Re: Posturing...
> I wonder if the reason the USSR was engaging in > brinkmanship was less for imperialism and exporting > communism, than from fear of the U.S. threat. > Looked at strategically, the USSR was surrounded by > enemies. America had bases in Japan, Turkey, Europe, > etc. When Castro invited Russia to put nukes in Cuba, > it was seen as a threat within our hemisphere. Sort > of a double standard, isn't it? You may recall part of the resolution of Cuba was an acknowledgement by the U.S they would not replace U.S missles in Turkey when they obsoltered later in the year. In that part Cuba was a small success for the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R had good reason to worry about it's borders. Most of the wealthier world had sent troops to support the Tsar against the revolution and leaders of the new state had personal experience of the willingness of other nations to stick oars in their affairs. U.S troops were only some of those supporting the White Russian cause in Russian territory for years (little known details of the foreign intervention include how long it persisted) . ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
> You wrote in response to Charlie mentioning > an existential threat to Western Europe by the USSR: > > > Well, yeah, but that was pretty much decided during the Berlin airlift when > Uncle Joe made the decision that the USSR didn't want to fight. > All that followed after that showdown was just postering. > > > If all that followed that showdown was just posturing, then nothing that > followed that showdown had any real meaning. I understand the problem. Context doesn't travel or easily survive in these written forums. By posturing I was refering to the military deployments in Europe as an existential threat (meaning the liklihood of them being used in an invasion of Western, or Eastern, Europe). ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
> I don't think there was too many anti-USA feeling in Russia and > China during the 1950s and 1960s. Your good Marxist would never be anti-U.S, just anti-capitalist exploiter. Ideology not nationalism. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
>> The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always >> exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or >> China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to >> the U.S. > No, but it did to most of Europe... and that's what the Cold War really was. > It was Europe-backed-by-America *not* being invaded by a LOT of tanks. Well, yeah, but that was pretty much decided during the Berlin airlift when Uncle Joe made the decision that the USSR didn't want to fight. All that followed after that showdown was just postering. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: the Cold War
>> ...and judging by GDP figures, the USA is still fighting the Cold War. > There never was a "Cold" War Yeah there was, but it didn't begin with Korea. It began about 1943 when Germany's defeat was clear and it's conquerors began to consider what would be the fate of Europe afterwards. The biggest fallacy regarding it was the Soviet threat which was always exaggerated. Neither militarily nor politically did the soviet Union (or China and other 'communist allied') ever pose an existential threat to the U.S. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Global conflict
> What would you call the war against terrorism, a police > action? Would you agree that it also is over resources? Only in so much as it's an excuse for the U.S to leverage force in the middle-east and extend influence over oil resources. Most of what people call Terrorism is Arab Nationalism, not religious or economic (excepting control of people and area is at the heart of nationalism and that entails economics) inspired. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
> They also believe... ...that some cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolicawy eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul, that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. To quote a meme. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Why not HTML email
Reasons not to use HTML email... http://www1.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Help with Gmail
> Hello listit's been quiet, so I thought I'd ask for some help. You'll want a good fast connection for this... Set up the accounts you want to copy from and to for imap. On any old computer using a client like thunderbird set up both accounts with imap access. Copy mails from one account to the other in that client, probably just a single drag/drop operation. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Australian Fires and Floods
> It was almost a "perfect storm" for fire conditions. I'm 1,500 miles downwind and was reminded of the end to "The Sheep Look Up" last night when I thought I could smell faint burning on the air. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Would you like some mercury with your Coke?
>>> Dublin Dr. Pepper rules Maru I found and tried to drink a can of Dr Pepper once, having heard of it and being curious about the taste. It was vile. Was I just put off by a new taste that would have improved over time? Peoples mentioning of it has me wondering was it corn syrup sweetened (if it was it would have been the first time I drank such a thing) and that was what I found so distasteful. Cane sugar is the sweetener for everything (that isn't Aspartame or Saccharine) around here. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Would you like some mercury with your Coke?
