RE: Religion is Valuable: Why it Must Be Encouraged
William T Goodall wrote: > All religions contain irrational defining beliefs (supernatural or > otherwise) else they wouldn't be religions. Accepting some piece[s] > of nonsense on faith is part of adopting a religious belief. That is a wonderful non-answer to what I said... > Clearly steaming with supernatural bullshit. Not bullshit, please. It really *is* a wonderful story - great political drama, lovely dialogues, great sex, heart-stopping pathos Vyasa acquitted himself very well indeed. > If you just treat it as a nice story then you are rejecting it as > religion. I never accepted it as religion, for I have never accepted religion. Stories, though, are easier to believe in as they are far less intrusive. :) > Enjoying the stories of Greek mythology isn't the same as believing > the ancient Greek religion. Very true. And disbelieving in religion isn't the same as believing all religion is evil. Ritu No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.23/924 - Release Date: 7/28/2007 3:50 PM ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religion is Valuable: Why it Must Be Encouraged
William T Goodall wrote: > Atheist religions have different defining irrational beliefs. Nazism > had 'Aryan supremacy', the Greens have 'Nuclear Power is Evil' and so > on. I am sure they do, but I really was talking about the religion I grew up with, and if you wish to place it in this classification, then I'd like to hear what irrational defining beliefs you find therein. > Most of the argument on this list is about the supernatural > religions however and those are what I was addressing. Oh, but you clearly mentioned the Gita, and by implication the story surrounding its origin [my favourite story in the world after all, and I do love the fact that the book originated as nothing than an exhortation for a man to stop being soft, and to kill in battle], and that tradition has enough supernatural to satisfy any fan of SFF. So if you are placing Hinduism here, then how do you square that with the other traditions I mentioned earlier, and your statement that all religions peddle lies as truths? Ritu -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux." - Bill Joy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.23/924 - Release Date: 7/28/2007 3:50 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.23/924 - Release Date: 7/28/2007 3:50 PM ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religion is Valuable: Why it Must Be Encouraged
William T Goodall wrote: > Religions don't present their stories as being literally true? They > don't claim that supernatural entities meddle in human affairs? They > don't claim that miraculous events actually happen? They don't claim > that divinely inspired prophets said things we must pay special heed > to because despite appearances they aren't the ravings of charlatans > or the mentally ill? Depends on the religion, I guess, and on the branch you are perched on. Hinduism, fr'ex, definitely has a Bhakti strand where the virtues of faith and love are extolled. But then there is the atheistic branch, and it's accompanying holy texts, which scoff at the notion of God and blind belief. Charaka's philosophy is a mix of atheism and agnosticism. And the Vedanta has always maintained that the only thing one is required to believe in is what one has seen and experienced for oneself - that all else ought to be dismissed as the babbling of fools... So yes, it depends on the religion, and the form of the particular religion Ritu No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/923 - Release Date: 7/27/2007 6:01 PM ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: ADMIN: Network outage
Charlie wrote: > > Any feeling of privacy we might get by not having an archive is a > > facade; email is not a very private medium. > > > > We've almost always been publicly archived here and I can't think > > of any problems the list or anyone subscribed to it has > encountered > > as a result. I'm curious what sort of problems do you anticipate? > > It's pretty commonplace these days for companies to google > applicants. Not just that. People's political views change over time, and a public archive means that there are always limits to the kind of idea one plays with on this list. Also, at least for me, there is lot I wouldn't talk about in terms of personal experinces/beliefs if it is going to be on a public archive. Doug rightly points out that emails aren't private - the difference for me lies in the fact that it is easier to google a name than to locate the email addy of a person and then 'eavesdrop'. > As it is, the archives have mainly been only accessible to > subscribers as far as I'm aware, which is enough of a firewall for > me. I actually know a lot of people who never subbed to this list but do check out the archives once in a while. And google points to the archives. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Conversion of John C Wright
Robert Seeberger wrote: > > Robert G. Seeberger forwarded: > > > >> The Christian world-view is not only NOT incompatible with the > >> scientific and logical one, they reinforce each other. You must > >> imagine my befuddlement when I see science presented as > somehow being > >> the enemy of religion. Science is the enemy of Taoism or Buddhism, > >> perhaps, but not the enemy of a religion that combines the > >> rationalism of Athens with the mysticism of Jerusalem. We invented > >> the University, for God's sake. > > > > *koff koff* > > > > Shangyang anyone? Or Takshila? Or Nalanda? Or Plato's decidedly > > non-christian Academy? OR Ratnagiri? Or Al-Azhar? > > > > I mean, come *on*... > > In this case I don't think he refers to Christianity > specifically, but > to westerners. > Almost as if he thinks they are universally interchangeable terms. Yeah well, that makes him both sloppy *and* inaccurate. In terms of the claim he makes, and in terms of the spread of Christianity. > >> The Taste Of Sincerety Maru > > > > To me it read like the unbalanced fervour of a new convert. > > Especially > > in view of the eagerness to trash other belief systems, and ignore > > documented facts. > > > > What struck me about this and other articles by Wright on this > subject, was how completely convinced he seems to be. No doubts. > A conversion by a highly educated and very decided athiest just seems > to be an unusual occurance to me. Umm no, not really. I have seen many highly educated atheists suddenly 'find' religion, and they are as certain of their new-found belief as they were once certain of their disbelief. Which maks perfect sense because a] individual traits don't change that fast, and b] the emotional and psychological reasons behind such a volte-face usually make blind faith a necessity. > I recommend that people visit the blog and read about his visitation > by The Virgin Mary. (Also strange because Wright was not born into a > Marian tradition) Umm, no thanks. I usually have a high tolerance for religious babble but not when accompanied by patronising 'West/Christians are the best' propaganda. I'd end up driving myself nuts trying to inject some sort of historical realism into his delusions, and there is no point to it as he could research the history himself if he is interested in facts. > Zelazny-Like Maru Now that is high praise indeed. Ritu, who is still impressed by Zelazny's research for _Lord of Light_ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Conversion of John C Wright
Rich said: > Let's also not forget the great Hellenistic centre of learning at > Alexandria, which included the famous library. I sometimes wish I can forget it...thinking of what happened still makes me feel like crying... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Conversion of John C Wright
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > I never heard about almost any of those: Shangyang, Takshila, > Nalanda, Ratnagiri and Al-Azhar. Shangyang was a legendary Chinese university, the rough estimate of the date is approx 21st century BC. Takshila, Nalanda, and Ratnagiri were some of the most famous ancient Indian universities [some of them were established centuries before Christ was born], Al Azhar was an Islamic university, established sometime in the 9th century AD and predated the first Chritian-Era European university by almost 2 centuries. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Conversion of John C Wright
Robert G. Seeberger forwarded: > The Christian world-view is not only NOT incompatible with > the scientific and logical one, they reinforce each other. > You must imagine my befuddlement when I see science presented > as somehow being the enemy of religion. Science is the enemy > of Taoism or Buddhism, perhaps, but not the enemy of a > religion that combines the rationalism of Athens with the > mysticism of Jerusalem. We invented the University, for God's sake. *koff koff* Shangyang anyone? Or Takshila? Or Nalanda? Or Plato's decidedly non-christian Academy? OR Ratnagiri? Or Al-Azhar? I mean, come *on*... > The Taste Of Sincerety Maru To me it read like the unbalanced fervour of a new convert. Especially in view of the eagerness to trash other belief systems, and ignore documented facts. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Was religion necessary for developing civilizations?
