Re: Iraq

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The single most effective thing we can do to reduce the threat of
terrorism is to leave
> Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations. We can't change our energy
requirements overnight,
> but the energy policy of the Bush administration has led us in exactly
the opposite direction
> that we need to go. We either start finding alternatives and promote
conservation now
> or we face a tremendous shock some time in the future when prices
skyrocket.


Its my understanding that Bush has actually rather aggressively
supported research into alternative energy.


> >> What's yours stay the course?
>
> > Ah, the classic partisan buzz phrase.
>
> Pardon me? Wasn't that _the_ administration policy up until about a
month and a half ago?

"Month and a half ago" being the operative words. You accused me of
proposing an already-abandoned policy...   and I'm sure you recognize
the partisan overtones to that.


> > Anyhow, I'd discuss my policy,
> > but I haven't been elected President of the United States, so why
should
> > I?
>
> Quite the cop out considering you're the one who originally asked the
question, but I can
> understand your reluctance to reply here where anything you propose is
likely subject to
> attack from several directions.
>
> Of course that's the case just about anywhere you go these days, isn't
it.


It was also a friendly dig at a fellow list-member.

I won't pretend that I have the answers to Iraq - if I did, I suppose
that I probably wouldn't be here.

In general, though, I see two broad policy options in regards to Iraq.
On one hand, there is a set proposals of the variety that if we were to
just leave Iraq, the ensuing vacuum would just simply force the Iraqis
to sort out their problems, because America (et al.)  wouldn't be around
to bail them out any more.On the other hand, there is a set of
proposals of the variety that Coalition forces can play a positive role
in controlling sectarian violence.

In general, while I find the first set of proposals tempting, I find
them to also be ultimately unconvincing.I just don't think that
there is much support for the notion that a security vacuum would force
Iraqis to sort things out.   I also look at what happened in "vacuum"
situations in places like Somalia, Congo, etc. and think that
disintegration could be a very real possibility.There is also the
specter of the substantial evidence that Osama bin Laden was greatly
emboldened by our loss of will and withdrawal from Somalia, and that
similarly withdrawing in disagrace from a disintegrating Iraq would have
an even greater effect.

I also think that there is substantial evidence that Coalition forces
can play a positive role.  There have been many reports that the
deployment of Coalition forces to an area reduces sectarian violence in
that area.   The overwhelming problem seems to be that nearly four years
later, we're still trying to do this thing on the cheap, and we just
don't have enough troops.

So, what sort of policy options does that lend us to?

In the short term, there may perhaps be some beneficial changes in
tactics that could be effected - such as perhaps greater integration of
Coalition and Iraq forces.

In the medium term, I think that we should be increasing the pay of our
soldiers substantially in order to boost recruitment, certainly I think
that soldiers' pay should be growing at a faster rate than pay for other
federal employees not in danger zones. I also would consider looking
at perhaps seeing what forces could perhaps be raised by substantially
underwriting some kind of UN, African Union, or League of Arab States
peacekeeping force.Lastly, I would also be reminding, at every
opportunity, that while not all of our Allies may have wanted to get
into Iraq, they do all stand to lose almost as much as we do if the
Iraqi enterprise were to fail

I can't say that these are answers to our problems, but I think that
they are starts


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.


Well, neither "The Middle East" nor the "Indian Subcontinent" is a
country.Does "The Middle East" refer to Israel?  Jordan? and Turkey?
or how 'bouts Syria? Iraq? or Iran?

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Afghanistan Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Much of the world simply isn't able to provide soldiers as most
> >> 1st world countries have been cutting back to basically a defence
> >> force, and there have been enough "friendly fire" incidents in
> >> joint task forces in the past to make military forces wary of
> >> combining troops.
> >
> > Many other countries provided soldiers, ships and aircraft,
> > including a substantial contingent from the constantly maligned
> > France:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> > 2001_war_in_Afghanistan#Nature_of_the_coalition
>
> Yep. I note ISAF still has troops from 34 countries.
>



Unfortunately, there is every indication that the force is too small to
accomplish the job - there remains too few troops, and of the troops
that are there, too few of them are willing to work in the toughest/most
violent areas.

Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for the contributions that have been
provided - but unfortunately, given the nature of the task facing
Western Civilization, far more is required, and even the US is not fully
stepping up to the plate in that regard, let alone the rest of the
world




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the
> > deaths currently occuring in Iraq.
>
> Cite, please.
>
> I don't recall anybody making any such argument.
>
> Nick


Ok



11/22 at 12:37am according to Yahoo!

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.



JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Afghanistan Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The world was with you on Afghanistan. You should have finished the
> job properly.

Sorry, Charlie, but the world was *not* with us on Afghanistan.Oh
sure, they were there in word - but the world was painfully short of the
support that really matters boots on the ground.

There's a NATO summit going on right abouts now, and I can only hope
that one of the agenda items is why the world's greatest military
alliance is running into so much trouble in Afghanistan.

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- 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


> 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?   Oh nevermind

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.

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...

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.

OK, and what countries exactly rated higher than the United States on
this List?

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There's no question that we are walking
> > right up to the line, and a decently strong case that we are
crossing
> > that line, but I'm not sure that any previous generation has
> > hestitated
> > to walk right up to the line and occasionally cross it in times of
> > threat either.
>
> So people were wrong before, and that justifies being wrong now? And
> you wonder why we're looking on in horror from elsewhere in the world.


You are jumping into the middle of the conversation and drawing
completely the wrong conclusions.

At no point have I argued that torture was justified, nor have I even so
much as argued that the Bush Administration's policies in regards to
treatment of prisoners was justified.

The subject of conversation was someone making the case that Americans
were reacting to the current threat in a way that was more panicked,
more fear-stricken, and less noble than the way Americans had reacted to
threats in the past.   I'm simply pointing out that that is a very tough
case to make given some of America's reactions to past threats.


JDG - Who has never imagined that he could take  so much grief for
criticizing the United States on this List


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Energy Independence Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So, either your
> > proposing tripling the price of oil in this country, or you are
> > proposing a policy with about as much near-term relevance for energy
> > independence as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
>
> I remember near term energy independence being a policy of Nixon and
Ford
> and Carter. :-) It's not really achievable. So, it seems reasonable to
> decrease our dependency now, by raising fuel taxes by, say, $0.50 gal
per
> year for the next 10 years, or some similar means.


Adding $5 to the price of each gallon of gas over the next 10 years?
Its totally impractical, of course, and would probably seriously
increase poverty in the United States and dramatically lower our
standard of living even if it were possible, but that is about what it
would take.

Many people are noticing the increased use of "alternative energy", and
are incorrectly concluding that we are "closer" to energy independence
than ever.   Unfortunately, I don't think that is the case.

For example, to consider  why eight years ago, the nominal national
average price of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1, and today
it is $2.23, and just four months ago it was $2.98.   For the most part,
the price of gas has double/tripled because there is more demand for
gasoline than supply at the cost of production, and therfore in a free
market, those demanding the gasoline bid up the price until enough
people drop out and the market clears.   Those dropping out of the
market are turning to alternative fuels and/or choosing to not engage in
consumption (e.g., forgoing a trip.)

Thus, I would venture that most of the increased use of alternative
energies (and alternative energy remains a tiny slice of overall
consumption), is simply serving to reduce the demand for fossil fuels.
This reduced demand would then feed primarily into lower prices, with
little effect on overall consumption.

As another example, there is the famous quote from a former
Secretary-General of OPEC that "the stone age didn't end because the
world ran out of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world
runs out of oil."When the oil age does end, however, I'd be willing
to bet that the very last barrels of oil will probably come out of Saudi
Arabia - since that's where the cheapest oil in the world comes from.

Thus, any drive for "energy independence" is even less likely to cause
the US to withdraw from the Middle East because as the price of oil is
bid down through lack of demand, the first production to be displaced
would likely be high-cost US production, and the very last bits oil
production to be displaced will be all that cheap, sweet, Middle Eastern
crude.   And unfortunately, "alternative energy" sources are a very,
very, long ways from being able to compete with the costs of Middle
Eastern oil production on a free market.

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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, 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.

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.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...

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I like to delude myself that I'm in the same generation as you, so
> it's not generational arrogance on my part. Since I became an
> official adult in 1992, the major crises have the wars in the
> Balkans, the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, the terrorist attacks of
> 11/9, and the continued proliferation of nuclear, biological and
> chemical weapons (you may add to this list as you wish; certainly
> some natural disasters belong on there too). The responses to all of
> these seem to me to be inadequate to disastrous.