>>> Dublin Dr. Pepper rules Maru I found and tried to drink a can of Dr Pepper once, having heard of it and being curious about the taste. It was vile. Was I just put off by a new taste that would have improved over time? Peoples mentioning of it has me wondering was it corn syrup sweetened (if it was it would have been the first time I drank such a thing) and that was what I found so distasteful. Cane sugar is the sweetener for everything (that isn't Aspartame or Saccharine) around here. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
> It is exceedingly difficult to judge exactly what the rest of the world > thinks about the election of Obama I'll tell you what the populace of New Zealand I live among thinks (and I suspect a considerable many more nations)... It's nice to see an adult get elected. Someone who thinks rationally, speaks clearly, and appears not to be committed to ideology. That doesn't mean he can walk on water or is able to turn the inertia of the U.S political machine single handedly but may hopefully indicate a general change in U.S public support from the irrational to reasonable. Obama will still make decisions disliked by the world because they'll be in the U.Ss interests, but it appears he isn't going to foolishly undermine his own and others countries by disregarding the need to cooperate internationally. He also appears to understand the majority of the U.Ss problems are internal and not external and that mending his own house comes first. He just seems sane and we're thankful for that major change in U.S government. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowed principle of physics
> Lint-free cloth, NOT paper towels; spray one cloth with water or > isopropyl alcohol, use that to clean, and follow with a dry cloth. For simple things like finger smudges and dust a clean micro-fibre cloth does well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Incoming!
> It's depressingly cold here in the (alleged) tropics. > We miss the days when temperature was 40. Yesterday was the Summer solstice here in the South Pacific and the day before was cold - only 6 degrees celsius. Global warming harumph. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What is wealth?
>> Demographers have Russias population reducing to under 70 million by 2050. > Wow, that's about 4 per sq. km. And with China around 140 per sq. km., > maybe dropping a bit to 125 per sq. km by then, just to it's south, that's a > problem waiting to happenespecially with the male/female disparity in > China (1.13 males/females under 15). It might be cowboys and Indians time > again, with a strong China pushing to take over land (or at least push for > very favorable trade terms) from Russia. I've long thought war over Siberia is the most likely next use of belligerent nukes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What is wealth?
> It's based on a number of things, but I think the single item that stood out > for me was the male life expectancy: 59.2 years. 25 years ago, it was over > 70 years (at least officially). This drop is absolutely amazing. Demographers have Russias population reducing to under 70 million by 2050. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Calvin and Hobbes explain the bailout
> It's a tie, for sure. After buying the box set for him last Christmas, > we read it from cover to cover (to cover to cover, to cover to cover: > all three volumes) over the space of about six months. I hadn't seen > every cartoon when Watterson was still drawing them, so some parts > were brand new to both of us. The box set is not quite a complete collection of all Calvin and Hobbes. Here's an interesting page of rare Watterson material... http://www.platypuscomix.net/otherpeople/watterson.html I find it amusing that he looks so much like Calvins father. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Financial institution fallout
> You are just trying to rationalize taking wealth from others > because you think you know how to spend it better than they do. As it happens, I think I do know how better to spend some peoples money than they do themselves. If that's someone's only objection to taxation then they can rest assured that if I was making the decisions, it would all be for the better. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Financial institution fallout
> To say that the market failed is either wrong or meaningless. If I understand this correctly it was meant that markets can't fail in the same way physics isn't failing if you fall to your death having driven off a cliff. However a person saying the 'markets failed' isn't unnecessarily claiming something meaningless (such as my analogies claim 'physics failed because I fell') because the odds are they mean something like... 'the actions taken by authorities in the claim that benefits would be provided by free market actions failed' ...which is more akin to saying that physics didn't work the way the driver claimed they would when he said we were going fast enough to bridge the gap. Physics didn't fail - it was some combination of the drivers knowledge and/or control of the cars speed and it's relationship to the required jump that failed. It isn't an argument about the effectiveness of the economic disciplines descriptive powers but about the practical effects of government policy. It being true that markets can't fail if by markets all you mean is the descriptive actions of economics it is also true that being able to describe economics doesn't make that the answer to everything. Continuing with analogies, being able to describe the physical properties of matter doesn't mean everything if I want to build a house. I still have to build something with my understanding and it doesn't help for people to keep saying 'let it sort itself out' because hammers, wood and nails won't, no matter how much I will value the house, construct one if I don't design it and organise the work. Economies will always exist, but if we want one structured to an end we desire (public police forces supporting rule by law for example being something we want provided by our economy), we have to build it. And if the design includes the ridiculous nonsense that has recently endangered all economic activity then it's fair to say it has failed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Quantum physics