Gary Nunn asked: > A question that came up in a deep, late night conversation > > Was religion a necessary tool for building moral and ethical > standards in early civilizations or social groups? Or did > someone simply invent the fear of "Going To Hell" to impose > their will on the masses? I might be the one who makes you regret asking this question. :) 'Tis theoretically a holiday, and I'm tryng to avoid thinking about the huge gaping hole a tractor left in my front garden yesterday, so I plan to babble. So, to answer your question, no, I don't think anything about religion was ever necessary per se. And yet it has always been a rather handy peg to hang the notions of necessity on. The religion I know the most about, the one I grew up with, has no notion of hell, or even of divine retribution [apparently you have to be exceedingly evil for the Powers That Be to bestir themselves to meddle - normal, mundane evil just isn't worth the bother]. In fact, the earliest and most basic of strictures [based on scriptual evidence] is that if you can't test it yourself, if you haven't experienced it yourself, then do not follow the words and claims of others. And yet, from that point to the one from where we have records, the practice of Sanatan Dharma had become a tale of oppression, in substantial part if not in whole. This would be the point to mention that we have no records, oral or written, of the growth of Sanatan Dharma, or Hinduism. Until the Harappan script is deciphered, all we can say with any degree of certainty is that the civilisation which started on the banks of the river Saraswati didn't seem to have any temples or palaces. Some 40% of the homes did have what look like private prayer corners - places with idols of Pashupati and the Mother Goddess, but nothing which indicated communal worship, or an overwhelming importance of religion. These people focused on stuff like covered drains, large granaries, water reservoirs, and public baths, well-planned cities linked by extensive canals, etc. Centuries later comes the mass exodus to the Gangetic plain and suddenly temples and palaces are everywhere. This is also the period where we start having records, Indian and Chinese, when Sankrit is the common language, Manusmriti has been written, and there are various internal movements for reformation, as well as the birth of new religions [Buddhism, Jainism] in response to the oppressive Brahmanic creed exemplified by Manu's dogma. > Gary -> who suspects that he will regret asking this question. I tried. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Nick Arnett asked: > Okay... Ritu, did you really mean to say that the Coalition > (not the US, > John) is totally responsible for all of the Iraqis killing > Iraqis these days? Nope. The Coalition, as I mentioned in the mail John quoted, is responsible for enabling the situation to arise. This kind of chaos was by no means the inevitable result and better administration could have warded off a lot of the problems which currently feed off each other. > Surely that is only partial responsibility? Yep. Most of the responsibility for the individual acts of violence is shared by those who pull the trigger or plant the IEDs, or decorate a car with explosives, etc. etc. But the fact that such a large number of idiots find it so easy to perpetrate such a large number of crimes daily is very much the responsibility of those who overturned the previous order without knowing how to replace it with a functioning state. The preparation was woeful, the execution appalling, and it needn't have been this way. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Finally! I have been reading excerpts but it took me almost the entire day to work my way down to this message. JDG wrote: > Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. > > The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the > deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable > proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as > a result of US military action, or else as a result of an > anti-US insurgency in > Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past > week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of > violence in Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various > Iraqi factions jockey for position in the post-Saddam order. Well, actually it is more than that. That sentence well describes what was happening earlier. Now we have a civil war. And that is infinitely bloodier than any jockeying-for-position. And as for the blame, John, well, consider this: In 1947, India was partitioned. We asked for the partition, we agreed to it, and it was carried out. But a lot still blame the British for the Partition, and insist that they could have done more, not only to prevent it but also to ensure that it was less violent. Because they were the ones with the power, and they were the ones who could have done it. Now Iraqis didn't ask for the invasion. They didn't ask for an occupation. And they certainly didn't ask for a bungled occupation where no attempts were ever made to see if the secular nature of the Iraqi state could survive Saddam's downfall. They also didn't ask for a govt so enfeebled by a lack of decent police and army that it cannot maintain order within its own borders. All these things were decided by the Coalition. So I am not sure why you think that the responsibility for enabling this sectarian madness shouldn't fall on the Coalition too. > In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then > the alternative would be to support the prolonged the > perpetuation of Saddam Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a > means of holding the country > together. Yes, I know you think that way. But I don't and I have never advocated that Saddam should have carried on just so Iraq doesn't break up. It is not an 'either-or' situation, John. You don't need a genocidal maniac as a dictator to keep a country together. A strong efficient govt does the trick. Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think > that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if > the regime of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed > *without* 150,000+ US troops on the ground trying to help > keep the peace... Right after you explain why you assume I think that. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Doug wrote: > AQ wants to prolong > the violence because they are aware that Americans have a > limited amount of patience; that by prolonging the violence > they will force us to leave. I'll disagree with you here. I do not think that AQ wants the US to withdraw. Not right now at any rate. A couple of captured AQ documents clearly indicate that AQ is hoping that the US stays in Iraq for a long time to come. The American presence in Iraq is accomplishing what OBL had hoped the Afghanistan war would do - act as a motivator and radicalise the Muslim youth, and provide a target for the new recruits to practice on. Some analysts and intelligence institutions have already pointed toward a trend wherein jihadis get their 'training' in Iraq and then move to Afghanistan. Also, it is a drain on your economy and OBL is on record about wanting that. He has said as much in a letter about Iraq. Another cache of letters, caught when Zwahiri was killed, showed that AQ is also worried that it doesn't have enough representation in Iraq [estimates about AQ involvement put them at about 5-10% of the Iraqi insurgents/whatever the current term might be]. So if the US withdraws, AQ is not sure that they have enough of a toe-hold to stay on in Iraq. None of this means, of course, that they wouldn't crow to high heaven and proclaim victory the minute a departure is announced. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and > > gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's > > failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me > > responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation > > thereof. > > > And I find the notion of winning gratitude while standing > idly by as a megalamoniac dictator terrorizes the population, > starts futile wars with his neighbors, and leaves his country > impoversihed while completely enriching himself to be even stupider. > > See, I can mock your position as easily as you can mock mine *g* Would have worked better had that really been my position. :) But I don't think I've ever said anything that can be construed to mean that one can stand by idly while others are being tortured/killed and earn gratitude that way. So hold on to these lines and trot them out when I do make such a silly proposition. :) > > Now if there had been a serious attempt to find a different, less > > destructive way to get rid of Saddam before the invasion and the > tarring > > of every opposer as a supporter of Saddam you might have > had a point. > > But there wasn't, and therefore you don't. > > > You wouldn't be referring to the generally-supposed policy of > France, Russia, and China, among others, to work towards the > lifting of > sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, would you? No I wasn't refering to that at all. If you re-read my lines above, you'd see that I was talking of alternate ways to remove Saddam, and not on the totally different subject of removal of sanctions. > On the other hand, the policy of sanctions, No-Fly-Zones, > diplomatic isolation, etc. was given something on the order > of 10+ years to work. And, to refresh my memory, which one of these policies was aimed at *removing* Saddam instead of containing him, and neutralising the threat posed by him? > If a American Republicans/conservatives were proposing > sticking with a policy that had failed for 10+ years, I > wonder what your reaction would have been... *shrug* Depends on the issue, the costs and who'd be paying them, how strongly I feel about a subject, and a host of other factors. You'd have to propose a hypothetical situation to find out how I'd react. But one thing I can say for sure, I would react the same way whether the notion was proposed by a Democrat or a Republican. I respond to the idea, not to the proposer. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG asked: > > "The survey, of 2,011 international travelers in 16 countries, was > > conducted by RT Strategies, a Virginia-based polling firm, for the > > Discover America Partnership, a group launched in September with > > multimillion-dollar backing from a range of companies that > include the > > InterContinental Hotels Group, Anheuser Busch and Walt Disney Parks > and > > Resorts." > > > > What is the reputation of RT Strategies? Given the client list, I'd > > assume that the company has a good reputation in the market > and knows > > what it is doing. > > OK, and what countries exactly rated higher than the United > States on this List? The closes rivals in terms of being unfriendly to travelers were the Mid East and the Indian Subcontinent, in that order. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Library book sales - huzzah!
Doug wrote: > Not a git, maru Ah, wisdom. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Dan Minette wrote: > > Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have > > covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. > > We have, and I think there is a reasonable view that might address > some of what you and some of what JDG argues for. > Which probably means that neither of y'all will like it. Because, of course, JDG and I are the epitome of unreasonableness... *g* > I believe that we have responsibility for our actions and for our > inactions. But, the type of responsibility we have varies with how > directly we are the agents of the results of our actions/inactions. Agreed. > Turning back to the question we argued before the 2nd Iraq war, those > like me who argued against going in needed to accept the consequences > of Hussein remaining in power as a result of the path we favored being > taken. By the same token, those who favored invasion need to accept > the consequences of that invasion. Now this is where you too fall prey to Bush's Manichean world view. The object was [for argument's sake] the removal of a dictator. Bush's plan was invasion and re-building. And *no other alternatives* were ever explored. You either had to buy Bush's vision or be declared a supporter of Saddam's regime of torture. Frankly, I find that nonsensical and do not buy the argument. Let's say I read a newspaper report about a man taking his one month old baby for a walk by the river. He sees a small kid drowning. He jumps in with the baby, can't save the boy, and all three die. I read the story and remark, 'Oh, that's stupid.' Now that does not automatically make me a supporter of drowning, or of the notion that small kids should drown. All it means is that I think the dad should have lay the baby down somewhere before jumping in to effect a rescue, that it is stupid to jump in with at least one arm already occupied. Similarly, I find the notion of bombing a people into democracy and gratitude stupid. And I really honestly do not believe that Bush's failure of imagination and my recognition of the same makes me responsible for Saddam's crimes, or the hypothetical continuation thereof. > So, I'd argue that those who argue for invading Iraq must accept the > consequences of that action being taken in the exact same sense that > those of us who opposed going in needed to accept the consequences of > the continued rule of Hussein. Argue all you want, I'm not buying it. :) Now if there had been a serious attempt to find a different, less destructive way to get rid of Saddam before the invasion and the tarring of every opposer as a supporter of Saddam you might have had a point. But there wasn't, and therefore you don't. > Neither side needed to want the bad consequences of their > chosen path...they just needed to accept the responsibility > inherent in choosing those consequences instead of others. Yes, and what we are seeing here is an attempt to avoid responsibility for the choice made by saying 'your choice was bad too!' The fact is that no other choice was explored or offered. 'Your agreement or accusations of being a supporter of a genocidal murderer' is not a valid choice. Not when the proposed plan is ridiculous. > In doing so, "the other alternatives were all worse" would be > a valid argument. Yes, but to say that other alternatives would have had to be explored. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > I was about to write that this was yet another reason why the > US is becoming more and more inclined to not count so-called > "world opinion" > as being worth much more than a hill of beans I know *just* what you mean. I mean, all you guys have done is pass the Military Commissions Act, and there have a been a few delays and body searches, and a few incidents like Arar's case, and people are actually beginning to notice and react. The sheer effrontery... > but I'd be curious > to see the methodology first.It probably was just an ill-designed > survey Well, I'll give you what information I have and you can see if you can hunt down the methodology. This is what the articles say: "The survey, of 2,011 international travelers in 16 countries, was conducted by RT Strategies, a Virginia-based polling firm, for the Discover America Partnership, a group launched in September with multimillion-dollar backing from a range of companies that include the InterContinental Hotels Group, Anheuser Busch and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts." What is the reputation of RT Strategies? Given the client list, I'd assume that the company has a good reputation in the market and knows what it is doing. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to > support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > And the substance of his > comments were that previous American generations dealt with > their problems better/nobler/more courageously, etc. than the > current generation. Actually I saw no generational comparison. The earliest date we can put on any reference of his in that mail is 1991, and 15 years do not denote a generational change. I thought he was pointing out that the US has faced far greater threats with more equanimity, and not even all that long ago. Nothing about earlier generations being more stoic than the current one. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Charlie wrote: > And compared to just about any other cause of death > you can think of, terrorism is way way down the list. This reminds me of an article I read this morning - international travellers were polled and it turns out that most consider US to be the 'most unfriendly country', worse than even the ME and the subcontinent [which was a bit of a surprise]. The article I read ended with a line to the effect that people were more worried about US immigration than about terrorism or crime. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iran Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > > And why do reports about Iran's nuclear program [any of them, from > those > > which claim disaster looms a few months ahead to those which claim > that > > nuclear capability is nearly a decade away]cause such a lot > of alarm? > > Our intelligence said that the DPRK was a nearly a decade away too. Yeah well, your intelligence also said strange things Iraq's capabilities. It has been a couple of years since I took the pronouncements of the US intelligence agencies seriously. Not because you guys suck, but because it is hard to know what political agenda is moulding the public pronouncements. > In any event, Iran still doesn't recognize Israel's right to > exist, So? That doesn't mean that Iran is going to bomb Israel, even if it does get the bomb. > regularly leads rallies chanting "Death to America", So what? With an arsenal as big as yours, you guys really ought not be worried about people chanting slogans, especially when the chanters are not even on the same continent as you. > and on top of all that, would have questionable institutional control over any nuclear bombs > that it would produce. This is interesting. What do you base this on? > Other than that, though, I'm not worried. That's nice. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > > Why are so many Americans so afraid? > > This strikes me as classic "generational arrogance" - the old > saw that *our generation* dealt with threats much more > sensibly than the young'uns out there. Only if you are viewing it from a purely American perspective and are under the impression that Rich is an old American... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
JDG wrote: > > And how does that 13+ years of attacks compare to just the > last month > > in Iraq? > > I dunno, how many Iraqis did the US kill last month? Who knows? You guys don't do body counts when you are doing the killing. > And how many Iraqis did Iraqis kill? Again, who knows? And nobody knows how many Iraqis have been killed by the non-American, non-Iraqi actors either. But what I do know is that the distinction made by you is not being made by the majority of the world. If Iraqis are killing Iraqis at a stunning rate today, and they are, it is because the Coalition enabled such a situation to arise. So, for quite a lot of us, all the Iraqi deaths post 2003 are on the Coalition's head. Shouldn't be a surprise as Powell did give a fair warning about breaking and owning. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Those who can't, teach
Dan Minette wrote: > I think we've reached a > point where we cannot stop a civil war from happening. We > can, as long as we stay, stretch out the first phases of that > war, but I think the most likely outcome of staying the > course will be to increase the potential suffering, instead > of decreasing it. Yep. And any attempts to train army/police would ultimately mean arming and training different factions. Otoh, if the Coalition were to suddenly announce the intention to withdraw, people with a stake in the region will have to step up and be responsible. Not that it it's going to be easy, not that the power hasn't devolved almost completely, but sooner or later someone has to sort the mess out, and that wouldn't happen until the Coalition withdraws. > So, I think our differences involve our understanding of the > most likely effects of staying until things improve > substantially Wouldn't happen until the Coalition withdraws. Right now the Coalition is responsible for Iraq, the weak Iraqi govt notwithstanding. And, as enough commanders on the site have said, the Coalition is a part of the problem. If you withdraw, you force the Iraqis and their neighbours to focus on their responsibilities. And you also remove a part of the problem. Besides, since the force has demonstrably not been large enough to establish and maintain peace, keeping it in Iraq will achieve little beyond prolonging the departure. I am not saying that there wouldn't be a great loss of life as the last restraint melts and war erupts within Iraq, I am not saying that the US wouldn't be blamed. Both these things will happen. But they will happen anyway. The only difference is that the longer the Coalition stays on in Iraq, any kind of a resolution is further delayed, and the patterns of chaos become more complex. > or we are told to leave Wouldn't happen. Thanks to the Coalition's postwar policies, any Iraqi government is denied a functioning police and military. Both these institutions have been deliberately weakened, and the Iraqi govt depends on the US troops to function as instruments of state's coercive power. > vs. the most likely outcome of having a withdrawal timetable. Politically, it would create a storm. 'Cutting and running' would be the phrase of the day, and Bush's foreign policy will be finally acknowledged as a disaster. Diplomatically, it would be a severe blow to the US image and international clout. It would be seen as an admission of defeat. Militarily, it would be a sensible decision. The US army will get a chance to rest, recoup, and refit. A significant portion of the Merkin army is stuck in Iraq, doing things it just wasn't supposed to be doing. If the media reports are even halfway accurate, the stress is formidable, and it will take some time to build the army up to its former level of readiness. Economically, well, very few post-withdrawal commitments can be quite as heavy as stationing the troops and the corporations in Iraq. Strategically, you will need to focus on containing the mess instead of pouring your resources down the pipeline called 'cleaning up the mess'. And that would involve dual focus - repercussions in the region, events within Iraq. The former would involve a change of strategy vis-a-vis Iran and Syria, the latter...sigh, that's a separate bundle of problems. The withdrawal can easily mean an unrestrained explosion within Iraq. The only way to restrain the bloodshed somewhat would be a robust UN force but that is not going to happen. So, in practical terms, Iraq would be on its own and we'd have to wait and see what'd happen there. Callous as it sounds, sooner or later things will come down to that. The only question is when and under what circumstances. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Those who can't, teach
Nick Arnett wrote: > So... yesterday the administration admitted that we'll have > to stay longer in Iraq so that we have more time to train > more Iraqi police and military to take over what our troops are doing. > > Let's see... we have failed to make the country secure, but > we're teaching Iraqis our methods in hopes that they will > succeed? Don't we have to demonstrate that our methods > actually work before it makes any sense to train others? See, Nick, you are talking about the wrong issues. Staying longer in Iraq is mandatory because any other course of action is a blatant admission that the Iraq adventure flopped. Big Time. Since the defining policy of a President's career is never that wrong [at least not until the historians start], you guys will stay on in Iraq at least until 2008. At that point, things ought to be so very bad that a Democrat ought to be able to run on the 'Get out now!' plank. > Or > are we expecting that when those keeping the country secure > are Iraqis, rather than Americans, all of the sectarian > infighting will stop? Umm, surely even those who dreamed of petal-strewn cakewalks couldn't be *that* naïve? > We have failed to make Iraq secure for Iraqis, so how can it > make sense for us to teach them how to make their country secure? Very few things about this Iraq adventure have made sense. Why should that change now? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Those who can't, teach
JDG wrote: > O.k., Nick - you've been made President of the United States. > What's your Iraq policy?To stop teaching the Iraqi police and > military? Anything else? Is this game only for Nick or can anyone play? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay Unions in NJ
Charlie said: > Yeah, you can do that in England now too. I think you're now allowed > to marry in the open air too, which you weren't even after they > relaxed the "registry office or place of worship" rule. *g* Here, Hindu marriages are *supposed* to be held in the open air. The only exception to that rule is if you get married in a temple. I got married in a garden at the rents' home, then in a chapel in Korea, and then in a vast hall in J's family's gathering house. But we got the legal certificate this June, when the MHA demanded one. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay Unions in NJ
Charlie wrote: > Until very recently it had to be in a registry office, if it wasn't > in a church. But again, you have to have a "wedding". Over here, the simplest way is to garland each other in the registrar's office and then sign the register. The elaborate ways last for weeks, with the actual ceremony going upto 7-8 hours. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!
Nick Arnett wrote: > I have to correct myself. Wasn't taking notes. Here's > exactly what he > said: > > "Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing > of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not > find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the > continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters." This would be the same speech in which he also said that 'we are winning', right? Ritu GSV Enemies of English ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
DougP wrote: > I think it's a reasonable assumption that Gore wouldn't have > been the complete, unmitigated disaster that Bush is. I > think it is likely that Bush will be considered the single > worst executive in the short history of the nation by a wide margin. For what it's worth, Bush's presidency has made me more benign towards Nehru and VP Singh. I still think they were both disastrous in a lot of important ways, but now I can appreciate the fact that things really could have been much worse. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Julia Thompson wrote: > Hennaed hands? Always get them done for Diwali, wedding anniversaries and karvachauth. :) Once the kids are older, I'll go back to hennaed feet as well. :) > I got henna on my chest yesterday, a lovely lotus > centered in the design. I need to try to get a picture of > it, not sure > how I'll manage that right now Dan? A tripod? The kids? [both of mine have gotten quite good at taking my pics] I am sure you can think of something. :) Ritu, who has never seen a hennaed chest before. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Dan Minette wrote: > My understanding is that, if Parliament were to pass such a > law, there would be no legal reason that courts could declare > it null and void. In the US, they could. Further, they > could, and often do, rely on precedence in interpreting the > constitution to do so. That's the sort of subtle interplay > that I didn't think was clear to non-Americans. *g* As Charlie pointed out, precedents are a relatively common feature of the theory and practice of jurisprudence. My Dad is a lawyer, as is my brother, and so are five of my uncles and aunts. So even though the notion of precedents might be a subtle distinction for some, but it is one I not only grew up with, it is also something I studied in different courses in college and university over a number of years. What you might be unaware of is that the Indian constitution adopted the notion of judicial review from the Merkin constitution. So not only can our courts declare laws as null and void, they in the 1960s and 70s enshrined the priciple of keeping the basic structure of the constitution* sacrosanct, and thus beyond constitutional amendements. It was a necessity as the procedure to amend the constitution over here is less rigid than the one followed in the US. Moving onto the question you asked, namely how this law changes the situation, or at least why I believe it does so. Justice Luttig's opinion in the Jose Padilla case has already established the precedent that US citizens who are UEC can be held indefinitely without charges and trial. This law, in making a distinction between UEC and Alien UEC, provides the legal basis for designating citizens as UECs. The petition filed on Padilla's behalf in the Supremem Court earlier this year challenged, among other things, the President's authority to make such a designation without solid proof. The President now has the legal authority to designate citizens as UEC, and you already have the precedent regarding the treatment of people thus defined. * the basic structure doctrine encompasses the supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law, a republican democracy, the separation of powers, the federal and secular nature of the polity, and individual freedom of the individuals. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Charlie wrote: > The new law means there's no review at all. Can't you see how > insidious this is? Yes, under most circumstances I'd be inclined to > agree that *in practice* it's difficult to use this law to screw a > citizen of the USA... but it can stuff a citizen good and true for a > couple of years. And the economic and social effects are likely to last longer than that. And since we are all being so cheerful and festive [well, *I* am, what with typing with hennaed hands], Happy Diwali. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