Of course, the rest of the world had a great opportunity to demonstrate
that they had changed their policy for dealing with genocidal regimes
when it came to dealing with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and sadly,
significant portions of the rest of the world badly flunked that test.

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. :)

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   but I'd be curious
to see the methodology first.It probably was just an ill-designed
survey


JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell charlie@ wrote:
> >> And so there are some f*ckers out there who have been responsible
for
> >> acts of terror causing the deaths of a few hundred people worldwide
> >> on top of the WTC attacks.
> >
> > I was going to write a long, impassioned response here, and then I
> > realized - you guys really don't believe that one can measure a
threat
> > based upon the number of people that that threat succeeds in
killing.
>
> Actually, I do. And compared to just about any other cause of death
> you can think of, terrorism is way way down the list. Like I've said,
> the response is disproportionate to the risk.

So, using this logic, because death from a bombing on an air craft is a
statistically super-unlikely event, you would no doubt recommend
removing *all* metal detectors and screeenings from airports, because
the costs of these measures do not outweight the costs of the deaths
prevented.

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry, but does anyone remember the red scare, McCarthyism, the
> > missile gap, air raid drills in schools, backyard nuclear shelters,
> > the Sputnik gap, "We Will Bury You", the domino theory, managed
> > decline, etc.?
>
> Yet throughout that period human rights advanced, transparency
> improved and the power of the executive declined.


Which period is that?The "red scare" goes back before World War II,
and I don't know anyone who would argue that the power of the executive
declined under FDR.I also have a hard time arguing that the power of
the executive declined under Kennedy/LBJ for that matter.

As for human rights, how about Japanese internment, the Tuskegee
Experiment, etc.


> > And I might point out that while some Muslim clerics may have been
> > unfairly denied boarding onto a flight yesterday, we haven't exactly
> > evicted all Muslims from their homes and sent them to concentration
> > camps either. Yes, but it is *our* generation that is "driven
> > almost insane."
>
> It is our generation that has sanctioned torture, a practice we would
> have attributed to insanity in the past. I for one am deeply ashamed.


This is where language can be imprecise.   Torture can mean a number of
things, such as cutting off digits.   We're not sanctioning that.We
are sanctioning certain practices, which many reasonable people consider
to be torture - but which does not seem to be universally recognized as
torture.

But again, doesn't our generation look back on Japanese internment and
attribute *that* to insanity? Don't many people in our generation
also look back on the fire-bombing of Dresden, Sherman's March to the
Sea, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, chlorine gas use in
World War I, and even the whole Spanish-American War and attribute
*those* to insanity as well? There's no question that we are walking
right up to the line, and a decently strong case that we are crossing
that line, but I'm not sure that any previous generation has hestitated
to walk right up to the line and occasionally cross it in times of
threat either.

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to support
the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> When it becomes plain that the whole idea of terror is to scare
> >> someone, then a look at our *rhetorical* reactions shows that we
are
> >> not stiffening our spines and holding our jaws up sufficiently.
> >
> > And what happens when the whole idea of terror is to kill as many
> > people
> > as possible?
> >
>
> But it isn't. The whole idea of terror is to get you to take away
> your own freedoms by fear. It's not about killing as many as
> possible, it's about killing spectacularly and violently and most
> importantly, randomly.


You nicely snipped the second question, Charlie.

But it sounds to me like you are answering "Lack of Will".


JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, if I understand you correctly, your favored strategy in dealing
> > with Al Qaeda would be to:
> >
> > -Withdraw immediately from Iraq
>
> I'd give it six months, withdrawing gradually.


And would you still blame us for the number of people that would
continue to die?


> > -Cease all aid to Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
> Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf States
>
> No. I would continue aid where it is needed (does S.A. really get
> aid? Why?) especially in Iraq where we're responsible for the
> destruction of their infrastructure and the chaos that reigns there.


Take a look at the recent list of Al Qaeda attacks - there's a start.


I don't think that we're writing checks to the Saudi government, but I
do believe that we provide military assistance.   This assistance
obviously goes back to the first Gulf War, and is related to the fact
that it is Saudi supplies of oil that are keeping the world price at the
60-or-so dollar level that they are at right now.


> > -Discontinue all pushes for UN oversight of Iran's nuclear program
>
> I don't believe it is possible to stop Iran from getting nuclear
> weapons and that we should deal with that inevitability. What are we
> going to do to stop them, John? Sanctions? Yea, that'll work. We
> have to work with the assumption that governments we don't like are
> going to arm themselves with these things and find a way to deal with
> that threat.


Sounds like "managed decline" to me


> > -Impose a tariff on oil imports such that the price of oil
> > consumption exceeds to price of renewable energies produced in the
> > US
>
> I would raise energy taxes and use the revenue to fund alternatives.
> I don't propose tripling the prices overnight. For one thing, people
> wouldn't stand for it, but we're going to have to find alternatives
> eventually, why not start now? Why continue to fund the fundies and
> the terrorists?


Well, the threat of terrorism is present today.   So, either your
proposing tripling the price of oil in this country, or you are
proposing a policy with about as much near-term relevance for energy
independence as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.   In
this case, it appears that you are proposing a policy that might bear
fruit in decades, and engging in partisan bashing of the people who have
an electoral responsibility to also look at policy options that are
effective for the present.


> > Do I have your policy correct?
>
> No. More like a caricature of my policy.
>
> What's yours stay the course?



Ah, the classic partisan buzz phrase. Anyhow, I'd discuss my policy,
but I haven't been elected President of the United States, so why should
I?;-)

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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...

Not at all Rich could be a teenager from Switzerland for all I
care...I wasn't making an "ad hominem" attack against his age, I
responding to the substance of his comments.   And the substance of his
comments were that previous American generations dealt with their
problems better/nobler/more courageously, etc. than the current
generation.

To quote Dr. Brin, "Feh."

JDG - "We Didn't Start the Fire, Maru"


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I think it is likely you missed a few.
> But even including a lot extra just for overkill, how many does that
> add up to?
> Compared to 300,000,000 Americans and 6,000,000,000 people worldwide.
> Looking at the numbers it *is* just an ant bite.

and

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ,
"pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia. etc.
>
> And how does that 13+ years of attacks compare to just the last month
> in Iraq?

and

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And so there are some f*ckers out there who have been responsible for
> acts of terror causing the deaths of a few hundred people worldwide
> on top of the WTC attacks.

I was going to write a long, impassioned response here, and then I
realized - you guys really don't believe that one can measure a threat
based upon the number of people that that threat succeeds in killing.

After all, I am sure that you all wouldn't intentionally make yourselves
sound like a Karl Rove caricature of Democrats, right?

Right?

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Iran Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

In any event, Iran still doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, has
previously tried to hold the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf
hostage, regularly leads rallies chanting "Death to America", and on top
of all that, would have questionable institutional control over any
nuclear bombs that it would produce.

Other than that, though, I'm not worried.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> When it becomes plain that the whole idea of terror is to scare
> someone, then a look at our *rhetorical* reactions shows that we are
> not stiffening our spines and holding our jaws up sufficiently.

And what happens when the whole idea of terror is to kill as many people
as possible?

In other words, in your mind, is the reason that no American city is
currently a smoldering radioactive heap:

  a) A lack of will on the part of Al Qaeda, or

  b) A lack of means on the part of Al Qaeda ?



JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm all for bombing the crap out of bad guys and killers, and
showing
> > fools just exactly what they are.
> > It is kinda hard to do that when you cower in fear and/or harbor
> > illusions about what it is you fear.
> > But that is the entire point of Terrorism is it not?
>
> It is rather strange to see a country that not so long ago faced with
> an iron will ten thousand nuclear warheads ready to vaporise its
> cities and dozens of armoured divisions ready to pour across the
> borders of its allies, that controls the seas with its carrier battle
> groups and the skies with its thousands of combat aircraft suddenly
> driven almost insane with terror by a few hijacked airliners.
>
> 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.

Sorry, but does anyone remember the red scare, McCarthyism, the missile
gap, air raid drills in schools, backyard nuclear shelters, the Sputnik
gap, "We Will Bury You", the domino theory, managed decline, etc.?


And I might point out that while some Muslim clerics may have been
unfairly denied boarding onto a flight yesterday, we haven't exactly
evicted all Muslims from their homes and sent them to concentration
camps either.   Yes, but it is *our* generation that is "driven almost
insane."


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Whereas some of us see that as a subset of the threat posed by
> > militant Islamic extremists in general. And while AQ staged the
> > most successful attack on US soil in Sep 2001, the threat is
> > worldwide.
>
> And still others of us see that if we worked towards energy
> independance and got the hell out of the middle east (and quit
> subsidising and cozying up to their despots and fanatics) they'd
> loose both the desire and (eventually) the means to f*uck with us.