Ooops, that non-sequitor was meant for another list. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Quantum physics
Recently some physicists announced the result of some serious number crunching that is evidence that the majority of the universes mass is the interaction between quarks that form protons and neutrons. Made of gluons that transmit the strong nuclear force this interaction is the 'quantum foam' of bubbling particles popping in and out of existence - in theory. I don't like that theory. Not that I'm even remotely qualified to have much of an opinion. I find the concept of particles popping in and out of existence unsatisfying and inelegant. I would only accept it as true if it's merely a way of expressing something deeper (m-branes bending in and out of our dimension for instance). I'd be much happier if the explanation was about more about the shaping of space than the exchange of particles. Here's a page summarising the news... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
>supposing you were going to be placed, at random, into any society on Earth >you do not know what social status you will have, what your income level >will be, even what gender or nationality you will be >the only choice you get is the initial choice of countries. >In what country would you most like to be placed, totally at random? >From my point of view, it has to be the United States of Western Europe. I'll stick to my South Pacific paradise thank you very much. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
> I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very > effective at protecting minorities historically. Yeah, they are still a property of society. It doesn't matter if someone says "...that all men are created equal.." if society proceeds to exclude women and certain ethnicities from the concept of 'man'. Really ought to rewrite those things to say "all people". But you're right to note the grandiose ambitions of the U.S constitution have spent a long time being aspirational for a lot of people. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
> Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well > historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. Non-wealthy people living in the modern democracies enjoy the greatest freedoms and wealth available to the non-elite in human history. With the possible exception of pre-farming/pre-nation state humanity where everyone was pretty much equally well off in the prosperous environments. But you'd have to make a value judgement on how much you value modern amenities for that one. There is an argument to be made that, oh say, a thousand years ago the simple life of a healthy peasant farmer was rewarding and enoyable living with the soil and not being burdened by too much philosophy - but that's just saying people who have found their niche have a good thing. You can find your niche today. The point is that systematically you're better off in a modern democracy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority Which is why people like constitutional government. Pretty much everyone means to include, when they trumpet the supremacy and desirability of democracy, a definition of democracy that includes some form of constitutional protection for minority rights. It's implied in the concept of democracy that though a minority may be in opposition to the winner of an election that for them to remain parties to the social contract they cannot be abused for being parties to it. There are minimum standards to be met or the concept of being granted authority to govern by the governed is nullified. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
>>> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push >>> through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being >>> ruled? >> Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect >> constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and >> ruled by monarchs. > In both cases, people are subject to rules handed down from above. > Calling them laws and having courts does not change the fact that > people are being ruled by those they did not choose. Well yeah, although the rule of law rather than monarchs is an important distinction it's absolutely true that we all live with some sort of compulsion hanging over us. The philosophical underpinning of democracy is that having free elections means that elected governments operate with the consent of the governed - it is an implied social contract that even those who voted for an opposition still consent to be governed by the elected. If you vote you participate in the contract. If you don't and maintain all government is evil and to be resisted, well, you're just fighting reality. One way or the other the vacuum of power will be filled. If not by the elected then by the unelected. If not by the forceful then by the wealthy, if not by the wealthy then by the admired. It'll be someone. Best for all of us if we cooperate to create the best situation for everyone. There's a philosophical thought experiment about designing societies and how we should do it - imagine you're a disembodied spirit that will be born in the future to completely random parents. You have no idea what their station or fortune will be like but it happens you have the opportunity to design the society into which you'll be born. What society to you design? And as an aside while it's true we're all governed by forces generally out of our control it's not accurate to say they 'rule' us. Ruling is something a monarch does separate from governance. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push > through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being > ruled? Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and ruled by monarchs. Bush acts as monarch when he imprisons people without judicial and legal oversight (even when he later feels compelled to try his victims in a star chamber), the U.S has yet to see if Obama will claim such authority. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: On Topic shocker!