es it say "Congress Suspends Habeas Corpus"? > Where in US law does it state "citizens declared unlawful > enemy combatants shall not have habeas corpus rights? When > has the Supreme Court decided this? The Supreme Court has refused to say anything on the matter when an appeal was filed on the issue in the court. And the Court of Appeals has already said this. With the Military Commissions Act in place, we will see, sooner or later, what the Supreme Court says about it. Might take years for a case to reach the Supreme Court, but I hope to be around when it does happen. > > Their liberty is now dependant on the say-so of the > President, or the > > Sec Def. Regardless of how you see it, it *is* a stripping > of one of > > the most basic rights of the citizens. > > How? With a Republican President, House and Senate, it would > be possible to set up a law that states anyone who votes > Democrat be declared "unlawful enemy combatants" It wouldn't > mean anything...except that those Democrats would not be > afforded Geneva convention rights if found fighting the US Army. The way it meant nothing in Padilla's case, and all he lost were his Geneva convention rights... > > My interest in the bill is focused on how the bill proposes > to treat > >non-merkins, and I find it quite despicable. Not that I find > it a major > >concern > >- my govt would have to agree to this bill for it to apply in my > >country, and any govt which takes such a stupid step > wouldn't survive > >too long in office. Neither would their agreement last any > longer than > >it takes to file a PIL in the Supreme Court. > > > Except if the US captured a citizen of India outside of > India. Then, India would have the usual recourse when a > citizen of one state is captured by the government of another > state. If the citizen is captured in the US, they'd have no > more influence than the US has when its citizens are arrested > in Turkey. Yep. But the number of Indian citizens travelling outside India is still marginal when compared to those who stay within the country. Those who travel are already aware, or at least ought to be aware, that they are not afforded the same rights abroad that they would enjoy within their own country. Charlie has answered some other of your points, and since I do not disagree with him, I'll not mention the same issues. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
John Horn wrote: > > I am a bit surprised you don't notice this - the military > > commissions can only try alien UECs, but the term UEC may > > well be applied to US citizens. No provision in the Act says > > that it is applicable to aliens and aliens alone. > > But it does specifically refer to aliens in the section about > habeas corpus. Yes, at least in one instance [HC is mentioned in two provisions and the second only says 'person']. But the basic aim declared at the beginning of the Bill, and sections 950b [subchapter VI], 950r and 950x [subchapter VII for both] are vague enough to be used to argue a suspension of Haebus Corpus for citizens if the need arises. If it was my govt I'd be very curious as to why they needed to introduce the concepts of both UEC and Alien UEC. Ritu GSV Suspicious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
d outside of the US. Reading the law, this seems clear to > me. Well, they keep on focusing on the Hamdan case, so your statement is not a surprise. But it also easily takes care of the problems of Hamdi and Padilla case. Just because they are US citizens [or, in Hamdi's case, were] doesn't mean they can't be declared UEC, and then they have to wait until the Govt figures out who tries them and where. But after this Bill, no US citizen can approach the courts and ask to be either charged and tried, or released. Instead, they have to wait for some bureaucrat or the other to decide what to with them, and when. I am a bit surprised you don't notice this - the military commissions can only try alien UECs, but the term UEC may well be applied to US citizens. No provision in the Act says that it is applicable to aliens and aliens alone. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Dan Minette wrote; > But, the law _specifically_ > addresses the treatment of aliens, not citizens. So, by this > law, I think the President could declare a citizen an > "unlawful enemy combatant", but he clearly could not subject > a citizen to these tribunals...because...by the definition of > alien given within the bill...citizens are excluded. I am curious about how you reached this conclusion. The Bill nowhere says that this law is meant only for aliens, and the term 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant' is defined in such a way as to make citizens vulnerable. All the Bill does is define alien, and UEC, and Protected Persons, and mentions that the later two categories would be decided by the President's say-so. The only other category to be excluded from an automatic application of the Bill is Lawful Enemy Combatants, and no US citizen would fit the bill for that. > But, given the nature and scope attack on the US on 9-11, I am confused. What *was* the nature and scope of the attack, other than being a terrorist attack which left approximately 3000 people dead? > we see a relatively modest risk to liberty in our > response... http://www.counterpunch.com/ramakrishnan10032006.html > Most > Americans do not see the Republicans as a worst risk than Al > Quida. By arguing that they are, talking about Republicans > as RepubliKKKans and the new Gestapo, leftists can whip up > the faithful, but do not contribute to a meaningful > discussion. Discussions of ensuring that the law doesn't > enable some future president to restrict American liberty may > not be as stirring as yelling Gestapo, but I think they would > be much more productive. Uh uh. Terrorists are never as bad a risk as a Govt intent on stripping rights from its citizens. All the terrorists can do is kill some people and blow up some buildings/vehicles. Govts can tear apart the fabric of a polity. Pointing that out, and resisting it, is not fear-mongering, it is the duty of every citizen. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
JDG wrote: > > Isn't there a difference between fear for personal safety and fear > about > > principles? > > Presuming that you would describe the fear of your > grandmother being forced to live in a cardboard box on the > street and eat dogfood for lunch if Republicans are elected > to be "principle" rather than "personal safety." Would *you* describe it as 'fear for personal safety'? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Julia wrote: > Well, there's one couple living outside Salt Lake City who have good > taste in books, and the books are taking over the house, so > you'd feel > at home with *them*, anyway ;) *g* Now *that* is a strong argument. :) > (My uncle & aunt. Father's brother. And they felt so "right > at home" > when they visited my mom for the first time, with *her* house > overflowing with books. Dan's got family with the same > appreciation, as > well.) I have a feeling that I'll spend the night dreaming of these houses overflowing with books... All I remember about last night is my dream about reading this *great* book [dunno which one]. When the hubby tried to wake me up this morning, I apparently snapped at him and told him to wait until I had read the last chapter... :) Ritu GCU Off To Bed ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > Hence my comment about a choice (?) between Tweedledumb and > Tweedledumber. > > Assign The Correspondence As You Wish Maru You don't hand out easy assignments, do you? ;) Ritu GCU So Why Should I Move To Utah? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Charlie Bell wrote: > I know. I was being funny and throwing rotten fruit at you, > metaphorically speaking. :-) :p Meanie! Being nasty and all, and just because I have good taste in books Ritu GCU Ducks and Runs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Charlie Bell wrote: > > > > So, really, what did you have in mind? > > Have relatives in high office? That doesn't work, not until they have the same ideas as you. Even then, given that they came up within the system, following the usual routes, their choices are limited by the system itself. For any far-reaching change, you need a wide-enough popular base of support to make any accidents or disappearance more troublesome than the thoughts you are preaching. Gandhi is a wonderful case-study of this phenomenon. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Dave Land asked: > How, exactly? > > I was invited to take part in door-to-door get-out-the-vote > canvassing to help Democrat Jerry McNerney defeat Richard > Pombo in California's 11th district, which borders my > district to the South and East, but I think that's a long way > from "going into the arena and making it for myself." > > Sure, I write letters to my representative (Zoe Lofgren) and > Senators (Boxer and Feinstein), but that is still a far cry > from "going into the arena and making it for myself." It's > still just dealing with Tweedles of varying intelligence. > > So, really, what did you have in mind? Being brave and/or crazy enough to enter politics yourself, form a party with like-minded individuals, and offer people a decent alternative. Of course, the costs are very high, especially in terms of privacy, family time, basic scurity etc, and I am not willing to pay them right now...and so I grumble less frequently. But it is a viable option, and it is less destructive/chaos inducing than a revolution outside the system. Of course, if the changes you want to make are far-reaching enough, as mine are, then you also have to accept the fact that you're likely have only one term in office. That is, if no one assassinates you soon after you put the changes into practice. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > Some of us have voted every election day, or nearly every one, since > we reached the age where we were allowed to. Some of us would like > to someday not have to hold our nose and make a choice between > Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. Think we'll ever have such a chance? I wondered about that for a long time and then I came to the conclusion that no one will ever *give* us that chance. We'll have to go into the arena and *make* it for ourselves. Since that day, I have been known to grumble less about having to choose only between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Deborah Harrell wrote: > > [Regarding the BJP:] > > Really nasty people, propagating the most hateful of > > ideas under the > > guise of patriotism and national security. Its > > sister organisations, the > > RSS and the VHP, are equally bad. > > Golly, no similarities here in the US... *g* > Maybe Thomas Jefferson (IIRC) was on to something, but > I have to say that periodic revolutions seem too damn > bloody and messy to me. They would be, especially since anyone wanting to hang on to power quite that badly would not hesitate before unleashing the power of the state machinery on the rebels. This has to be the last option, once everything else has been tried out. > Still, when you can't trust > that your votes actually count, that is very bad for a democracy. Do you guys have any statutory body to act as impartial observer and monitor for the entire process? Although we haven't yet had the problem of votes not counting, we have had other problems like booth capturing and bogus voting. And the Election Commission and the PIL [Public Interest Litigation] device in the Supremem Court have been invaluable in sorting such stuff out. Sigh. I am missing elections now...they are such fun. When else can one see CMs running after and tackling people who try to run away with ballot boxes? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Deborah Harrell wrote: > Except that many of us who listened to > Academy*-trained combat veterans -- instead of > chickenhawk pols -- did _not_ buy into Iraq as an > immediate threat to the US, ever. I know. That is why I said 'massive support' instead of 'unanimous support' or 'overwhelming support'. :) I may be wrong but I seem to recall that the support for the misadventure was above 50%. > And now I hear that > Kissinger (yes, _that_ Kissinger) has regular talks > with Bush et al...no wonder it feels similar to > Vietnam! >:/ Oh, that made the papers here. I sometimes think we have a Kissinger-Watch going on since the 1970s. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Ronn!Blankenship asked: > >I've seen plenty of people, theoretically working for public good, > >subvert laws and institutions of a country. But this is the > first time > >I've ever seen a near complete subversion of a constitution. > Bush & Co > >make the BJP look good, > > > "BJP"? Bhartiya Janata Party. A political party in India, and one I love to hate. They are the modern version of the Jan Sangh, and actually enjoyed a few years in power. BJP has traditionally been the political party of Brahmins but in mid 80s they hit upon the idea of 'Hindutva', and of a glorious Hindu nation. Since positivity doesn't bring immediate political dividends, they started off with maligning the muslims. They are pretty good at playing the fear card and circulated a lot of nonsense about how Hindus have been oppressed in India for centuries. I used to laugh at their obvious attempts [in my defense, I was in my early twenties back then], but with the destruction of the Babri Masjid, I realised that people actually bought into that nonsense. Once the media attention was focused on them, they scored plenty of points off their political opposition by charging them with 'appeasement of muslims'. BJP's tactics increased their popularity, and finally they were able to form a coalition government in the centre. At that point, their campaign against the minorities started in earnest. Christians and Muslims bore the brunt of it [Staines' murder, and the Gujarat riots were only the most public of their crimes]. However, the pogrom in Gujarat put off plenty of people, and when the BJP called for early elections is 2004, fully expecting to win, they were voted out of power. At least at the national level. A few states are still run by the BJP, and those are the states where anti-conversion laws are being passed. Really nasty people, propagating the most hateful of ideas under the guise of patriotism and national security. Its sister organisations, the RSS and the VHP, are equally bad. Ritu GCU Brief ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Robert G. Seeberger > On 9/27/2006 2:01:04 PM, Richard Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > One of the most striking things about the July 7 attacks was how > > utterly unterrified we all were. I know people who were > very close to > > the bombing attacks and their response was uniformly calm and > > practical. In fact, those attacks seemed to cause more anxiety and > > fear on the other side of the Atlantic than they did here. > > I don't know how it may appear from over there, but on 9/11 I was > angry. Heck I was angry on July 7 and after Madrid and Bali > too. I think the only times I felt much in the way of fear > was in regard to > the Anthrax cases and the sniper case, those things just seemed more > likely to grow where it could harm people I knew and cared > about. I don't think I actually can remember anyone who was > frightened, but I > do remember lots of folks who were royally pissed off. You, of course, are the best judge of your reactions and emotions, but it is also a fact that fear often manifests itself as anger. > Perhaps it was different in other parts of the country, but even if > Americans do not uniformly project calm I would suggest that the fear > that was sensed was coming from the administration and the news > media's attempts to whip up a frenzy of ad sales. The administration certainly worked on selling the fear, the media definitely bought into it, but so did the citizens. At least that is how it appears from here. The massive support for the Iraq war, the frequent invocation of the mushroom cloud during arguments and debates in the run-up to the same war, all such things strongly suggested fear. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > Well, look at the bright side - at least Abu Ghraib isn't a scandal > > anymore. It is now the law... > > Which is of course the point. Bush wants to keep his ass from being > impeached under an opposition congress. I've seen plenty of people, theoretically working for public good, subvert laws and institutions of a country. But this is the first time I've ever seen a near complete subversion of a constitution. Bush & Co make the BJP look good, and I never thought I'd ever say that about anybody. Ritu GCU Alien & Glad About It ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Warren Ockrassa wrote: > With the signing into law of Bush's pet "tur'rist" project, > we've given > to the Executive branch two things it should never, ever have: The > ability to interpret internationally-significant law to suit current > fashion; and the ability to define anyone - including > American citizens > - as an "enemy combatant" to be held indefinitely, without charges or > evidence being presented. Well, look at the bright side - at least Abu Ghraib isn't a scandal anymore. It is now the law... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Assumption
Andrew Crystall wrote: > Also, I don't believe there's such a thing as a non-practicing Muslim > by definition, either you practice or you're not.. That's an erroneous belief. There are plenty of non-practising muslims - people who are born into the religion, brought up as muslims, and don't really care about the religious restrictions/instructions, or about praying/mosques etc. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
Robert Seeberger wrote: > She gave birth to GOD! > She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! > > > xponent > Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru I was thinking that none of the gods born to goddesses here actually involved pregnancy and childbirth...I've been known to crib about that during my pregnancies... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie wrote: > > But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is > Nick's. :) > > Well, why didn't you say that then? :p Because I expect the primary attribution to relate directly to the line one is responding to... :p Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie said: > > Charlie said: > >> > >> Ritu wrote: > >>>> > >>>> That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. > >>>> > >>>> To say the same thing differently, if there is such a > >> thing as a just > >>>> war, economics isn't how it is justified. > >> On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a > >>> coffee with the person who lauds all abortions. > >> > >> The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least > >> some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture > nobles, ransom... > >> profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb > >> Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. > > > > Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. > > That's why it says "ritu wrote" by what you wrote, and "jdiebremse > wrote" by what JDG wrote... :-) But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is Nick's. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
Charlie said: > > Ritu wrote: > >> > >> That has nothing to do with economic justification for war. > >> > >> To say the same thing differently, if there is such a > thing as a just > >> war, economics isn't how it is justified. > On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote: > > > > > Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a > > coffee > > with the person who lauds all abortions. > > The difference being, wars *used* to be about economics, at least > some of them. (Borrow money, invade France, capture nobles, > ransom... > profit!!!) I'm not sure that anyone has ever (barring that superb > Onion piece) lauded all abortions. But I take the point, I think. Umm, you are responding to JDG's line, not mine. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
I said: > I was saving up qone uestion for you: That was 'one question' btw... :) Ritu GCU Off to Bed ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Julia wrote: > > D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on > > this list. > > Query: Can you list the translations you own? I'm just curious. A > "no" answer will be accepted graciously. I was saving up qone uestion for you: How many translations would Fool need to own for his statement to be factually accurate? And 'tis okay if you don't want to/can't answer that, and I can be mailed off-list as well. :) Ritu GCU Curious Meself ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
JDG wrote: > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think there is an economic formula in existence > that justifies > > making money in a cause for which people are giving their > very lives. > > Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an > all-volunteer army, lest soldiers make money in a cause for > which people > are giving their very lives? Umm, soldiers *are* the people who are giving their very lives...y'know, the people who get shot at and shoot others so that civilians like us can sit comfortably in our homes and discuss politics over the internet...Saying people shouldn't profit from the soldiers' sacrifice is very different from saying that the soldiers shouldn't be paid for what they do, the risks they take. I am amazed that the difference isn't apparent to you. > Or at least to only pay a > death stipend? That'd work just fine if you have no problems with a rookie army with no training and experience. If you want professionals, you'll have to pay them for their time and training. > How do you suppose that armies should get their food, > clothing, and boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, > from producers of food, clothing, and boots? There is a difference between procurement and profiteering. Ensuring that the US soldiers in Iraq have proper armours is procurement, or at least should have been procurement. Halutz taking the time out to sell his war portfolio on the 12th of July is profiteering. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
Ronn Blankenship wrote: > IIRC there are some religions > which believe that the baby acquires a spirit or > whatever they call it when s/he takes his/her first breath > outside the womb. >From what was said to me during my pregnancies, I think the Hindus [or at least the non-atheist/non-agnostic Hindus] believe something like this: The soul starts 'visiting' foetus at ~ 3 months, just looking in and getting acquainted. At the end of the second trimester, there is a ceremony to mark the beginning of the third trimester. Apparently, this [the beginning of the third trimester, not the ceremony] is the time the soul comes to 'stay' inside the womb, to get used to the trappings of a body once again. The ceremony thus is called, for the want of a better translation, a 'centring' ceremony. The expectant mother is told that her prime duty from this moment on is to maintain a balance in her life, thoughts, emotions, and actions, for any imbalance would be less than beneficial to the child. I think the above is essentially right - both the times I was told this, the babies were busy kicking the bladder and I had more immediate concerns, like politely excusing myself and finding a bathroom. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
William T Goodall wrote: > Or perhaps all the 'souls' play musical chairs while we sleep and we > wake up with a different one each day :-> Wasn't that the premise of a Greg Egan short story? Not all the souls playing musical chairs, of course, but one which "woke up" in a different body each day... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Alberto wrote > And who's bringing the fried babies, and who's bringing the > living sacrificial victms whose heart we will extract and eat? Alberto, If you don't want to host the party, just say so. We'll just find another venue. There's no need to rustle up a gruesome menu Ritu GCU Really, No Hard Feelings ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Morality
Charlie wrote: > >> As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all > religion other > >> than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or "point > >> and laugh" or whatever. > > > > That means that it would be rude to say anything about the > notion of > > 'One and Only True Way', doesn't it? > > Not necessarily. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes: I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this argument, that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of personal wishes and comfort as anything else. Moving on to religion in particular, I think that the notion of 'One and Only True Way' is as much of a dangerous fallacy when applied to theological matters as it is when applied to inter-cultural matters. We humans are too different in too many ways too ever subscribe to a uniformity of ideas in any field. If God exists, I expect Her to realise that. Of course, none of the above is surprising given my society and upbringing. :) > I have a head full of cotton wool, and lovely luminous > mucous. I love > colds, me. Aww, poor you! Well, you'll feel better tonight... Ritu GCU Have Fun ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Charlie said: > Bloody cold medication says "don't drink". So I stopped taking it - > there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D *g* Well, from extensive experience, I can tell you that you will be just fine tonight, but will feel like dying tomorrow morning. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
Charlie Bell wrote: > Good question. Where does "devout" become "fanatical"? I think you > may be onto something here. When the choices of others are involved? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Morality
Charlie Bell wrote: > I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a > "you're > wrong... no, you are" type series of posts doesn't go anywhere. > > As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other > than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or "point > and laugh" or whatever. That means that it would be rude to say anything about the notion of 'One and Only True Way', doesn't it? Sniff. I thought as much... Ritu GCU Talking of sniffs, how is your cold? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Rich said: > I think JohnR's argument is that belief breathes the "fire" > into the words and unless you believe you don't experience > that fire and so don't truly understand. But aren't the words, or the ideas behind them, supposed to breathe the fire? I can go as far as a suspension of disbelief, but to hold that belief is prerequisite for the fire...well, that just points to sloppy writing, or sloppy expression of an idea. > But I think there is no fire, just the power of wishful > thinking to make people feel intense things. And good writing,let's not forget the good writing... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