So, if I understand you correctly, your favored strategy in dealing with
Al Qaeda would be to:

  -Withdraw immediately from Iraq

  -Cease all aid to Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and the Persian Gulf States

-Discontinue all pushes for UN oversight of Iran's nuclear program

  -Impose a tariff on oil imports such that the price of oil consumption
exceeds to price of renewable energies produced in the US

Do I have your policy correct?

Thanks.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1993 (Oct.): Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia.  etc.
>
> 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?   And how many
Iraqis did Iraqis kill?

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Heroes mid-season climax tonight

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Actually the series works like this:
> The season is sectioned into 3 "pods".
> The first pod, Episodes 1 through 11 are one story. Episodes 12
> through 18 tell another section of the story. Finally Episodes 19
> through 23 will be a roller coaster wrapping up the first season.
> Tonights episode is the high point of pod 1, but not the finale.


I wonder how they are going to make a second season out of this whole
thing


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is something I and others were saying in late 2001/early 2002.
> The panic from the world's most powerful people was baffling. It was
> like watching a giant weightlifter get bitten by a tiny ant and
> acting as if a shark had taken his leg. Yes, it was a spectacular and
> horrific attack with a terrible loss of life. But it was the
> indignity of the response that disappointed.

"Panic"

Yup.That sums up the reaction here, allright.


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: More on "How left/right is your congress-critter"

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Offered without much study, because it is 4AM and I'm only awake
> because something at work is going rather badly, but while waiting
> for something to deploy, I found this:
>
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/spectrum.xpd
>
> Which, like the post last week, purports to show how liberal
> or conservative are various members of Congress.
>
> This one still shows a great deal of division, but more overlap
> in the middle, especially by Republicans in the Senate, Almost
> no Democrats are shown to be much right of center, while a
> handful of Republicans are shown in the middle of "Democratic"
> territory.
>
> Interesting. He links to Poole as someone who "know[s] a lot more
> about this than [he does]".

I'm still shocked that people really had such a hard time believing that
partisan divisions might actually mean something...  particular in the
current day and age.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Why junk email will NEVER go away.

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Gary Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last April, I created an email address to use for my mom at H & R
Block. I
> only used that address for that one specific reason. I never posted it
or
> used it for ANYTHING else. Since April, that email address has
received
> just under 3000 pieces of spam.

Isn't it also possible that a bulk program sending e-mail to random
combinations of characters also hit you?

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bad intelligence

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If you ask a question that has a LITERAL meaning that you didn't
> > intend,
> >> someone here WILL take it literally and call you on it, one way or
> > another.
> >
> >
> > If only I believed that were true. Based on Nick's reaction, its my
> > guess that he would respond "but I don't know the President, and
he's
> > never going to ask anyone for advice, least of all me"
> >
> > I guess that some people would just much rather get in their
partisan
> > digs than have a serious discussion *shrug*
>
> Well, give it a try. Before you hit "send", look over the message and
> ask yourself, "What am I REALLY asking, and does this ask something
else
> that can be used to weasel out of my intended question?" If you start
> asking questions that can't be taken more than one way, then you might
> actually get the sort of answers you're looking for.
>
> (And if you want a check on anything before sending it to the list,
I'm
> willing to look things over and point out potential flaws that you can
> correct before things are sent out to the world at large. I'm sure
> there are a couple of other people here willing to do the same thing
--
> Dan M. would be very good at it, if he were interested, just frex.)


Thanks for the suggestion, but I have so many other things that I can do
with my time, that trying to write a post that is literalist-proof ranks
pretty low on that list these days.


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bad intelligence

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" narnett@ wrote:
>  You didn't ask what George Bush would do if he were president,
> > which
>  would
>  be silly, since he is. You asked what *I* would do. I haven't
been
>  elected, so I'd resign.
> >>
> >> Do you really not understand that I simply don't want to play the
game
> > of
> >> "What would I do if I were president?"
> >
> > Yes, I understand that you have absolutely no interest in being
> > constructive on a difficult issue like Iraq. Rather, you are much
more
> > comfortable just engaging in partisan criticism, without having to
offer
> > any constructive suggestions for what an approrpriate Iraq
> > policy/strategy would be.
>
> If you'd just started with a "If the President asked you for advice
> about Iraq, what would you say" instead of asking a question that
could,
> on the face of it, be taken as hypothesizing a situation that just was
> NOT going to happen, you might have gotten the sort of answer you were
> looking for the first time around.
>
> If you ask a question that has a LITERAL meaning that you didn't
intend,
> someone here WILL take it literally and call you on it, one way or
another.


If only I believed that were true.   Based on Nick's reaction, its my
guess that he would respond "but I don't know the President, and he's
never going to ask anyone for advice, least of all me"

I guess that some people would just much rather get in their partisan
digs than have a serious discussion  *shrug*

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Polygamy in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare,
> but they do exist in "the West", and in other parts of the world
> they're more common.

We do have quite a few of them in this country, and unfortunately, all
too often they involve they exploitation of women

>I still
> don't see how allowing a tiny minority of people to formalise an
> unusual domestic relationship makes for a "dramatic reordering" of
> anything.

Its because people respond to incentives, and if you provide incentives
for something, then you will get more of it.


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell  wrote:
> >> The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
> >> marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
> >> Provided
> >> people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted,
> >> fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else.
> >
> >
> > Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless,
> > talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal
> > structure.
>
> What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ?
> partner's
> relationship is recognised too.

You were just advocating marriages between three or more people

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bad intelligence

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >You didn't ask what George Bush would do if he were president,
which
> >>  would
> > > be silly, since he is. You asked what *I* would do. I haven't been
> > > elected, so I'd resign.
>
>
> Do you really not understand that I simply don't want to play the game
of
> "What would I do if I were president?"

Yes, I understand that you have absolutely no interest in being
constructive on a difficult issue like Iraq.   Rather, you are much more
comfortable just engaging in partisan criticism, without having to offer
any constructive suggestions for what an approrpriate Iraq
policy/strategy would be.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bad intelligence

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert G. Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Many of the new democrats elected are significantly more conservative
> than the democrats of old and it seems clear to me that people like

Is this really true?   One of the biggest upsets of Tuesday night was in
New Hampshire, where a very liberal anti-war activist won the seat.
Mike DeWine was defeated in Ohio by Sherrod Brown, a virulent
anti-free-trader.

I'm not sure yet how the new Democrats will really look like, especially
since most of them were elected from the liberal northeast.



> The popularity of Obama now seems like a harbinger and less of a
> "bubble phenomena" as has been posited here.


Isn't Obama actually one of the more liberal members of the Senate?

This ranking actually has him to the left of Hillary, Kerry and
Feinstein!
  http://voteview.com/sen109.htm 

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
> marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug* Provided
> people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted,
> fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else.


Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless,
talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal structure.   I
don't know what "provisions" those are that you are talking about, but
you are basically suggesting a social experiment on a grand scale with
children as the little white laboratory mice.



As I see it, the State provided incentives to marriages (unions of one
man and one women) because such relationships were fertile, and provided
the best structure for the raising of the next generation.   Now,
pedantic types will point out that the State also provided the
incentives of marriage to elderly and infertile couples, but prior to
modern times, the number of such marriages was small (one rarely if ever
knew if a couple would be infertile beforehand, and there were much
fewer elderly remarriages), and in any case, such marriages didn't alter
the basic societal structure.  In other words, such marriages are
historical artifacts, rather than the result of any conscious intent.





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bad intelligence

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I think the kind of political discussions such as the
>  ones we have here are also a healthy sign.


You mean like the discussion that produced this exchange?

>>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?

[snip]


>You didn't ask what George Bush would do if he were president, which
would
> be silly, since he is. You asked what *I* would do. I haven't been
> elected, so I'd resign.

"Partnership, not Partisanship", Maru...



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Or is it moral, just
> >> and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their
sexual
> >> orientation?
> >
> > Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and
is
> > free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
>
> They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're
> being treated differently.

But that's only for a definition of marriage as a "partnership between
any two people", that's not true for a definition of marriage as "a
partnership between a man and a woman", or even as "a partnership
between three people."

> You're also being obtuse. I have attempted
> to have a wider discussion on gay marriage, and you're keeping it in
> the narrowest scope, that of this particular ruling and state. Fair
> enough, you don't want that wider discussion.