> Well, we just elected an elitist as president, by a substantial majority. A 7 ~ 8% margin isn't substantial. Surely it only seems that way compared to recent razor thin elections? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
[Referencing people who avoid debt] > As I said before, I commend people who have avoided that temptation. > But I think its fair to say they are a minority in the US. Betting you were wrong there I went looking for facts and found this interesting summary of numbers on U.S debt... http://www.christianccc.org/facts.html ...but it's unfortunately mostly averages where what I want to find is an absolute count of how many have credit card debt. Some more detail is here... http://www.directlendingsolutions.com/2006-consumer-stats.htm But again the figure I want is not present. So I don't think I'm able to refute the idea that a majority of U.S citizens have credit card debt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
>Ted Turner was asked recently on a CNN interview who was responsible for the >financial crisis >and he said "All of us. We've been spending more than we make for a long time ... >Basically, he's right. Not if 'us' encompasses the many hard working debt avoiding people who will also suffer by having their wages garnished via taxes to pay the ransom corporations are holding the U.S taxpayer to. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
> The politicians have swindled us for over $1 trillion in > the past few months, and they are getting away with it easily. I saw a reference claiming it's more like $4 Trillion (that the U.S government has made all sorts of commitments on the Q.T that are piling up). Not that this brazen theft of public wealth is anything to do with why financial companies failed in the first place. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taking responsibility (was Re: How Government Stoked the Mania)
> The politicians are the biggest swindlers here by far. I don't get how that's supposed to have worked. Even if the political powers that be deliberately encouraged bad financial behaviour shouldn't the miraculous market forces have still avoided stupid risks? Surely for the evil government to have been at fault it would be required to force behaviour on the market. To have forced companies to leverage debt beyond all reason. In the absence of actual force and compulsion, no matter how silly, misdirected, or wishful government policy gets doesn't it follow that the magic of the market will not make bad decisions if you believe in the wisdom of markets? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question "Q--->"
>> Since market information is not filtered through the government but through >> the market itself, exactly how does that work? > Exactly how does what work? Government regulation? Not very well. But evidently better than none, or as it was - the pretence of self regulation. Investment managers didn't bother to evaluate the risks of what they were doing because their personal wealth was not at risk, nor even - ridiculously, was their re-numeration. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question "Q--->"
> I'm sure that is all quite true, but I think it begins earlier. > (Please correct me if I get the facts wrong here) It's not just about home mortgages, it just happens that's the bubble that revealed the weakness - if not for that some other, all multiple, markets would have bubbled and burst at some time. The housing bubble started when prices began to outstrip the traditional 4 ~ 6 times the median annual income - that distortion is a reflection of, and pressure for more, changes in evaluations of values and risks. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ask the Next Question "Q--->"
> Surely you can give a single example to support your claim that Bush > deregulation was responsible for the "subprime mortgage crisis". It's fairly obvious it all began with private investment banks going public in the 1980's and shifting liabilities onto shareholders. Since then it's been a steadily increasing land slide of increased risk in an environment of decreasing regulation as apparent wealth creation has been trumpeted widely while the increasing fragility of ever leveraged debt remained hidden. Both Republican and Democrat administrations were blinded by the proclaimed profits, and everyone (and there were quite a few) who warned of the dangers was simply ignored because the big players pooh poohed them. What most failed to notice was the incentives the big players had to ignore reality - it not being their wealth they were risking. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gen. Colin Powell, Pres. Obama's Secretary of Defense
> Plus a long and distinguished career in the military, Chief of the Joint > Chiefs of Staff, and as the National Security Advisor. His career wasn't so distinguished. His attempt to white wash U.S massacres of Vietnamese villagers (such as My Lai) doesn't reflect well on him either. > Can honor not be redeemed after a mistake, even one as large as his? The callous murder of between ten and sixty thousand odd people? Mmmm, no I don't think so. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gen. Colin Powell, Pres. Obama's Secretary of Defense
> I think that Powell actually was fed incomplete or untrue information > which he then delivered. It's those who lied to him who are most at > fault. That is incredible. An experienced General grade officer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serving as the Secretary of State with access to real intelligence as opposed to the pretend clap trap fed to the public was in no position to be so stupid. He knew damn well he was telling lies and willingly participated in the commision of crimes. There is no doubt. Only the disinterested public without an education in military technology or awareness of the condition of the Iraqi state (dire) was in any position to believe the lies and only then if distracted by misdirected rage about the World Trade Center attack. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gen. Colin Powell, Pres. Obama's Secretary of Defense
> I think Barack Obama shoud make Colin Powell his Secretary of Defense. What, and actively destroy Damask's personal support by supplying jobs to an accomplice to mass murder? Powell knowingly lied on a stage (the U.N) built expressly for the purpose of preventing wars to actively promote the prosecution of a war illegal by his own countries laws and knowingly support the murder of many thousands. He is scum and a willing participant in vile crimes. A government that embraced him wouldn't be a change from the offensive fools currently in the U.S executive. One elegant speech does not magically change a person or their responsibly for their past. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Two Weeks To Go
> The Presidency is now a poisoned chalice. If Obama wins, as seems likely, an unambiguous majority and gets a decent mandate I'm curious what he'll do with it. The poor guy is being hailed as if a messiah and no doubt is going to disappoint some by not being able to magic wealth enough to balance budgets and world friendship for the U.S out of thin air. But he could do some momentous things if he has the will and courage. Acting immediately to dismantle the mechanisms of state terror that have been levelled against the U.S citizenry to cowe them from confronting the ruling kleptocracy would be nice. Doing something to bury Hamiltonian concepts of imperial presidents would be nice. Will he, I wonder, want to give up the power grabbed for the executive by Bush? Something I'm pretty sure he won't do is make a point of demonstrating the U.S is a country of laws by actively pursuing and prosecuting accomplices of executive crimes, though it's an nice daydream to have. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The silence of the ludites.