John W Redelfs wrote: > I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an > atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But > neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious > people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things > you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. As charlie pointed out, a lot of atheists weren't always outsiders looking in. They were insiders looking around, and many of them are probably better at the details of the scri[pture and its practices than uncritical believers. I know one of my uncles definitely falls into this category. > And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The > scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe > them. That's not necessarily true. Belief is not a prerequisite for understanding words on a paper. While the scriptures cannot be accepted without belief, understanding them is a simpler task. And all the latter requires are tools of basic comprehension, further study, and reasearch. This drive for understanding might be fuelled by belief, but it might as easily be fuelled by doubt. Or simple curiousity. Belief doesn't have much of a role in understanding scriptures, but if we had enough information, I would not be surprised to find that belief might have actually hindered such understanding over the centuries rather than helped it along. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Brother John wrote: > There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. I once recall reading something about how the vegetarian proteins are easier for humans to assimilate as compared to the proteins found in meat. Does anyone else have ay recollection of something like this? > Vegetarianism is just > a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Hah! A reasonable proportion of vegetarians in India are vegetarians because of their religious beliefs. Buddhists, Jains, and a lot of Hindus, fr'ex. Some others are vegetarians because of health reasons, others because of aesthetic reasons. While I have met many believers who eat or don't eat meat because of their religious beliefs, I am yet to come across anyone who refuses to eat meat because they have no religious beliefs. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
William T Goodall asked: > > Richard Baker wrote: > >> If not, then I fail to see how the religious and atheist positions > >> differ. > >> Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at > >> least, basically in the same position as us atheists? > >> > > I guess so, unless he himself has a God as I believe. > > And does God's God have a God too? And if so does he have a God? And > does God's God's God's God have a God? Well yes. Gods have gods, who again have gods, and then they all worship each other when the mood strikes them, and help each other when the mood strikes them...In the end, and maybe even in the beginning, there is the Param Brahm though, and nobody knows anything much about *that*. I believe reams upon reams were once written to speculate on the PB, and the best answer/explanation was considered to be 'That art thou'. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Morality of Killing Babies
Rich wrote: > > My atheist father used to tell me that "might makes right" is a bad > > philosophy? Why? > > Isn't "might makes right" basically the religious position? Uh, no. At least not in the religion I was born into. We do have a saying which translates into 'Truth always wins' but that is never a guarantee. Most of the mythology is filled with demi-gods whining about how they have been defeated by the demons. And their constant refrain during these situations is 'X isn't right but he is mightier than us, and if you don't help us now, then it will be a case of might being right, and that wouldn't be good...so ,y'know, could you kindly use *your* might to put things to right...?' There is, as far as I can make out, the usual collection of 'right actions/values' and anyone who goes against them, be it the gods and demigods themselves, is 'wrong', no matter how mighty they may be. > Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't > He, at least, basically in the same position as us atheists? Gods tend to be monitors in this respect - they have a set of rules to follow and enforce. The rules weren't devised by them but their help is needed to ensure that those inclined towards bullying don't get away with it. Since, direct divine intervention hardly occurs, there are a lot of tales and sayings praising the importance of a strong will, and self-reliance, and keeping faith in gods while one battles against evil. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
September 11
September 11 approaches, marking the day a highly religious man launched a fight, on foreign soil, against perceived oppression by a foreign country. It was a day, and an event, that would have far-reaching effects and implications. I freely admit to a vicarious pride. And we are all set to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the day Gandhi launched Satyagraha in South Africa. Ritu GCU A Different 9/11 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: They are Here
Nick Arnett wrote: > We went to the San Jose Flea Market today... a large affair, > with all sorts of vendors... including a photogaphy studio... > where They Have Appeared. I got a picture with my camera phone. > > And dang it, they're not teal. > http://www.mccmedia.com/pink_unicorn/ Sigh. No, they are not teal. But they aren't real either. The wheels protruding from the beast in that photo are a good hint... I think it is time I stepped in sorted out this confusion. After all, the Bearer of Truth can do no less: Unicorns do not exist, not as a separate species anyway. What happens is that people with bad eye-sights, or faulty cameras, look at rhinocereses and see unicorns. And the the fight about colour? Well, that is a side-effect of the fact that the rhinos love Holi and each year a few of them get caught in the near-permanent dye solutions. So different people, at different times, have seen pink, blue, green, teal, and red 'unicorns'. Ritu GCU Myth Buster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Rich said: > > Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) > > No, I haven't. I'll look out for it. Its a short story and the collection is called _The Red Pony_. A lot of good stories in there. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
Rich wrote: > Well, it seems to me that religious people talk quite a lot about > "human dignity" and humanity being made in the image of God in some > sense, and it seems that in the Islamic/Christian/Jewish > religion God > has some kind of special interest in humans (or perhaps He is also > supposed to send prophets and messiahs to chimpanzees and squid and > so forth...) Have you read Steinbeck's _St. Katherine_? :) On a related note, Vishnu's incarnations, though mostly meant to sort out the problems of the bipedals [though not just humans], take the form of a fish, a tortoise, a boar, man-lion hybrid etc. And one of Shiva's incarnation was in the form of a monkey, and he was a prophet to the monkeys. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Andrew Crystall wrote: > > Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* > certainly am not > > a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid > foundations. > > No, you do not. Your principles have no backing beyond what you feel. Two things: How would you know? And, how about not just what a person feels but also what s/he thinks? > Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of > say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. Umm, why does one have to follow *anyone* to the letter? Why can't one just pick and choose? After all, no one is infallible, believer, agnostic or atheist, so why should people act as the others *are* infallible and obviously know better? Which is my basic problem with religion - God never came up to me and told me what She wanted me to do. Failing that, I can conceive of no reason why somebody else's interpretation of what She might or might not want should matter to me. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: history is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Religious freedom]
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > If I'd have had any expectations of WTG knowing these details, they > > would have been based on the fact that the period he was > refering to > > not only spanned a mere 190 years, it was also a historical > experience > > his country shares with mine. > > > But it doesn't mean that it was equally important for both > countries, does it? I don't think I ever expected that. :) I have long accepted the fact of many narratives of one event, and the differences can usually be traced to perspective. Which also governs the 'importance' bit. > For example, I was surprised that Nederlanders had no idea > about the _long_ time .nl occupied a huge part of Brazil's > Northeast. Also, I imagine that Africans study the bleed > that brazilian import of slaves caused them, and Uruguay > classes talk a lot about their war of independence > [which here is merely a footnote]. True enough. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > I guess you are not terribly interested in India History, > > > Come on, please! 1 Giga people, millions of ethnicities, 6000 > years of recorded history, some other thousand years of > archeological history... It's _impossible_ for anyone to know > India History. The better we can handle is a general idea. > Don't blame WTG for not knowing some facts. I wasn't blaming him - I was guessing. I have no way of knowing if WTG is, or isn't, interested in Indian History, and I don't mind it if people don't know, Indians and foreigners alike. I certainly know only a bit about bits of it. If I'd have had any expectations of WTG knowing these details, they would have been based on the fact that the period he was refering to not only spanned a mere 190 years, it was also a historical experience his country shares with mine. But since I already have been told that the British Raj isn't taught in extensive detail in Britain, I had no such expectations. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
William T Goodall wrote: > >> In rural India little girls are still sold to temples as sex slaves > > > > In rural India little girls are sold as maids/bonded slaves, > > Devadasis are well documented. See here for example > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/ > 2071612.stm Oh, I wasn't denying their existence. One of my favourite movies deal with the issue, and I am avidly waiting for the English translation of a Tamil Devdasi's autobiography. > > sex slaves > > to European paedophiles [a British guy was the latest one to be > > convicted]. Obviously, all Europeans are evil and must be > eradicated. > > There's lots of evil in the world. I'm talking about the part that's > caused by religion. And I was merely pointing out that the same evil exists even without the trappings of religion. :) > > > >> and women still throw themselves on their husband's funeral pyres. > > > > Throw *themselves*? For shame! In the three documented cases in the > > last > > couple of decades, the Indian authorities have assumed that the fact > > that these women struggled and were forced back on the > pyres actually > > meant that their in-laws compelled them to commit Sati. That is what > > these families were prosecuted for. > > Jumped or thrown makes no difference to my argument. It's still > religion that killed them. Jumped or thrown makes all the difference to my argument. Jumped would have supported your thesis and a disturbed mind, thrown means cold-blooded murder. And the murder wasn't committed by religion but by their in-laws. > >> That's religion despite the British Empire's attempts to > suppress it. > > > > British Empire *never* tried to suppress religion. It was > very much an > > evangelical Empire, and the incessant attempts to get the > heathens to > > convert into Christianity were part of what sparked the Mutiny. I > > guess > > you are not terribly interested in India History, but you can try > > reading Flashman. Fraser's research is excellent, and after > reading > > his > > books you'd never again make claims like 'British Empire tried to > > suppress religion'. > > I was referring to the Empire's actions to suppress things like > Thuggee, Sati and child prostitution that are the symptoms of the > pernicious obnoxious evil of religion. Only a few aspects of one religion, and that too only after a lot of people of that religion petitioned the Governor-General to pass a law to that effect. Incidentally, Akbar was the one who started the attempts to outlaw child prostitution, child marriage, sati, and he was the founder of a religion. Apparently one doesn't have to be an atheist to recognise and try to stop perversions of the same. So if religion is evil because some can and do pervert it, surely it must also be good when some move to address these perversions? > As for Indian history - I have read _Midnight's Children_ :-> *g* And I have never been able to finish that book. I find Rushdie quite a pretentious bore. But I really can't recommend the Flashman series highly enough. They are laugh-out-loud funny, and Flashy certainly isn't a pretentious bore. :) And he mocks religion often enough to keep you happy... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