First, in fairness, I find you to be equally obtuse on this issue.   For
example, when you write:

> Which you've said before, and I agreed that judicial activism is a
> bad thing. But the "liberal vs conservative" thing is a waste of
> time, John. The world doesn't divide that way in real life, because
> some conservatives want judicial activism too (witness the post-Dover
> furore where a conservative judge who showed due process was accused
> of judicial activism by people who wanted him to be an activist
> judge... *brain explodes*), and liberals who respect the role of the
> courts and the role of the legislature in making law. Your paragraph
> would have had exactly the same sense if you'd substituted "liberals"
> and "conservatives" for "people", because there are a range of views
> across the US political spectrum.

it seems clear to me that you are wasting my time.   Of course there
is diversity within Party Labels and Ideological Labels, but these
labels nevertheless represent broad generalities about those groups that
are useful.   When people start arguing about not using labels to
discuss the views of broad groups of people, I generally get the sense
that they are not being serious about the discussion.


Secondly, I've said twice now that I support civil unions.   I don't
know what more you want.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Those who can't, teach

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, Nick, in your mind is it democratic to get elected after
counting
> > ballots in predominantly Democratic areas one way and counting
ballots
> > in predominantly Republican areas another way?
> >
> > Moreover, Nick, do you consider the winner of an election
"appointed"
> > after a candidate has won every, single, official count of the
ballots
> > that was made? And when that same candidate was found by a media
> > consortium to have been the eventual winner of the recount that was
> > halted by the Courts?
> >
> > Nick, you have often accused our President of being deluded. You
have
> > just demonstrated, however, that you are as deluded as anyone in
this
> > country - unable to reconcile the reality of the 2000 elections with
> > your own worldview.
>
>
> What the heck are you jabbering on about?

I am jabbering about the fact that you are repeating a lie - that the
President was "appointed" rather than elected in 2000 - so often as to
actually start to believe that it is true.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
> > judicial activism and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
> > The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be
driven
> > by whether or not something is a good idea. The latter insist that
> > the Courts should stick to interpreting the law; recognizing that
> > the law may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad
> > idea; but that under our system of government, the writing of laws
> > is reserved for the legislative branch of government.
> >
> >From what you say, I take that if, somehow, science proves without
> any doubt that human life - soul - sentience - whatever begins
> before, say, 6 months, then the courts should *not* immediately
> outlaw any abortion of 6-month-old fetuses, but wait for the congress
> to outlaw it?


It is my position that the USSC should overturn Roe v. Wade, and leave
the issue to Congress or to the several States, respectively.

In the unique thought experiment you provide, the plain text of the 14th
Amendment would apply:

  "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Judicial Activism

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a few initial questions that I have. First, are you arguing
for
> original intent, or do you accept judicial history as law? For
example, do
> you think the Supreme Court is legally obliged to overturn 140 or so
years
> of precedent and restrict the power balance between the states and the
> federal government to what it was before 1860? Or, do you accept the
last
> 140 years of rulings as part of the law which the Court needs to
consider?


I certainly believe that there is a role for stare decisis.For
example, one of my main disagreements with the Massachusetts Supreme
Court ruling that instituted gay marriage in that State is that the
ruling, which made a dramatic reinterpretation of the Constitution, did
not provide the people of the State with the remedy option of amending
the State Constitution to more explicitly state that in the process of
adopting their State Constitution that the people of Massachusetts had
not intended to institute gay marriages.   Instead, the Massachusetts
Supreme Court required institution of gay marriages sooner than the
minimum timeline permitted to amend the Constitution.

There is certainly a bit of a judgment call when dealing with bad
precedent as to how best to overturn it. For instance, the same
people who love stare decisis when it comes to Roe v. Wade, wouldn't
dream of deferring to precedent in Pessy v. Ferguson or in Korematsu...


> I know that you think the end of segregation was a good idea. But, do
you
> think that the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling was judicial
activism? Do
> you think that Jim Crow laws, although morally repugnant, were
> constitutional?

My general inclination is that there seems to be very reasonable ground
based on the *plain meaning* of the text to rule such laws
unconstitutional.   I don't know what precedents there were in cases
involving Jim Crow laws after the passage of the 14th amendment, but I
think that a case of plain meaning would certainly be grounds for going
against stare decisis.

Such grounds do not exist in the New Jersey case, where the NJSC had to
find a right to "equal protection" that does not exist in the New Jersey
State Constitution, and then had to extend that right to sexual
orientation, and then had to conclude that not establishing a
streamlined civil union law violated those rights. I personally
support civil unions, but this was absolutely the wrong way to go about
establishing them.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dan wrote:
>
> > I think his point is that the principal of rule by law indicates
that
> > sometimes we must accept laws that are immoral, unjust, or bad
ideas.
>
> Yes, I misread the post, sorry.

First, thank you to Dan for explaining my point with a "quote" from one
of my personal heroes



>Of course I couldn't disagree more.
> What is the use of a constitution whose tenets are ignored or a court
> that is nothing but a rubber stamp?
>
> As far as the quote goes, I'm not sure it's applicable. No one is
> proposing "cutting down" the laws, what is proposed is that they be
> revised or replaced with better ones.

I'd argue that it is still rather similar.   The net effect of the NJSC
ruling is to twist the highest law, the Constitution, so completely
around itself as to be unrecognizable.If one can generate that NJSC
ruling out of the law, then I'd argue that it becomes possible to
generate almost any possible ruling out of the law - at which point, the
law has ceased to exist as a meaningful institution, and all you are
left with is the will of the Court

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > recognizing that the law
> > may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea
>
> So we agree then that the NJ ruling was legit?

No.

> Or is it moral, just
> and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
> orientation?

Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation

JDG


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay marriage in the closet

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
> previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
> argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.

Except that the previous thread didn't discuss that question at all.


The question was not whether legalized gay marriages were a good idea,
the question was whether legalized gay marriages should be imposed by
the courts.

This is the single-biggest difference between liberals who advocate
judicial activism  and conservatives who advocate judicial restraint.
The former seem to take the position that Court decisions can be driven
by whether or not something is a good idea.   The latter insist that the
Courts should stick to interpreting the law; recognizing that the law
may occasionally be immoral, unjust, or just plain a bad idea; but that
under our system of government, the writing of laws is reserved for the
legislative branch of government.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Heroes Spoilers as of 11/5

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert G. Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> WARNING***SPOILERS
>
> (And not necessarily all that accurate - rob)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Claire's dad isn't the bad guy, here, though he was set up as such.
> Not saying he's nice, either, but he's not hellbent on destruction of
> the heroes, he really does love Claire, and he's not the reason New
> York becomes a crater in five weeks (if Hiro's vision comes to pass).
> Think Stryker from The X-Men here. He doesn't always do nice things,
> but he isn't doing it to hurt people, least of all Claire.


It has occurred to me that he doesn't appear to be a nuclear bomber, but
I don't buy (yet) that he's not a bad guy. Whatever his motivations
are (which have been inscrutable at best so far), he's used some very
questionable means, including:

  -kidnapping/abduction (definitely in the case of the police officer,
and IIRC, he was somehow also involved in the abduction of Candidate
Petrelli as well, right?)

  -assault (mental assault, but still assault) by way of his henchman
(and it remains to be seen as to how/why he has control over the
henchman) on both his abduction victim, and (possibly out of pure
revenge) on the high school quarterback

  -deceit not just telling his daughter that her birth parents were
unlocatable, but hiring two people to act as her birthparents



I can see how things are being set up to make us think that the tag line
of "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World" somehow implies saving her
from her foster Dad, and I suspect that that is not quite right...  but
I'm not sure it changes the fact that her Dad is still very much an
"ends justifies the means" kind of guy, and those guys are rarely held
up as being the "good guys."

I also speculate that somehow Claire was genetically engineered, and her
Dad is involved in it somehow  but that's pure speculation


> We will see Future!Hiro as an intermittent recurring character, though
> his actual existence is in the "distant future" (whatever that means).

I can't imagine that Hiro's appearance  would have  been a one-time
event  it was way too cool for that.

One thing we also learned last week is that even though the show is
periodically cutting between different characters, the various
storylines are not necessarily occurring in parallel.   There were
several cuts between Nikki in the middle of the night in Las Vegas and
Clair in dayling in Odessa.  Of course, that may just be a writing
flaw but if Alberto was watching this show from Brazil, I'm sure
that he'd try and resolve it

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Week 9 NFL Picks

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's got a long way to go to prove that to me. You can put up gaudy
> numbers and win a lot of regular season games (Dan Marino and the
> young John Elway) but you don't achieve greatness in football in the
> regular season. Montana, the mature Elway and Brady are head and
> shoulders above Manning by that measure.