> I'm still trying to figure out why he chose Palin as VP candidate: drill, > abstinence only, > 'Creationism,'* anti-science...what independents was she supposed to entice? I think the plan was he entices independents (because of his supposed independence from dogma and cabals) while she keeps a connection to the Republican base - which no longer seems to be conceived to include intelligent, educated or introspective people who share a conservative (i.e small government, personal responsibility etc) philosophy. I think Brooks described it well when he said the Republicans have driven away working classes by sins of omission (not delivering) and the educated by sins of commission (telling them to get lost). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ohio: 15 Year Old Faces Felony Charges....
> This is a witch hunt. I'm not sure how justice is served by convicting a 15 > year old of making a stupid mistake. And, they may prosecute the recipients > of the text messages? I can only hope that this gets in front of a judge > that has some common sense. Is it a witch hunt or just the consequence of ill considered knee jerk 'tink of the chuldren!' laws? Might it be the case it doesn't matter what judge it is heard before because their hands may be tired by legislation and minimum sentencing laws? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
> Bush is the worst by far. On the topic of Bush being the worst U.S President, I’ve discovered cause to dispute that. Having just read “Lies my teacher told me”, a book intended to illustrate the inaccuracies of U.S history curriculums, I’ve read a thorough account of more egregious behaviour by Woodrow Wilson. I’d agree that Bush is incompetent at governing (although possibly exceptional at delivering public treasure to his private constituency) but his transgressions against liberty and effects on the fabric of civil society pail compared to Wilsons, it would seem. Besides which it’s always seemed to me that the real villain of the piece is the U.S Congress abdicating its responsibility to police the executive. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Books, was Proper function..
>>> My favorites of his are the ones that start with >>> The Atrocity Archives. Not everyone would come >>> up with Lovecraftian computer science. >> I must read more Stross. At the moment all I've read was "A Colder >> War", which I thought was great (and which is available for free >> online). > I like all of his books, and recommend them highly. None > are perfect, but all have some brilliant parts. I'd say > that the best overall in terms of plot, imagery, humor and > writing is Glasshouse. By the way, there's also a short > story in the Atrocity Archives sequence that's free online: > http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=story&id=61 I like his ideas but I'm hoping he improves his technique. Speaking of enjoyable SF, the best I've read recently is The Ghost Brigades by John Scalzi. I liked Old Mans War (to which it is a sequel) but The Ghost Brigades is a startlingly good follow up into a differnet league. Unfortunately the third book, The Last Colony, doesn't keep it up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown
> Screw argument from authority. > > Me: Can I assume then that the next time you have a funny pain in your chest > you won't be looking for someone with an MD degree to talk it over with? When I have required medical aid I was looking for advice and expertise, not argument. These are different things. Coincidentally though I have had occassion to dispute medically inaccurate opinon because of my superior knowledge of my own physique - an example being an occassion I knew I had broken (albeit only a slight fracture) a bone rather than simply sprained a joint and insisted on a x-ray that was deemed unnecesary. Which is beside the point - expert advice and professional service is a different issue to explanation and coercion by argument. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Some random thoughts on Wall St. and the meltdown
> 5. People who have never read Adam Smith are probably not qualified to > discuss what he said. And almost nobody has ever read Adam Smith. Even > most economists have never gotten around to it. They especially never seem to read the bits about the neccesity of regulation. > 6. Most people who have never studied physics would be unlikely to > pontificate on the subject. Most people who have never studied economics > not only will pontificate on the subject, but will explain to you in > terms that suggest you are an idiot, why they are right and you are > wrong. That they are unqualified will never occur to them. Requiring qualifications to express an opinion is demanding the acceptance of argument from authority, a poor place to situate foundations. One hopes a qualified opinion will express good arguments but often depresingly doesn't because qualifications are often won by assumming appropriate, authority accepted, permissions the echoing of which can win reward. Besides which it is an error to claim someone who doesn't study at certified tertiary school is unqualified to opine of things they've experienced their entire life. Furthermore qualified does not equate with competent, honest and/or unbiased. I'm perfectly happy to read, hear and judge the opinion of the wholly unqualified and it turns out that this neat medium of the Internet allows us ample opotunity to press for detail and explore the competence of the opinion giver. Screw argument from authority. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
>> it does give on pause to wonder about the >> situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy >> is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid >> Constitutional rule. > I'm not sure how rigid constitutional rule would be able to stop a determined > leader with control of the military and the support of even 25% of the people. Obviously no guarantee is given, but the idea is the one employed in the U.S - directing loyalty to the country and constitution rather than government or executive. As history demonstrates it doesn't always work but does provide a rallying point for resistance and a structure within which to work for the re-establishment of subverted authority. I don't claim it's THE answer, but it does have an argument for being a positive preparation to the danger of electing the undemocratically minded. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Meltdown