William T Goodall wrote: > In rural India little girls are still sold to temples as sex slaves In rural India little girls are sold as maids/bonded slaves, sex slaves to European paedophiles [a British guy was the latest one to be convicted]. Obviously, all Europeans are evil and must be eradicated. > and women still throw themselves on their husband's funeral pyres. Throw *themselves*? For shame! In the three documented cases in the last couple of decades, the Indian authorities have assumed that the fact that these women struggled and were forced back on the pyres actually meant that their in-laws compelled them to commit Sati. That is what these families were prosecuted for. > That's religion despite the British Empire's attempts to suppress it. British Empire *never* tried to suppress religion. It was very much an evangelical Empire, and the incessant attempts to get the heathens to convert into Christianity were part of what sparked the Mutiny. I guess you are not terribly interested in India History, but you can try reading Flashman. Fraser's research is excellent, and after reading his books you'd never again make claims like 'British Empire tried to suppress religion'. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Charlie asked: > > Yep. But it is also a subset of 'society' and 'politics', and > > non-religious cults do exist. > > What's an example of a non-religious cult? Personality cults in politics, then there is the Ayn rand cult, a non-religious one if there ever was one. NATLFED has been put on many cult watch lists. The term has become a loaded one and you'd find many such examples in sociology, psychology and political science. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Charlie Bell wrote: > >> What is religious freedom if it isn't that? > > > > That you're, again, deliverately using a cult - NOT a religion > > Isn't a cult a subset of "religion"? Yep. But it is also a subset of 'society' and 'politics', and non-religious cults do exist. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
> Not even strident ones. Many people believe that our fellow great > apes deserve more consideration (limited "human" rights, if you > will), than, say, cows. I have nothing against the great apes but why demote the cows to make the apes feel better? Ritu GCU From Sacred to Less Than 'Limited Human Rights' ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie said: > > One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the > > time > > of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious > > And there you have it. :-) The prize for silliest possible reason? ;) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
> But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their > new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question: Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when? One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the time of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Damon wrote: > This seems to be an entirely male perspective. I wonder how a woman > would respond... For me, it would depend on the number of offsprings I plan on having. The first time around, I'd definitely want to do it myself. Just to see what the experience is like. Having experienced it, I'd almost certainly go for the out-of-my-body pregnancy, *if* the risk to the baby is zero. I think Y'see, my youngest is almost 18 months old now and the memories of the discomforts, aches, pains, terrors etc have receeded to the point where I find myself getting all misty-eyed over the notion of another pregnancy and childbirth. But he is still young enough for me to recall that I was terrified and terribly uncomfortable through most of my second pregnancy. Hmm, hard to say really, for it might be different for those who grew up with the idea that one can safely transfer the foetus to an artificial womb...I also find myself wondering if women who want to bear their own children would be considered the ideal women, or if people would start finding them weird/crazy. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
ie. > > Or receive crippling physiological and/or psychological injuries. > > It doesn't. That's why it was a sarcastic statementI don't really > mean it. But, if I had a choice between certain death and a chance at a > long full life ahead of me I'd take the latter. I assume most folks > would. Well, all emotionally healthy folks would in any case. What I find interesting here is the use of the term 'long full life'. What do you mean by that Dan? If I'm not mistaken, this notion ties in which the sentence of mine which started this entire conversation between us: 'Who is going to do what do ensure that the unwanted babies are nurtured properly?' > The fundamental axiom difference is this: the pro-life position holds > that fetuses are humans with human rights. The pro-choice position > holds that they are not. See the first paragraph of this mail. You are assuming my positions, simply because I am questioning JDG's position. Mind you, I'm not even sure that that holds true for all American pro-choicers either but that is not an area I know much about. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
DanM wrote: > > And are there any acceptable exceptions? Like danger to the mother's > > health? For the doctor *is* bound to consider his patient's well-being > > first, and the unborn baby hasn't hired the doctor... > > > > Also, once, if, the abortion rates go down, who does what to ensure > > that the unwanted born babies are nurtured properly? > > Well, the unwanted ones could be humanely killed after 10 days, like the > ASPCA does. Eh? But what happens to he right to life from the moment of conception then? Does that right end after birth? > Now, I know that's a sarcastic...but the sarcasm wasn't really aimed at > you. The purpose of it is to illustrate how different fundamental > assumptions result in different reasonable statements. But wasn't the fundamental assumption here each individual's right to life? Even *before* they can take care of themselves? How does that change just because the baby is out of the uterus? And babies can't take care of themselves - they still need nurturing, especially for the first couple of years. And in the absence of that nurturing, they can die. Or receive crippling physiological and/or psychological injuries. > So, I don't think it is helpful to make arguments based on one's own > axiom set and then expect them to sound "reasonable" to someone who > holds a different axiom set. Could you please explain the bit about different axiom sets? Is it because I think that the right to life is enjoyed even after birth and JDG was just talking about until birth? That's not different axiom sets, Dan. That is just a difference in the length of time we are considering. Everything else is the same - the individual, and his/her right to life. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Robert Seerberger wrote: > Should women who get abortions get the death penalty? > Or just 10 years? > Or [with irony] 18 years? > If you want abortion to be a crime you must have some kind of penalty > in mind and you must want to put more people in our overcrowded > prisons otherwise it is no use criminalizing abortion. Maybe we can just brand 'baby-killers' on their foreheads and let them go free > You do understand this will be a very frequently avoided, evaded, and > broken law? More importantly, it will lead to a sudden spike in back alley abortions and deaths/medical complications resulting from unhygienic conditions/minstrations of a quack. > How much jail time should the doctor(if it is indeed a medical > professional) get? And are there any acceptable exceptions? Like danger to the mother's health? For the doctor *is* bound to consider his patient's well-being first, and the unborn baby hasn't hired the doctor... Also, once, if, the abortion rates go down, who does what to ensure that the unwanted born babies are nurtured properly? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
JDG wrote: > What are you basing your view of "most peoples' usage" on? I would > love to see your evidence on this point. So far as I know, I am using > abortion in the standard sense of the killing of a unborn child. There is nothing standard about using the term 'abortion' to refer to 'killing an unborn child'. The standard defintion of abortion covers areas like 'termination of pregnancy', or 'the expulsion of a foetus' [hint: in the latter definition, do consider just where the foetus is supposed to be expelled from]. In fact, in all my 34 years, you are the first person I've ever come across who seems to think that clumps of cell on a petri dish can be aborted. I would like to see *your* evidence that this is a standard usage of the term. > Which brings me back to my question - what term would you have me use > for the killing of unborn unimplanted children? Discarding foetuses, or implants, works for me. And I must say that while I can easily think of implanted zygotes as children [especially when they are mine], it is too much of a stretch for me to consider unimplanted ones as kids. Might as well start feeling guilty about deforestation everytime I eat a sprout... Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie wrote: >>> A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly most >>> according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* and "die" in the >>> toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The wastage is naturally huge. >>> Clearly, until they're able to implant, they're disposable, >>> *biologically* speaking. >> >> Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical conculsion >> of what you are saying is that "if the infant mortality rate is >> high, then infanticide is morally acceptable." I hope that makes >> it clear. > > Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and individual. > A blastocyst is not. And besides, we are talking about a blastocyst in a petri dish/test tube whatever. JDG, do you also hold that all couples who undergo IVF, have a baby after the first implantation, and decide against further implants are guilty of 'killing children'? I am as big an opposer of female foeticide as anyone else [no one chooses to abort male foetuses in India]. But we are not talking about conceiving and nourishing a baby for a few months and then aborting them because they don't have a penis. Do I think it is advisable to tinker like this in cases other than medical emergencies? No. But neither do I think that there is any need or point in banning it. The technology exists. People who want it will get it. Especially if they are rich. Even if it is illegal. So might as well keep it legal and tax it high. It is a luxury medical service after all. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Culture (was Re: Xbox 360)
Jim Sharkey wrote: > >> _Consider Phlebas_ and _A Player of Games_ > >Cool. The next two (_Use Of Weapons_ and _Excession_) are great too. > > I've heard good and bad about UoW, that it's an aggravating book in > some ways. Excession I don't know much about at all. Hmm, _UoW_ is definitely worth a read. Even if you can see certain things before Banksie wants you to see them. It is also a rather dark book. _Excession_ ,otoh, was a book which made me laugh out loud many, many times. I think it just might be my favourite Culture novel. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
The earlier version sent itself a bit too early. Sorry. :) David Hobby wrote: > > Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the > > world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say > 'language' do you > > mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump > > their chests and ask for a separate nation? > > Just languages! I'd even call Hindi and Urdu one > language, if that helped. : ) *g* Depends on what you want to achieve really - it can certainly throw up a number of protests, marches, fiery speeches and the like. But we can always group Hindustani and its parent languages [Hindi and Urdu] together. :) > Well, the PEOPLE would decide, in my system. It would > just go to a popular vote. We can't trust politicians > to decide things like this... Nor can we trust them to sit by quietly while the people decide. They would out rousing the people, using any idea that let them stay in power longer, trying to create divisions. There usually is somebody who is willing to do that. And many who are willing to keep quiet while it is being done. > > I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not > > share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > > Ritu-- I was overstating things to get a reaction, I guess. Fair enough. :) > If a > whole bunch of really different regions want to be one country, fine. > On the other hand, what would be so wrong with them being many > different countries, bound together as the countries in the EU are? Administrational and developmental needs. When you are a new country, trying hard to catch up on the developmental front, you do not plan things according to regional sufficiency. Power plants, dams, railways networks, industrial production etc is all geared up on the basis of there being a single nation. The time and investment needed to make each region self-sufficient would be significant, and if, in the meantime any of the stronger/better placed regions decide to create some trouble [which is not so unlikely if it wants to be richer/more powerful], then the derailemt would be expensive. It seems like unnecessary chaos to me. I am more comfortable with the notion that if people want to get away that bad, then they should work hard for it. Not that let the divisions be, if the people want to get together later, they can always do that. > > And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in > distinct > > localities? > > Well, it's not. It's something you would create if > they demonstrated they can't share localities. According to me, this is the sticky bit. Unless there has been a relatively recent displacement of population, mixed ehtnicities sharing a locality have already demonstrated that they can share in peace. But once there is a suggestion that there might be a segregation, certain people emphasise the differences, whip up passions, and try to turn that suggestion into a reality. > >>Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > >>are, we get to negotiate their borders. > > > > Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? > > And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > > 'We' would include everybody involved. The group of > neighboring countries, together with the outside power > (hopefully the UN) who was trying to help produce a solution. > You didn't think this was going to happen without an outside > power intervening, did you? Oh no, I didn't. :) I think that it is usually the outsiders who think that a division is a good idea. > >>Some people > >>would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's homeland, one > >>could either move there, or stay where one was as a minority. > > > Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that > > choice in 1947. > > This might be a tangent, but here goes: The Hindus got > India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and what region did the Sikhs get? Sikhs, along with Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Chritians, Jews etc, got India. The demand was for a separate state for Muslims, and some of them got it and chose to move there. But more Muslims stayed in India than went to Pakistan, and there never was a demand for a separate homeland for Hindus. And neither was India ever meant for Hindus alone. > Now if one's property becomes worthless because the > government of one's country messes up, that's too bad, but it > would not be considered "actionable". (One could for > instance have removed assets from the country before the > one-year waiting period took effect.) But you don't need the government to me