So, in other words, you judge QB's in part by factors that are
completely outside their control?



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Those who can't, teach

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/2/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?
>
>
> Resign, since it is undemocratic to be appointed or made president by
magic,
> hacking voting machines or whatever you have in mind. I'm just a voter
and
> citizen.


Oh gosh, no we're in aliens built the pyramids territory

So, Nick, in your mind is it democratic to get elected after counting
ballots in predominantly Democratic areas one way and counting ballots
in predominantly Republican areas another way?

Moreover, Nick, do you consider the winner of an election "appointed"
after a candidate has won every, single, official count of the ballots
that was made?   And when that same candidate was found by a media
consortium to have been the eventual winner of the recount that was
halted by the Courts?

Nick, you have often accused our President of being deluded.   You have
just demonstrated, however, that you are as deluded as anyone in this
country - unable to reconcile the reality of the 2000 elections with
your own worldview.


> When dealing with failure and loss, the healthy response is to change
the
> way you think, not to merely change tactics.

If changing the way you think means taking the easy way out, and leaving
tens of millions of people to additional suffering, then I don't
agree

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Those who can't, teach

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "pencimen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You mean you think Dibold is going to allow the Dems to win control of
> the Congress?

In a word: Yes.


I'm no fan of electronic voting, but my personal prediction as that even
with the Kerry "October Surprise" that the Republicans get wiped out
this November maybe on the order of as many as 20 or 30 seats in the
House, and ending up with 51 seats in the Senate.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Those who can't, teach

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? Or are we expecting that when those keeping the country
> secure are Iraqis, rather than Americans, all of the sectarian
infighting
> will stop?
>
> 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?


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?

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Obama's New Rules

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert G. Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2152252?GT1=8702
>
> 7. The bubble must pop.
> Skeptics note that we've been through swoons like this
> before-including for McCain in 2000. Obama could turn out to be just
> another liberal fad, like Howard Dean in 2004. Once he decides to run,
> the cynics assure us, his halo will tarnish or crack. And maybe so.
> But this time, maybe not.


The reason for bubbles is that when a politician is new, every person
can project their own political beliefs onto the candidate.Once
people start to learn what the politician actually believes, their
popularity eventually comes down.

Moreover, I think that Peggy Noonan's comment on a possible Condi Rice
candidacy is relevant here: "The Presidency of the United States is not
an entry-level political position." People argued that George W.
Bush was inexperienced when he ran for President with only six years'
experience as Governor of Texas.   We're talking about Obama running
with only four years' experience in the Senate, and no executive
experience.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ
> > Legislature to
> > either:
> >
> > 1) Create gay marriages
> >
> > 2) Create gay "civil unions" that are identical to marriages in
> > every
> > way, save for the word "marriage."
> >
> > Neither of these laws existed in New Jersey prior to this decision.
>
> But that hasn't imposed anything on anyone. If you're not gay, it
> doesn't affect you. It doesn't make you you do anything you don't
> want to. It simply recognises that gay couples function just the
> same. It hasn't "invented" anything, it's simply extended the
> benefits of marriage to all couples.


Its the creation of law that did not previously exist before.

Your arguments above are along the vein of "why should I care?", rather
than the vein that they do not constitute law being imposed by a Court.


> > Moreover, I am willing to venture that none of the people who wrote,
> > debate, or voted for the New Jersey constitution ever imagined that
> > the
> > constitution could be construed as to mandate such a requirement.
>
> None of the framers of the US Constitution could have imagined mix
> race marriages either. So what?


Not true.


> > This is called "bait and switch" and it is inimical to the
democratic
> > process. If one can have no confidence that the laws one votes for
> > mean what they say that they mean, what is the purpose of the
> > democratic
> > process? Why bother participating in democracy at all?
>
> Why bother living in a society with gross inequality?


I believe that the United States was worth living in and supporting,
even as the great sin of legalized slavery was a blot on our national
soul.   I continue to believe that the United States is worth living in,
even while not all of the people in this country have legal protection
for their right to life.

I  believe that the democratic-republic is important - even when it is
not perfect, even when it is dead wrong.   I believe that
non-democratic-republic government, no matter how well-intentioned, is
inevitably doomed to failure.   I believe that just governments derive
their powers from the consent of the governed.   When governments
overstep those powers, even in the name of righteousness, it undermines
the entire enterprise.

For example, I once got involved in a parlor game where my friend asked
me - "If in a moment of national crisis, you were named 'supreme
dictator', what would you do" - expecting that my first act would be to
outlaw abortion, or something like that.   My answer, though, is that I
would restore the republic.   Maybe that answer is self-evident to
people here, but it is apparently not self-evident to a significant
portion of Americans.


http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/lewisharris102506\
opn.pdf


I do think there should be some form of civil unions of homosexual
couples.   I think that couples have a right to live together, and that
it would be good for the State to provide some streamlined procedures
for these couples to establish a single household unit.   I am aghast,
however, at the processes used in this particular case.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's look at that. The Bill of Rights are amendments to the
> > Constitution.
> > Article V of the US Constitution gives two means of amending the
> > Constitution. One of these, the constitutional convention, has yet
> > to be
> > used (we were close to it about 20 years ago). The other has been
> > used
> > numerous times. It requires approval of 2/3rds vote of each House of
> > Congress and 3/4ths of the state assemblies.
> >
> > Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think we
> > should see
> > such a strong vote as indicating popular approval.
>
> You can if you like. It doesn't reflect the history. The population
> at the time was overwhelmingly Christian, but many of the founders
> were lapsed, or deists. Their views on a secular federal government
> were very much a minority view at the time. That they signed the
> Constitution and then convinced the Congress to approve the Bill of
> Rights was testament to their vision and skills of persuasion. And it
> was a pretty fine job they did (oddly placed comma in the second
> amendment notwithstanding... ;-) ). There's no mention of any
> religion at all in the Constitution, apart from to say that no
> religious test may be required as a qualification to hold office.
> This was almost unthinkable in the late 1700s.

Sorry, but in 1787 the world wasn't terribly far removed from the
philosophy of the divine right of kings.   Louis XIV was king of France
just at the turn of the previous century.  There were many things about
the establishment of the republic that were "unthinkable" in the late
1700's - so its quite a different context than this being just one
"radical idea" in the establishment of a new government.

I don't know that you can make a strong case that the majority of
Americans at the time were in favor of theocracy, nor in favor of having
a European-style state religion.   Indeed, several large portions of
America had been settled by those seeking religious freedom from
European-style state religions.

Finally, while the religious protections in the Constitution have been
interpreted in modern days as protecting atheists, they were originally
intended as protections against sectarianism in a country that was
already very diverse in the distribution of various Christian and
near-Christian sects.   One startling bit of evidence of this as that
when the first Congress met under this Constitution, their first act was
the Constitutionally-mandated task of certifying the election of George
Washington as President by the electoral college.   Their second act was
to establish a Congressional chaplain and have a prayer.   So, I think
you are reading a bit much into modern interpretations of the
Constitution, that did not reflect the views of those who were there at
the time

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to
> agree with it.

I am appalled at the way it was handed down.

I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling is even more
twisted that I had thought.

First, the NJSC found a right to "equal protection of the laws" that
*doesn't even exist* in the New Jersey Constitution.   (Note: This is by
the Court's own admission in its opinion.)

*Then* they interpreted this language that doesn't exist as prohibiting
the New Jersey Legislature from providing any special benefit to
heterosexual couples and not to homosexual couples, other than the word
"marriage" itself?

I've often heard the argument from some liberal commentators that they
don't know what "judicial activism" is, and think that "judicial
activism" is just code for rulings that conservatives don't like.
Well, the twisted-pretzel-logic of this ruling probably makes as fine an
example of "judicial activism" as any - explicitly determining a written
text to say something it doesn't, and then using this invented
determination to find a requirement within the Constitution that would
have been positively unimagineable to the people who wrote, debated, and
voted for that Constitution.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
> >>> by the
> >>> majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
> >>
> >> So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
> >> the majority, especially those on separations of religious
> >> establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
> >> time...
> >
> > They were endorsed democratically, so they at least had legitimacy.
> > They weren't invented and imposed out of whole cloth.
>
> And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?


Is it really not obvious to you?

The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ Legislature to
either:

  1) Create gay marriages

  2) Create gay "civil unions" that are identical to marriages in every
way, save for the word "marriage."

Neither of these laws existed in New Jersey prior to this decision.