> The problem was that no-one (including the board of directors of AIG knew > that AIG was insolvent until the day the government intervened. Bubbles and > panics are part of the nature of the market. You can repeat your mantra of > free markets are perfect until you are blue in the face, but AIG was the > biggest insurance company in the world and no one had any idea of their > problems. It amazes me (was this AIG or Fanny and Freddie, I forget) that they went to ask for some 30 Billion but on a couple of days investigation it turned out to be more like 70 Billion was needed to meet their obligations. The management of the relevant company literally did not know the state of their cash flow. And they have the temerity to continue to claim they know something about economics. Not knowing your businesses demands on cash flow and impending ability to provide for its demands is impressive incompetence, except when its more accurately attributed to the carelessness of over-reaching greed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
>> This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not >> democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the >> electoral college, and not by the people. > > Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular > preference, instead of 50.1%? Sounds like a robust system. The Nazis received about 38% of the seats in 1932 and were the biggest party in parliament. Mostly thank to the consequences of the ongoing depression (which was particularly onerous to Germany it is often argued because of the crushing terms of reparations in the treaty of Versailles). Because of the fractured nature of German governance at the time Hitler was able to use his leverage to get Hindenburg to appoint him Chancellor. As far as it goes Hitler getting power in 1934 was a legitimate process in the Weimar republic and a blunder by Hindenburg. It's the next election that matters. Having gained power the Nazis used it to remove competition and ensure no further fair elections. That combination of economic depression and exploitable militarism is something to worry about, really quite topical. As an interesting aside: Algeria had an election some time ago where popular votes won it for an Islamic party. The existing military dictatorship fearing a theocracy that would ban further elections (and possibly pursue them for past crimes) attempted to void the election and instigated a very vicious civil conflict. Although a problematic example it does give on pause to wonder about the situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid Constitutional rule. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
> Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means. While initially true it is inaccurate to claim he took power democratically. His party was elected to a significant proportion of government but the position of authority he abused was bestowed by presidential executive fiat. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
> I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as > they are elected by legal democratic means. I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to change it) if it was okay that you were governed by the system in place. And absent that you haven't had the opportunity to give consent. At best you're accepting of the current system. Modern Democracy is more than just voting for government, the term and concept is generally used to encompass social orders that include rule by law and institutionalised consideration for individual rights as well as the mechanism of electing government. The philosophy it represents is generally thought to be that the only proper authority to govern is derived from the consent of governed (as opposed to ancient claims by monarchs and the like to derive authority from Gods or right of force). That consent supposedly obtained from the majority in free competition in elections. But the 'consent' in that concept is a different thing than the literal consent that is given by one person to another. Perhaps you refer to the philosophical concept of popular consent to govern and not a more literal meaning? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
> Maybe I am in the minority, but I have never felt the government is > opressing me, or forcing me to do things I don't want to do, and I reckon I > get fair recompence for paying my taxes & obeying the law. It is not required for a government to be oppresive for it to be true that you do not negotiate with it on equal terms. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
> Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that > governments are "consenting partners" too. That just ain't so. As has been observed Government is force. and there's sweet F.A negotiation between it, its agents and the citizens it bends to its will. Force generally is not required between consenting adults. There is the concept of a 'social contract' which is a presumption of an agreement of fair dealing between people, their fellow citizens and the government but in practice no one's enforcing that contract. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Zealand