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > > Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the > > world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say > 'language' do you > > mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump > > their chests and ask for a separate nation? > > Just languages! I'd even call Hindi and Urdu one > language, if that helped. : ) *g* Depends on what you want to achieve really - it can certainly throw up a number of protests, marches, fiery speeches and the like. But we can always group Hindustani and its parent languages [Hindi and Urdu] together. :) > >>Separate countries created this way could always decide to > >>merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. > > > > > > Yeah right. You create different states, make random > politicians heads > > of state instead of mere heads of provinces/areas, and you > expect them > > to give that up to merge...? > > Well, the PEOPLE would decide, in my system. It would > just go to a popular vote. We can't trust politicians > to decide things like this... > > >>Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not > >>clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to > >>keep them together. > > > > What is wrong with historic reasons? Why should they be considered > > obviously inferior to linguistic or ethnic reasons? > > "Historic reasons" was my euphemism for "somebody conquered > all these places, and decided to call it a country". If > history matters that much, the groups can always choose to > stay together. > > > I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not > > share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > > Ritu-- I was overstating things to get a reaction, I guess. > If a whole bunch of really different regions want to be one > country, fine. On the other hand, what would be so wrong > with them being many different countries, bound together as > the countries in the EU are? > > >>I do agree with you, the people involved should get to decide. I'm > >>not sure what the best mechanism for this would be. One > could start > >>by giving every linguistically (or however) distinct group its own > >>homeland, ideally a place where they made up most of the population. > >>(I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, > >>assuming they'd want a homeland.) > > > > Who will 'give' these homelands? > > I'm presuming that the groups would already be in > de facto possession of their "homelands". Having to > clear out the indigenous people to create a homeland > for others is not an ideal solution! (This could > now turn into an argument about Israel, but let's > refrain.) > > > And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in > distinct > > localities? > > Well, it's not. It's something you would create if > they demonstrated they can't share localities. But > just having a homeland might take some pressure off > of a group? > > >>Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > >>are, we get to negotiate their borders. > > > > Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? > > And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > > 'We' would include everybody involved. The group of > neighboring countries, together with the outside power > (hopefully the UN) who was trying to help produce a solution. > You didn't think this was going to happen without an outside > power intervening, did you? > > >>Some people > >>would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's homeland, one > >>could either move there, or stay where one was as a minority. > > > Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that > > choice in 1947. > > This might be a tangent, but here goes: The Hindus got > India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and what region did the Sikhs get? Sikhs, along with Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Chritians, Jews etc, got India. The demand was for a separate state for Muslims, and some of them got it and chose to move there. But more Muslims stayed in India than went to Pakistan, and there never was a demand for a separate homeland for Hindus. And neither was India ever meant for Hindus alone. > >>There would have to be some > >>carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being > >>oppressed. Certainly the
RE: Is it just me....
Rich wrote: > Rich, who would be interested in more detailed and accurate figures > than he could find in ten minutes of googling. Well, here is the page for the UN operations from 1995 to 2006: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/ And I reckon the UN does do more than 1% of the peacekeeping missions. The US contribution there [and I found roughly the same figures there that you mentioned] is slightly more than 0.5% in terms of troops*. The financial contribution is more [30% in the years before 2000, and 27% ever since]. However, the source says that the payments are 'massively in arrears'. Am not sure how much has actually been paid. But even if we assume that most of the payments have been made, it is still way less than 99.9%. Ritu * - The biggest contributors here are the countries from the developing world. The top twenty contributors are from Africa and Asia, and the first three places are taken by the three countries on the subcontinent [Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India, in that order]. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > > I'd even propose that partition into separate countries > should be the default for groups with separate languages. Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say 'language' do you mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump their chests and ask for a separate nation? > Separate countries created this way could always decide to > merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. Yeah right. You create different states, make random politicians heads of state instead of mere heads of provinces/areas, and you expect them to give that up to merge...? > Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not > clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to > keep them together. What is wrong with historic reasons? Why should they be considered obviously inferior to linguistic or ethnic reasons? I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > I do agree with you, the people involved should get to > decide. I'm not sure what the best mechanism for this > would be. One could start by giving every linguistically > (or however) distinct group its own homeland, ideally > a place where they made up most of the population. > (I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, > assuming they'd want a homeland.) Who will 'give' these homelands? And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in distinct localities? > Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > are, we get to negotiate their borders. Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > Some people > would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's > homeland, one could either move there, or stay where > one was as a minority. Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that choice in 1947. > There would have to be some > carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being > oppressed. Certainly they should always be able to get fair > compensation for property they leave behind, and to then go > to their homeland, or wherever. This is nice in theory but sometimes just doesn't work too well in practice. New nations are free to form their own constitutions, they are free to choose what rights they do or do not bestow upon their minorities. They are also free to choose just how often and how well these laws would be enforced. Property prices crash when the nation is in a turmoil due to a partition and relocation, government funds are tied up in protective and relief measures. New nations are also free to go to war with each other and then make it close to impossible for their new enemy's citizens to enter their nation. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > > And how do you propose that be done? From what I can make out, most > > Iraqis seem unhappy with the notion of a partition or two, and very > > few areas contain just one ethnic group. So any such > division is bound > > to involve uprooting and dislocation of a lot of people. Given the > > high emotional fallout of any such dislocation, and considering the > > somewhat stressful conditions the Iraqis have already been living > > under, I rate the chances of such an upheaval remaining largely > > peaceful as between nil and zilch. Besides, such partitions > not only > > give boost to sectarian violence, they are almost always > the cause of > > further unrest. > > Ritu-- > > I maintain that a peaceful partition is better than > a decade of civil war, followed by the same division. I am willing to concede the possibility that it might well be true, David. What I am questioning is the notion of carrying out a peaceful division in the current circumstances. > Yugoslavia, for instance, wound up partitioned. It's not > even clear to me that partitioning is bad per se. Most of the > problems seem to arise when various groups are arguing about > how a country should be partitioned. And various groups invariably argue about how a country should be partitioned. It, after all, is a matter of territory and resources, and therefore a matter of the power they can project later. > If one can broker a "fair" partition, it could all be > fairly painless. I also think that minority groups > could avoid persecution, IF it was clear to all involved > that they were a minority. There are many instances in > history where minorities have been tolerated, even by > societies that one would hesitate to call enlightened. Unless the constitution guarantees equal rights to the minorities, any such 'tolerance' is dependant upon the whims of the majority. And, in practice, it usually means that the minority gives up a large portion of its rights. > >>It would be best for the Iraqi people, > > > > I really don't agree. It would be a very messy situation > even with the > > best of planning and execution, and I doubt that either the > planning > > or the execution would be anything to write home about. > > Wait a minute, I wasn't thinking it would actually > happen in Iraq. Certainly not with the present group > of "planners" who are running the USA! So I was > imagining competent planning and execution, since > this was a thought experiment. *g* Ok > > Ritu > > GCU Partitions Are Bad, Mmm'kay > > ---David > > But sometimes better than the alternatives, Maru. I have been thinking about this, and have realised that I'd have less of a problem with a Partition if the people involved decide they want one - after trying to find a way to run their country without partitioning it. What I seem to be strongly opposed to is the notion of some outsider deciding that partition might be the best simply because they can't control what is happening on the ground and aren't invested in the country enough to want to figure out a solution. I wonder where I got that from... ;) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > Personally, I think the best solution is to help Iraq turn > into three separate countries in a peaceful manner. > (One each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.) And how do you propose that be done? From what I can make out, most Iraqis seem unhappy with the notion of a partition or two, and very few areas contain just one ethnic group. So any such division is bound to involve uprooting and dislocation of a lot of people. Given the high emotional fallout of any such dislocation, and considering the somewhat stressful conditions the Iraqis have already been living under, I rate the chances of such an upheaval remaining largely peaceful as between nil and zilch. Besides, such partitions not only give boost to sectarian violence, they are almost always the cause of further unrest. > It would be best for the Iraqi people, I really don't agree. It would be a very messy situation even with the best of planning and execution, and I doubt that either the planning or the execution would be anything to write home about. Ritu GCU Partitions Are Bad, Mmm'kay ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Olympos...
Doug Pensinger asked > ...anyone else read it yet? Finished it last September. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Hello...
Charlie wrote: > Weirdest thing. Woke up by the side of the road somewhere, > and it was > 2006... This Monday I received a huge shock. Tuesday there was another shock lying in wait for me. By Tuesday evening I was hoping that the Universe pays attention to someone else for a few more days. Wednesday morning I saw your mail here and thoght, "I am delusional..." ;) Ritu GCU Are you on ICQ these days? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A very sensible idea
David Land wrote: > I wonder which "state" will receive the most attention on Tuesday > evening. The one whose population almost elected him once and > barely did > a second time, or the one that he invaded without provocation? > > I'm not taking any bets, because I'm fairly certain it's the latter. This makes me wonder who would be paying more attention to his words - the citizens of his own country, or those of the country he invaded? Ritu, who still bemused by Bush's claim that Iranians have said they want nukes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