Moreover, I am willing to venture that none of the people who wrote,
debate, or voted for the New Jersey constitution ever imagined that the
constitution could be construed as to mandate such a requirement.

This is called "bait and switch" and it is inimical to the democratic
process.   If one can have no confidence that the laws one votes for
mean what they say that they mean, what is the purpose of the democratic
process?Why bother participating in democracy at all?


> Some people argued that they should be entitled to the same rights in
> a long term relationship as married people. The court agreed but said
> it can't be called marriage. So what new law has been created?


Actually, it just said that it need not be called "marriage."

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JDG wrote:
> >Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last questions
>
> I can't speak for everyone else, but I personally don't know much
> about a progressive income tax's Constitutionality.

The progressive income tax is a classic case of the State granting
different privileges to certain favored groups.

> Regarding rights
> vs. privileges, I'm not sure I understand the difference, especially
> since one of dictionary.com's definitions of "privilege" is:
> "any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern
> constitutional government"
>
> If you could expand upon what you meant by "why isn't this ruling a
> question of privileges and not rights?" maybe I'd take you up on it,
> though I can't promise anything. I'm not quite as into politics as
> most of our compatriots.

I think that one has a basic right to liberty.   I don't think that one
has a basic right to file a joint tax return.

For example, I would have no problem with the Supreme Court ruling that
a constitutional right to liberty protects the right of two people of
the same sex to live together, and to engage in mutually consensually
activity in the privacy of their own bedrooms.   I think that's covered
by the right to liberty.

Privileges, to me, consist of artificial legal benefits.   Tax rates for
example.   Streamlined procedures for obtaining joint title to property
and other legal recognitions, for example.


> Further, I would note that you and everyone else here has, in any
> number of discussions in the past, chosen to ignore some questions
> or comments on any topic. This may be tacitly ceding a given point,
> or (as in my case this time) not really understanding the question,
> but there may be other reasons of which I'm not really cognizant.

Point taken.  I didn't mean to imply any fault of charachter upon those
who had responded, but to draw attention to what I felt were some valid
questions/responses.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me. So much for
"well-reasoned"
>
> Yes, those are anecdotal, of course. But did we forget the wee matter
of
> 155 Senate votes on veterans issues since 9/11? Or is that just 155
> anecdotes?


Again, proof that you can make Congressional votes say "anything."


> > Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA
> > benefits.
> > > During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is
that
> > > spin?
> > >
> > > Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/
> > 
> >
> > Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a
problem
> > by how much you spend on it.
>
>
> Oh. My. Goodness.
>
> I'd like to see how long you'd survive with the family of a soldier
who has
> a traumatic brain injury when you defend the GOP senators' votes
against
> funding research into those types of injuries.

Here's a question for you Nick - what is the optimal level of research
funding into brain injuries?   $20 billion?   $200 billion?   $2
trillion?How do you decide how much funding to devote to brain
injuries vs. breast cancer vs. heart disease?How do you decide how
much funding to devote to research vs. actual programs providing
benefits to the poor?


> The Brain Injury Center, devoted to treating and understanding
war-related
> brain injuries, has received more money each year of the war —
from $6.5
> million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million last year. Spokespersons for the
> appropriations committees in both chambers say cuts were due to a
tight
> budget this year.

So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5
million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006.   Close to
DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms.

Care to take a guess as to how many federal programs have received a 95%
budget increase from FY 01   to FY 06?

Now, what you haven't considered in this situation:

  -How effective is the Brain Injury Center program?   Did it receive a
"Moderately Effective" rating or higher from the Office of Management
and Budget?   Does it have outstanding issues from the Government
Accountability Office?

  -How much money has the Brain Injury Center been able to actually spend
over the last five years?   With such a large budget increase, it would
not be surprising to me if it has large amounts of unobligated funds.
Under the proposed FY 07 budget, what would the trend in actual
expenditures look like?

I know that its very easy for you to believe that Republicans are
cold-hearted monsters - but demonisation of your opponents is rarely
true.   I don't know what the specific answer is in this case, but I
suspect that the above questions are probably on the road to the
answer


JDG

  -



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal
> > marriage
> > isn't going to be a wildly popular idea
>
> Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate the
> legal and religious portions.

How does that differ from the current situation?

>Make the legal agreement that allows
> for joint ownership, automatic powers-of-attorney, visiting rights,
> protection of children just that - a legal contract. You can sign it
> at the end of a church wedding, or in a hall, or in a lawyer's
> office. Just a contract. Civil unions for any two people who wish to
> organise their affairs that way.

Of course, one wonders why only two?In any case I don't see how this
proposal is different from creating civil unions for same-sex couples

>If you want a wedding you can have
> it, but it won't automatically confer the legal rights.  That way, any
> religious ceremony or none at all can be held, which has meaning to
> the couple.

Again, I don't see how this differs from the current state of affairs.
In the US, atheists have no difficulty in getting married in the secular
ceremony of their choice.   Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?

> Churches can protect their marriage in the eyes of the
> Lord by offering weddings to heterosexual couples and not anyone else
> if they choose. Marriage will mean exactly what it always has, which
> is exactly what the two married people think it means to them and no
> more.
>
> Australia has gone part of the way - marriage no longer automatically
> confers a name change for a female partner. Not far enough though.


All of this also seems true in the US as well.


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
> > Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
> > by the
> > majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
>
> So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
> the majority, especially those on separations of religious
> establishment and government? No they weren't. Minority view at the
> time...

They were endorsed democratically, so they at least had legitimacy.
They weren't invented and imposed out of whole cloth.


> > JDG - Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last
> > questions
>
> 'cause I'm "abortioned out".

Not, for the record, that I recall mentioning abortion


JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Seems like the NJ SC is not willing to push the Full Faith and
Credit
> > > issue. But I imagine it's a good-sized win for gay rights
activists.
> >
> > If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get
> > what you want to be a "good-sized" win.
>
> It has been in the past. Constitutional rights exist as a restraint on
the
> majority. It doesn't always work properly, because of bad faith (for
> example the Supreme Court approval of the internment of Japanese
citizens in
> WWII), but constitutional rights are intended to be a restraint on the
> majority.


Yes, but what is the origin of constitutional rights?

Constituional rights do not come straight out of the ether.  After all,
what constitutes a constitutional right in the United States is far
different from what constitutes a constitutional right in the UK, or in
the EU, or in Canada or Australia.

Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process, by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.

So, the question is, do constitutional rights drafted in a democratic
process actually *mean  anything* - or are they wholly subject to the
whims of interpretation?If elites can simply decide that a
constitution says whatever it wants it to say, do we really have a rule
of law?   Or do we simply have a modified oligarchy?



> Also, as an aside, your view sounds very much like the view of a Log
Cabin
> Republican friend of mine. I know he isn't homophobic :-), and my
guess is
> that you are not either. I don't see it in your poststhe implied
caveat
> in my statement is a reflection of not actually being around you in
RL.


Thank you for not subjecting me to the all-too-typical "homophobia"
charge that I am usually subjected to.   The ironic thing is that if I
were a member of the New Jersey State Legislature, I would probably vote
for a bill that rather closely resembles this decision.   I am aghast,
however, at the way this decision was handed down

> Looking down, I found a poll which does not indicate quite as serious
a
> shift, and another that shows a similar shift. I found none that show
> opinion swinging in the other direction.

My point was not about creating majority opposition to gay marriage
it was about creating an inspired, activist, core minority.

JDG - Noticing that nobody bothered to respond to my last questions



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or call the legal arrangement a "civil partnership" or suchlike *for
> every couple*, and the "marriage" the associated ceremony which would
> have no legal standing in and of itself. That way we can all get the
> legal protections we need to protect families and partners, and
> people who wish a "traditional wedding" (whatever that is) can
> arrange it with their place of worship or wherever they wish it,
> assuming that they subscribe to a belief system that doesn't
> discriminate against those who happen to be in a loving relationship
> with someone of the same gender.

and


--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> IMHO I'm of the opinion that the government should get out of the
marriage business >PERIOD. As far as the government is concerned, they
are ALL civil unions, straight or > gay. This way you can call it
whatever the heck you want...

An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal marriage
isn't going to be a wildly popular idea

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23]

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Most of the things I'm reading call him "Horned Rim Glasses Man"
> or HRG for short (or sometimes HRM).

Does that mean that he's not the same person as "Mr. Linderman"?