For the curious, and in reply to a query about some of NZs laws, here's a snippet about the beginning for Free Trade talks with the U.S from a local blog... Quote:http://norightturn.blogspot.com/ Labour is patting itself on the back over the announcement that it will begin free-trade negotiations with the USA. Meanwhile, the rest of us might like to ask how much it will cost and what we will have to give up in order for New Zealand farmers to make a bit more money. Fortunately, the US Trade Representative compiles an annual report on "Foreign Trade Barriers", which is quite informative on the issue. Here's a list of New Zealand policies the US considers to be unacceptable barriers to trade, culled from its New Zealand report: * Restrictions on GM crops; * Our current pathetically weak labelling scheme for GM products (informing consumers is a barrier to trade!); * Import restrictions on potentially diseased food (stopping people from getting BSE is a barrier to trade!); * Sane copyright law which recognises the rights of customers; * Voluntary local content quotas for TV and radio (customer preferences are a barrier to trade!); * The Overseas Investment Act (requiring that investment actually be beneficial is a barrier to trade!); * Pharmac. The question we should all be asking is how much, if any, of this we are willing to surrender so that farmers can get richer. My answer is "none". All of these policies serve a real purpose; they all benefit New Zealanders by protecting us from disease, giving us information about products, ensuring that products actually work, and allowing us to have a public health system. :EndQuote Pharmac is our governments agency for purchasing and subsidising pharmecueticals used in concert with our health system to regulate affordable medicines. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Zealand
> I met David Lange when I was on a bicycle sojourn in the late 80s. A reflection of New Zealands small size. I too bumped into him while cycling (in my case getting around my home town). He's not the only Prime Minister I've happened across in daily activities. > I was under the impression that there were laws against using chemical > fertilizers > and injecting domestic ruminants with steriods, antibiotics and hormones. > Is that still the case? I don't know such detail. New Zealand does have stricter than typical bio-security laws because of the influence agriculture and tourism has on our economy. Among other reasons past attempts by E.U countries to denigrate NZs meat industry (in attempts to have it excluded as competition to their own) have compelled us to be clean beyond reproach. For instace the practice of feeding ground animals to others at the risk of spreading diseases such as the now famous BSG (mad cow) have long been illegal in NZ. I think steroids are outlawed as I recall recent debate on relaxing the relevant legislation. Chemical fertilizers are widely used and run off from them is one of our greatest problems today (oxygen levels and algaes in rivers, lakes etc). Much of the North Islands volcanic plateau has been transformed by intense fertilization. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Farm subsidies
> Much of New Zealand's pastureland (by no means all) is cleared land, > and that means some of it would have been rainforest, even on the > South Island. Cleared land certainly, before people got here the islands were pretty much covered by native bush tip to tail (excepting the tussocked highlands). I wouldn't have thought to call it rain forests but I suppose it might be such. My alma mater, Canterbury University, has a forestry department that maintains a small section of native bush between their buildings that I've noticed (while wandering through at night) is kept fairly consistently wet. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Farm subsidies
> unfortunately the domestic sheep population in new zealand numbers > over 75 million (mostly for export) and their hooves are destroying pasture > that used to be rain forest. > the human population is less than 5 million... > http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/sustainable-resource-use/organic-production/organic-farming-in-nz/org10005.htm#E11E5 Coincidentally I happen to be a New Zealander and shared a flight home from a Samoan holiday recently with a NZ MAF official who has the responsibility of drawing up policy on sustainable exploitation. NZ's population is just over 4 million (in a country 20% larger than the U.K), we have more like 60 millions sheep currently and not many of their pastures were rain forests (only the very North of NZ is sub-tropical, mostly we've a temperate climate). Our greatest problem at the moment is water wastage and pollution from fertiliser run off and dairy herd operations (dairying having boomed in recent years). NZ has no particular shortage of water but growing urban areas are creating bottle-necks of supply. Also, as climate change policy is very much in the news, arguments over levying of taxes/charges to meet our greenhouse reduction agreements. Farmers claim a special status where non-descriminating policy would hold them responsible for exactly their share of methane production. Our fisheries policy is much more rigorous and well implemented following very turbulent times in the 1980's when the whole thing was over-hauled as part of meeting Waitangi Treaty obligations (in 1840 the combined tribes of Maori signed a treaty with the British crown cedeing soveriegnty for property right gaurantees - european immigrants and governments often betrayed that treaty but in recent years have been making amends via a thorough judicial/arbitrary system that generally ends in government policy designed to fulfill Waitangi Tribunal recommendations). NZs fisheries were reorganized into a strictly quota managed operation where individuals would own and trade fishery quotas that are expanded or contracted by MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) on the advice of their researchers into the health of our fisheries. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welfare fraud
