilian casualties in each war?" > > > > >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief > >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is > >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational > >one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, > >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he > >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. > > But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a > debate > on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful. Think about it. > AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support > of > Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. > I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the > Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who > would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the > office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I > think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years > shows criminal incompetence. > > Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to > myself > "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad." > > Dan M. > >What I was reacting too, and what prompted my colorful phrasing was the contention that GWB >invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people. It was being suggested that this was maybe the _real_ >reason behind the invasion (Most of the others having run out of any relevance long ago) and that that >was made clear at the time, that he and the government put this forward in such a way that it had some >parity with the issue of WMD. My memory is not perfect, but it ain't that bad. Frankly, the whole idea is >total revisionist bollocks. Hmm, maybe part of the problem is that you jumped in the middle of a debatewithout seeing what at least I thought was the premise: whether the decision to go in was indefensible (maybe another word was used, but that was the idea). After a long sub-thread with Warren, we've agreed that he writes like a fiction writer (his poor excuse for that is that he _is_ a fiction writer and editorbut we'll let that pass for now ), so he used a bit of hyperbola there. Part of the background was the long debate _here_ on whether the invasion was the right thing to do, where the status of the people of Iraq came up frequently. In fact, one of the rules for a voluntary war given by Gautam was that it would, at least, do no net harm to the people in the region. Invading a dictatorship like, say, Singapore, would be different than invading Iraq because the people in Singapore do not live in fear of being tortured and killed by the government. I guess I can see where you thought that it was argued that it was pure benevolence on the part of the US, but that's certainly not what I was arguing. >He was (and as President of the USA this is his job, so it's not insulting to suggest it I hope) acting in what >he saw as the best interests of the United States. And, no, I don't think that makes him bad. Noand I think the criterion that one should do no significant harm to others while pursuing those interests is a valid oneand one that is usually met. I am sorry that I overreact to such concepts as the idea that I should be ashamed of myself for having misgivings about the war, or that I am somehow complicit in the torturing of Iraqi children because of these misgivings, by using a few tired old cliché's. I guess its cos I am sometimes speechless at the hypocrisy (not specifically of those here, don't get me wrong) of the world, and how easily we forget because it suits us. We invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi children from Saddam. Yea. Right. Sure. We invaded Iraq because we saw a chance to get away with it, on the back
Re: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Dan Minette > From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 > > > > >And why isn't the US invading North Korea? > >Why is it, as you put it "doing nothing"? > > As JDG said, the answer to that is fairly straightforward. South Korea > begged Clinton not to. Even before they had nuclear weapons, the > proximity > of Seoul to the border, and the training of mutiple (10k) guns/morters on > Seoul by North Korea would result in massive casualties. While there is > little doubt that the US and South Korea would quickly win any war with > North Korea, it wouldn't be quick enough to prevent 100,000-200,000 > deaths. > That was an overwhelming price to pay, and Clinton decided to accept the > half a loaf solution with a verifyable freeze on plutonium extraction and > production from the known nuclear reactor. > > JDG called this a failure, pointing out that other secret facilities were > built and that N. Korea probably already had enough material for 1 or 2 > more bombs. I differ with that assessemnt. As it stood, N. Korea had the > ability to kill 100k-200k without nuclear weapons. This was the > functional > equivalant of roughly 2-3 atomic bombs of the caliber that N. Korea would > have. If the US attacked, it was considered very likely that N. Korea > would counterattack. > > Not making a partial deal and not attacking would leave the status quo in > place. N. Korea had just extracted fuel rods that could be used for ~6 > more weapons. They were also working on a large reactor that, by about > 1998, woiuld be able to produce enough plutonium for about 40-50 > bombs/years. > Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. > > >Poor George, no wonder he looks tired, tossing all night, crying over > >the starving Koreans kiddies etc... > > What I don't understand is, given that I'm pretty sure I already mentioned > this to you in an earlier discussion, why you don't consider any answer > but > Bush is a bad boy. Did you ask yourself "what are the differences between > N. Korea and Iraq?" "Is there any difference in the estimated number of > civilian