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Katrina Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan mistergibson@ wrote:
> >> I can't agree with you. Let me count the ways... no, I don't have
that
> >> kind of time.
> >> I started listing the grand follies I could foresee even watching
the
> >> 2000 campaign from Amsterdam, but the actual blooded tragedy list
> >> out-does anything I conjured - especially the Katrina fiasco.
> >
> >
> > Oh, that's because the Katrina fiasco was the fault of:
> >
> > A) A Republican President
> >
> > B) A Democratic Governor of Louisiana
> >
> > C) A Democratic Mayor of New Orleans
> >
> > D) All of the Above
> >
> >
> > Good Grief!
> >
> > JDG
> >
>
>
> The answer is "D" obviously, but it's in the mix that truth cuts the
> wet mud from dried blood.
>
> The storm hit was an event. The pre-loading {and lack} of plans and
> preps were seriously hampered by the policies of this administration
> from abstract thinking to executive codecs.

So, do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to
develop evacuation and disaster response plans for every city and every
State in the Union?   What level of responsibility do you think that the
individual cities and States have?

> The current mayor is actually a Democrat in name only. He switched
> from a lifetime Republican registration {he has been a broadcast
> executive} to "D" in order to harness the local political machinery.


That's an urban legend.   Mayor Nagin claims to be a lifelong Democrat.

  JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Further proof that you can make Congressional voting records say
> > *anything*.
>
> Nothing like a well-reasoned refutation. Before you totally dismissed
this,
> did you try Googling something like "republicans support veterans" to
see
> what you get? Talked to any veterans or veterans organizations lately?
> Visited a VA hospital to hear the staff and patients say how
incredibly
> pissed off they are at Congress lately?


Sounds like anecdotal evidence to me.   So much for "well-reasoned"


> Oh, then then's the fundamental fact that they've been cutting VA
benefits.
> During a war. During a war that is wounding tens of thousands. Is that
> spin?
>
> Here's the original source: http://www.iavaaction.org/


Classic liberal thinking - measuring how much you care about a problem
by how much you spend on it.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get
> > what you want to be a "good-sized" win.
>
> Yeah ... why, it's almost as outrageous as gerrymandering, isn't it?
>
> > The people of New Jersey never voted for this law, nor did they ever
> > vote for representatives in favor of this law, but they have this
law
> > anyways.
>
> Huh? What law do you think you're referring to? The NJ courts ruled
> only that same-sex couples are entitled, under the state constitution,
> to the same benefits as other-gender couples.


Which, of course, is just how the people of New Jersey drew it up,
right?

>Furthermore the court held that same-gender couples cannot be called
>married -- yet I don't imagine you're outraged about that.

I will say that slightly changes my opinion of this ruling - it was not
clear to me from the initial reports I saw.



> But I guess I can understand how upset you must be to have to consider
> the possibility that gays and lesbians are *almost* as good as you.


Yeah, that must be it.Thanks for the absolutely gratuitous personal
insult..   Its just want I wanted in the morning


> If you're against gay marriage, don't have one.

What doesn't the same logic apply?"If you don't want a *marriage* in
New Jersey, don't have one?"

> But keep the hell off  of others' rights,

Which rights are those?As opposed to privileges? If the NJ
Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples in New Jersey are entitled to
the same benefits as marriage in New Jersey, but may not marry, then why
isn't this ruling a question of privileges and not rights?

Why doesn't the logic of this ruling also imply that a progressive
income tax is similiarly unconstitutional?

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If he had chemical WMDs when we invaded, then the president of the
United
> States misled the entire country this morning.
>
> He was discouraged that Saddam didn't *still* have WMDs, apparently.


Unless,  of course,  those weapons ended up in Syria.



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Oops, not disappointing -- discouraging!

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are you arguing here?


and then.


> So, Mr Braveheart. Content with being a real hero - but only when you
> play one online?

and then..

> I'm more interested in whatever became of the Anthrax poisoning of a
> few key {democratic} leadership offfices just as the Patriot Act was
> coming up for review. That investigation has mysteriously dried up
> after tracking US milspec grade production was involved. We have more
> to worry about Weapons of Mass Deception than anything else these
days.


No Comment, Maru

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Gay Unions in NJ

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >From
http://www.blogs.nj.com/newsupdates/slnewsupdates/default.asp?item=24630\
6
> (the Newark Star-Ledger reporting) An excerpt:
>
> "The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled today that the state Constitution
entitles same-sex couples to all the legal benefits of marriage, but
stopped short of calling for gay marriage."
>
> Seems like the NJ SC is not willing to push the Full Faith and Credit
> issue. But I imagine it's a good-sized win for gay rights activists.

If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get
what you want to be a "good-sized" win.


The people of New Jersey never voted for this law, nor did they ever
vote for representatives in favor of this law, but they have this law
anyways.



Many people have attributed the entrenchment of anti-abortion activism
in this country to the fact that abortion was not legalized through
democratic processes in the United States, as it was in most other
democracies.   I can't help but wonder if the same thing isn't happening
here



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Who REALLY supports the troops

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America analyzed Senate voting
records to
> see who really supports veterans -- 155 votes since 9/11. The results
might
> surprise you if you imagined that the party that took us into these
wars is
> the one that supports veterans.
>
> http://www.veteransforamerica.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/8535
>
> No Republican scored better than a 'C' and no Democrat scored worse
than a
> 'B-'.


Further proof that you can make Congressional voting records say
*anything*.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 25/10/2006, at 2:16 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > E) Global warming, caused by greedy oil company executives in
> > cahoots with a Republican President.
>
> Hmmm.
>
> While Bush has an appalling environmental record, I think it's hard
> to say that climate change is his fault, or the oil companies' fault.
> Not directly, anyway?


The global warming argument seems to have lost a little potency with
this year's very mild hurricane season.

Again, you can't blame single data points on long term trends with large
variations.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Heroes [SPOILERS Through 10/23]

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hiro is definately my favorite character of the series, followed by
> the Indian professors son.
> Last week I was arguing that the "guy from the future" might not be
> Hiro, but this week it is plain that he is indeed Hiro. The swords
> really threw me and his demeanor is vastly different than the Hiro of
> the first three episodes, leading me to argue this week that "Future
> Hiro" is not from the near/immediate future but from sometime a few
> years ahead. "Future Hiro" has a self-possession and gravitas that a
> geeky dreamer like "Present Hiro" couldn't possibly obtain in the few
> weeks before the disaster strikes. I think also that he could not be
> very adept with that sword after only a few weeks.

He also got contacts!

Also, he seems to be able to control his teleport/timetravel power in a
way that he doesn't currently.

I think that sort of sets up that this series will have additional
stories to tell once/if they save New York sometime later this year.

> My boss is convinced that "Mirror Chicks" husband is the same guy who
> is "Evil Glasses/ Cheerleaders Foster Dad" "s "Mind Reaming Minion". I
> don't think so.
>
> Open Questions:
>
> Who is Skylar? What is his power?
>
> What is the nature of "The Younger Brother"'s power? (I think he
> mimics the power of whoever he is with)


I think this is pretty obvious, right?It seems very similar to the
power of "Rogue" from X-men - only requring just proximity and not
physical touch.


> Just who is "Evil Glasses/Cheerleader's Foster Dad"?
>
> Is "Mirror Chick"'s ex guilty or innocent?
>
> What did "MInd Reaming Minion" do to "Psychic Cop"?


It seems possible that he also enhanced the cop's power.   Previously,
the cop was only occasionally hearing voices.   Now, he is hearing
voices constantly, which he used to effect with his wife, and which
caused him problems in the C-Store

  JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
> > At 01:27 AM Sunday 10/22/2006, pencimen wrote:
> >
> >> For those few of us who saw the disaster that is Bush coming,
> >
> > While some voted for Bush primarily because they thought that
> > President Gore would be an even bigger disaster from which it might
> > take even longer to undo the damage, if ever.
>
> What, precisely, are you talking about?
>
> Remember, we're talking about 2000 here, not 2004. 9/11 had not
> happened yet. We had not been converted into a nation of wusses
> who cower in the corner and strip of our clothes while going to
> the airport yet. We were still a nation that believed in the
> rule of law, who believed that torture was the kind of thing that
> the "bad guys" do to their prisoner.
>
> What unmitigated horse-shit.
>
> Dave



So, you're saying that it is completely unreasonable for someone to have
thought that Al Gore would be a disaster as President?

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't agree with you. Let me count the ways... no, I don't have that
> kind of time.
> I started listing the grand follies I could foresee even watching the
> 2000 campaign from Amsterdam, but the actual blooded tragedy list
> out-does anything I conjured - especially the Katrina fiasco.




Oh, that's because the Katrina fiasco was the fault of:

A) A Republican President

B) A Democratic Governor of Louisiana

C) A Democratic Mayor of New Orleans

D) All of the Above



Good Grief!