> [snip] when you turn farmers loose and > try to hold them accountable to economic theories that don't take the > reality of farming into account, to sink or swim on their own, more > often than not, they sink. I don't understand how farming is supposed to be different from other investments. You invest money/effort, reap the result, sell you product at the market price. If it's profitable you win, if it's not you lose. Same rules as for anyone. The risks are hard to calculate in farming and therefore they ought be trying to charge higher prices to compensate. If local farmers can't get people to pay a high enough price to compensate them for their risk (a.k.a insurance against bad crops) it can only be because of cheaper competition - because without cheaper competition people will be compelled to pay the price of food. Thus if cheaper competition exists then it's simple market forces that put your farmers out of business - like any other, nothing peculiar to farming about it. That's where the security of food supply comes in - a rational person might feel uneasy about outsourcing their food production to other countries. It becomes a strategic target (and exactly the one Germany assaulted in the Atlantic battle of WW2). However to my mind if a government wants to ensure local production for security of supply the correct method is barring foreign imports rather than subsidising local producers so the internal market can be left to function with minimal distortion. If you're going to open up to foreign markets then you have to stop thinking about international relationships as zero sum games between competing nations and work harder on international institutions and integration to reduce the possibility of strategic assaults on the infrastructure you build. Problem is everyone wants to have cakes and eat them too - be independent nations while getting cheap goods from overseas. It's untenable. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Welfare fraud
> Farm subsidies are there basically to prevent the collapse of the farm > industry and keep farmers in business, because the farming business is > so economically anomalous the normal economic rules don't apply to it > very well at all. And we are talking about our *food supply* here .. The standard rational one always hears - supporting farmers is supporting food security. But it generally isn't true because a vast proportion of farm subsidies do not actively support the growing of staple crops but merely the corporate profits of companies. A considerable amount of farming subsidies perversely discourage actual farming. In many places where production is supported by subsidies it's often extremely detrimental to the long term ability to sustain production. If Jared Diamond is to be believed in 'Collapse' for instance Australias agriculture has long been actively funded by its government to essentially destroy and exhaust their fragile soils. I've recently read many reports that small scale farming is demonstratively more productive than agribusiness and vastly better at protecting soils from exhaustion and erosion. Unfortunately, as I read them, it seems to rely on farmers and their families being poor and providing plenty of free labour. The two main reasons the Doha round of WTO talks have failed (after some seven years of negotiations) is that the rich countries are not delivering on their promise of removing farm subsidies and opening farm trade poorer nations can actually provide. The other stumbling block is rich countries insistence that others remove all barriers to the free flow of the insane and bizarre financial instruments that are coming home to roost right now. I rather imagine plenty of nations are glad they didn't acquiesce to that nonsense now. Speaking of managing food - our seas are bcoming depleted with voracious nations moving from fishery to fishery as they exhaust them. some 40% of the worlds protein is currently taken form the sea at unsustainable rates while, agains according to Jared Diamond, expert opinion is a well managed fishing industry could sustainably take perhaps twice the current amount. Imagone trying to convince the world to accept a global fisheries management and police orgainsation. It's hard to conceive of the nationalistic divisions accepting such a thing, much easier to imagine war for rsources instead. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: ZPG
> But are these ways _efficient_? China population didn't stop growing, > despite the 1-kid-per-couple law. I saw a documentary about a chinese > girl that worked as a slave in some export-oriented industry; she > was an "unperson", an illegal child that was not registered - probably > most girls are unpersons in China now. Besides the fact that Chinas policy is not enforced absolutely (especially in rural areas) it hasn't had time to reveal it's effectiveness yet - not until the post war population bulge and their offspring pass away. The one child policy becomes effective when the single children and their single offspring become the breeding population and their ancestors begin dying out, a process currently beginning but not yet the norm for China. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fair Trade
>> I said that we can't feed the world and dispense with >> agribusiness, but i hope we can dispense make food production more >> productive and less destructive to habitats. we are approaching 7 >> billion people and little sign of reaching zpg. > So what selection criteria do you suggest be used? And again, are > you volunteering to be first? Historically civilizations have often used abortions and infanticide to cull unwanted populations. The occassional war contributes but unless one side is committed to genocidal resolutions wars don't really cull that many (more people were alive at the end of WW2 than its start). Though once upon a time when tribes fought they didn't used to be coy about wiping out the opposition to enjoy their resources. Today we can do it by using more humane methods of contraception and it has helped slow growth. IIRC U.N demographers believe the worlds population will stabilise at between 9 and 12 billion with the estimates tending lower and lower over the last few years. Which doesn't really help when the highest rate of consumption on the planet uses about six times our sustainable production of possible renewable resources and everyone aspires to that consumtion. Ideally we need wealth and high standards of living for all which is a proven supressor of population but without it being coupled to ruinous consumption of resources. A tricky proposition. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