casualties in each war?" > >I was not saying that Bush is a bad boy. I was expressing my disbelief >that he can probably walk on water, and then turn it into wine. He is >the President of the USA, and not a very gentle or non-confrontational >one at that. I have no problem with Bush being able to do good things, >or the USA doing good things. I just don't accept that _everything_ he >and/or America does shines with a golden light from on high. But, that's not what you wrote. With all due respect, if you want a debate on the issue, dragging out old clichés isn't helpful. Think about it. AFAIK, we have one regular on this list who has expressed strong support of Bush. Gautam gave him a D- rating as president during the fall elections. I voted for him once, when he was reelected governor of Texas, because the Democrats ran a yellow dog against him. (A yellow dog Democrat is one who would vote for the Democrat even if they were running a yellow dog for the office.) I think his tax cuts are dangerous and counter-productive. I think his handling of the reconstruction in Iraq during the last two years shows criminal incompetence. Yet, I find myself arguing for him when you post because I think to myself "he's no prize, but he's not _that_ bad." Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 6:48 PM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:26:53 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > > > The fact that you feel somehow compelled to defend > > such a thoroughly disgusting figure > > When did I defend Ramsey Clark? Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein. You say that makes him a bad person. Are you saying that anybody who would provide legal representation for Saddam Hussein is bad? Or that anyone who represents any criminal is bad? Are you opposed to civil rights, fair trials, the right to be represented by an advocate? Does he have any right to a trial, or should be just shoot him? Where do you draw the line? It seems as if you're saying that Clark's representation of Saddam proves that Clark is a bad person... how did you get there? >I'm taking issue with your association of him and his politics with *anybody* who would participate in >any peace and justice event. In that I see as McCarthyism -- guilt by association, very distant association > in this case. Nick, are you reading different posts than I am? Dan M. > You went to Harvard, so should we assume that you therefore endorse and stand > for Jim Wallis' ideas, since he teaches there? Heck, you participate in Brin- > L and so do I, so does that mean you endorse all of *my* ideas? All of David > Brin's? Are your conservative friends going to tell you that by participating > here, you are showing that you are a fool, a traitor or worse? That's guilt > by much closer association than you're proposing is true of Clark and the > peace movement. > > Nick > ___ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 2:09 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:39:09 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > Not that presumption, but the presumption that the weaker the > > country, the more moral the country. > > I have no arguments to support such a notion. The United States is much richer and more powerful than China, France and Russia. Thus, because the motives of the rich and powerful are more suspect than those less weak and less powerful (which you said), then it follows that the opinions of countries that have smaller GDP and less world power are more reliable. Me, I'd discount Russia's and China's government's opinion from the start because China is still a dictatorship and Russia is moving back that wayas well has having supported the genocide in the Balkansblocking any UN effort to be effective there. France's record over the last 25 years seems to me to be poorer than the US's. What I hear you saying is that, since I'm rich and live in a powerful country, I can't trust my judgment. That was consistent with your eschewing analysis. It's a self consistent position. Now, I'm all confused again about what your position is. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:37 PM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:50:03 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > > > Under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, the IAC was the > > only major "anti-war" group that refused to condemn > > Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. > > So, we've jumped from organizations that put together anti-war events, such as > South Bay Mobilization here in my area, to ANSWER, which tries to coordinate > activites of organizations like it, to AIC, with which ANSWER has an > affiliation... and AIC has some ties to some people who disagreed with > Trotsky, and he opposed Stalin, so therefore the anti-war demonstrations are > Stalinist. > > Come on. What were you just saying about conspiracy theories? > > Ramsey Clark is representing Saddam Hussein. Gautam's statement involves much more than that: "The IAC would go on to become leading apologists for Serbian war criminals in Bosnia and Kosovo, labeling reports of rape camps and ethnic cleansing "fabricated atrocities" (never mind those embarassing mass graves). When NATO unleashed a bombing campaign in response to the Serbian ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo, Clark flew to Belgrade to express his support for Milosevic." To me, the only difference between this and "6 million lies" is the magnitude of the denial. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:38 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:25:58 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > OK, let's apply this. From this argument, it would seem that > > ensuring that Taiwan will not rejoin mainland China against their > > will is immoral? France just came out supporting China's right to do > > soand we are virtually unique in supporting Taiwan's right to > > decide if they want to rejoin or not. So, your presumption favors > > China and France over us? > > I don't understand what the presumption against war has to do with this. Not that presumption, but the presumption that the weaker the country, the more moral the country. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Peaceful Change L3 > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:43:21 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob > > members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events? > > If you're trying to draw a parallel to AIC and WWP, it is not apropos. WWP is > not the organization that organizes anti-war events. I thought ANSWER organized some. If not, then were they invited to speak at them? If they just showed up, and the organizers of the rally distanced themselves from ANSWER, then that's very reasonable. So, if you dispute the facts in Gautam's assertions then I'd be interesting in seeing countering evidence. But, I'm almost positive that I've seem some folks from that group speaking from the podium at anti-war rallies. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > > > Thus, > > listening to and following the views of countries like France and > > China and Russia is essential. If the consensus is against us, the > > bar for thinking we are right must be set very high? > > Indeed. Not infinitely high, but high. OK, let's apply this. From this argument, it would seem that ensuring that Taiwan will not rejoin mainland China against their will is immoral? France just came out supporting China's right to do soand we are virtually unique in supporting Taiwan's right to decide if they want to rejoin or not. So, your presumption favors China and France over us? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:42 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:28:24 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > Then we disagree on the meaning of the parable and the ways of this world. Right, because the Samaritan wasn't poor, he was rich. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:36 AM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 > When I asked if he realized that so-and-so were investors in the same project, > he sounded like he was going to have a heart attack. He started saying he was > going to withdraw his name from consideration. He told me he'd always worked > very hard to keep distance from that sort because he is the son of Italian > immigrants. Would working very hard to keep distance include trying to not have mob members at his parties and not going to mob sponsered events? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons > On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:21:00 -0500, Dan Minette wrote > > > Then what is morality? A long list of rules? My basis for morality > > is "love neighbor as self" > > There's a commandment that comes ahead of that for me, which has to do with > loving God. Actually they were not necessarily taught as #1 and #2. I'm not sure how to apply love of God > As for the Golden Rule, I believe that when asked, "Who is my neighbor," the > great teacher told a story about how the rich and powerful were too busy to > come to the aid of a victim of violence, but the despised and lowly were not. Yes, that did happen. Being great and powerful can lead to blindness of others. So, if I am understanding correctly, you are so sure that rich people blind themselves, you do not trust the analysis of Americans because we are clearly the most powerful nation on the earth and thus probably doing things for the wrong reason because we are powerful? > How do we apply that knowledge to our international intervention decisions? > Does it imply that the rich and powerful have a tendency to get their > priorities wrong, to "help" only when it furthers their wealth and power? And those less powerful have a tendency to get their priorities right? My view is that the less powerful are also looking out for their own interests, it's just that they aren't as capable as the powerful to promote their own interests. > The story of the Good Samaritan is a beautiful expression of why it is > critical for the rich and powerful, when considering action, to listen to the > priorities of the weak and powerless. > Surely it is possible to be rich and powerful while keeping one's priorities > on a good moral course, but the presumption is against it in the story you > cited. Do you know why the story was taught that way? Do you know what the theological arguments were at the time? If I get you correctly, thinking doesn't help because we are so blind we can't think straight. Thus, listening to and following the views of countries like France and China and Russia is essential. If the consensus is against us, the bar for thinking we are right must be set very high? Well how high? Are we totally incapable of answering questions because we are the most powerful country on the earth? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful Change L3
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 11:04 AM Subject: RE: Peaceful Change L3 > > ... you don't associate yourself > > with anything that someone like ANSWER organizes ever, > > for any reason. > > Let me see if I do understand. If ANSWER is involved in organizing anything, > I should have nothing to do with it, even if I agree with the purpose of the > event? I think that is not unreasonable. I wouldn't go to a Klan rally even if they were actually promoting something I agreed with. Let me give an example. Reasonable people can believe that we should tighten up our border security. But, I'd be outraged if my neighbors went to a Klan rally that advocated strong border controls. You really think I'm facist for believing that? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