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Heroes

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert G. Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Are you guys watching this show?
>
> So far it has been great!


I tuned in for the "marathon" on Sunday for the first time, and have
last night's episode on tape.

I definitely enjoyed the three episodes on Sunday night - but it does
seem a bit like an "X-Men" rip-off.On the other hand, they are
putting enough of their own take on it, that they might succeed.   I
have higher hopes for it than for "Jericho", which seems to me like it
is just a "Lost" wannabe

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not at all. The Assumption is interesting because it is a "two-
> > fer." If you disagree with this dogma, then by definition, you also
> > have to disagree with the dogma of papal infallability.
> >
> Would you claim that any person that believes in some dogmas
> of the Roman Catholic Church but disbelieves in other dogmas
> [say, a person that claims to be a good catholic but regularly
> gets impregnated by different men and goes to an abortion
> clinic to get rid of the tumor that starts to grow in the belly]
> is, in reality, not a catholic?


I am reluctant to judge another person's faith.


Provided, however, that someone is aware of the penalty, then a Catholic
who procures, or assists someone in procuring, an abortion, is
automatically exommunicated from the Catholic Church.   In the case of
other dogmas, the person must either be formally excommunicated, or
formally engage in heresy in order to be automatically excommunicated,
under the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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."
>
>
> The leadership on the left does not routinely justify their policies
by
> telling us to be afraid that our grandmothers will live that way.

They do when issues like the reform of Medicare and the school lunch
program are the leading natural issues of the day.   Surely you haven't
forgotten the Democratic tactics of the last years of the Clinton
Administration?

>The
> adminstration constantly justifies its "war on terror" by telling us
to be
> afraid. They justified the invasion of Iraq by telling us to be afraid
of
> chemical and nuclear attacks against the United States. They invoke
9/11
> constantly. The tell us we have to fight "them" over there so that we
don't
> have to fight them here.
>
> And to the extent that those on the left use any fear-mongering to try
to
> get their way, shame on them.
>
> "We will not be afraid" is not anti-Republican. It is
anti-fear-mongering.
> But I think that not being afraid takes far more power away from the
right
> than from the left.
>
> Tell me, do you think we should make our political decisions out of
fear?

I think that fear can be healthy.  If Bill Clinton had told us that we
needed to invade Afghanistan, not just because the Taliban were
oppressing their own people, but because if we didn't invade
Afghanistan, that some day Osama bin Laden and the Taliban would launch
a devastating attack on the United States, I think that would be a
healthy example of fear being used to justify the correct policies.

There are all sorts of other decisions that arise out of healthy fear:
conducting fire drills in schools, purchasing an earthquake preparedness
kit for your home, buckling your seat belt while driving, etc.

JDG






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: How to be:

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> See? Part of the problem is that there is not even agreement on what
> the problem is. Only that there is a problem.


And I might even be so bold as to disagree that there is even a problem.

After all if there are N issues, and 2 leading candidates, what are the
odds that you agree with one of the candidates on 90% of N issues if N
is large?

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Hello, Testing, 1 2 3 Testing

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My digest-subscribed address has not received anything since July 29,
if
> that data point helps anyone

For those interested in the digest, I've been reading the List via the
Yahoo! Groups digest for some time now.

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Alberto Monteiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But how does this work for N(blue) = 4?
> >
> The key point is that the natives are omniintelligent and
> know that all other natives are also omniintelligent.
>
> > The initial state is that each native has two cases:
> >
> > 1) There are three blue-dot natives, and each blue dot native sees
> > two blue dot natives.
> >
> > 2) There are four blue-dot natives, including himself, and each blue
> > dot native sees three blue dot natives.
> >
> > In this case, I don't see how the naturalist provides any additional
> > information. In the initial state, every native knows that every
other
> > native knows that there is at least one blue dot.
> >
> He does. Because of the omniintelligence hypothesis, each native
> can reason like this:
>
> (a) If there is only one blue dotted native, then, seeing that
> everybody else is red dotted, this native will commit ritual
> suicide in the first night.


Maybe I'm exhibiting my ignorance here, but if N(blue) = 4 then all the
natives *know* that there is *not* "only one blue-dotted native" before
the anthropologist even arrives.

> Induction Hypothesis:
>
> (b) Suppose that there are (N+1) blue dotted natives. Then, each
> of these natives, noticing that the other (N) blue dotted natives
> didn't commit suicide in the N-th night, will commit ritual
> suicide in the (N+1)-th night
>
> The naturalist provides information because he starts the process,
> by forcing step (a) of the induction.

If I understand this correctly, here's how the "Induction Hypothesis"
works, starting with step (a).

Let A = There is one, and only one, blue dot native.

Let B = One Native commites ritual suicide on the first night.

The induction seems to be that:

Given: If A then B.

Given: ~B

Then: ~A

*But*, if N(blue) > 2, then *every* native starts out with:

Given:  ~A

Thus, the arrival of this anthropologist can't impart any additional
information, because the first step of the induction leads to a
conclusion that the natives have already reached anyways.

Maybe it will help to lay out different cases.   It seems clear that if
a native can identify the value of N(blue), then mass suicide becomes
inevitable.



Case I

If N(blue) = 0, then every native exists in:
State 1:  Sees only red dots, but doesn't know if N(blue) = 0 or N(blue)
=1

This case obviously doesn't apply to the given example.

\
*

Case II

If N(blue) = 1, then:

State 1:  One native sees only red dots, but doesn't know if N(blue) = 0
or N(blue) =1

State 2:  All other natives see one blue dot, but don't know if N(blue)
= 1 or  N(blue) = 2

Moreover, in this case All Natives know that each and every Native knows
that each of them is either in State 1 or State 2.

In this case, the anthropologist imparts information to the one native
in State 1, causing the cascade.

\
*


Case III

If N(blue) = 2

State 2:  Two natives see one blue dot, but don't know if N(blue) = 1 or
N(blue) = 2

State 3: All other natives see two blue dots, but don't know if N(blue)
= 2 or N(blue) = 3


Moreover, in this case All Natives know that each and every Native knows
that each of them is either in State 2 or State 3.

In this case, the anthropologist doesn't impart any information to
anyone.   Everyone knows that N(blue) >= 1.So, presuming that the
island existed in a steady state before the anthropologist's arrival,
then her arrival with the announcement that N(blue) >= 1 has no effect.



Am I just missing something here?

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Paradox, or, Breaking the mind of logic

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/10/06, maru dubshinki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Now, the stranger appears to be absolutely useless, but
nevertheless,
> > removed from the picture the whole thing breaks down in the case
where
> > N = 2. What is the use of the useless stranger?
>
>
> The key here as I see it is that prior to the stranger's announcement,
each
> of the blue-dot natives thinks that either:
> 1) he is red-dot and there is only the one blue-dot native, who in
turn sees
> all red-dot natives
> 2) he is a blue-dot, and the other blue-dot also sees one blue-dot
native.


But how does this work for N(blue) = 4?

The initial state is that each native has two cases:

1) There are three blue-dot natives, and each blue dot native sees two
blue dot natives.

2) There are four blue-dot natives, including himself, and each blue dot
native sees three blue dot natives.

In this case, I don't see how the naturalist provides any additional
information.   In the initial state, every native knows that every other
native knows that there is at least one blue dot.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/4/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > So, that would mean voting against the people who are campaigning on
the
> > fear that their opponents will take away a woman's right to choose,
end
> > Social Security and Medicare, send all our jobs to India, and put
> > minorities back on plantations? ;-)
>
>
> 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."

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You really think that I think the Democrats are any better?
> Hypocrites and liars on both sides.

You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm
just used to that being the default position of brin-l


JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: We Will Not Be Afraid

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time to kick out the people who have thrived on a policy of fear
> then, and choose some representatives who value freedom and liberty
> more than they value power through fear.

So, that would mean voting against the people who are campaigning on the
fear that their opponents will take away a woman's right to choose, end
Social Security and Medicare, send all our jobs to India, and put
minorities back on plantations?   ;-)

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Bodacious???
> Bodacious???
> My God man!
> She gave birth to GOD!
> She must have been stretch marks from the neck down!
>
>
> xponent
> Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru
> rob


Actually, there is a tradition of Catholic/Christian thought that since
a difficult birth was one of the punishments given to women as a
consequence of original sin in Genesis, and that since Mary was born, by
the grace of God, without original sin, that therfore the birth of Jesus
was relatively painless.

I'm not 100% just yet if I buy that one though...

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Mauro Diotallevi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> My grandmother used to say two things about this depending on her
mood;
> either "Catholic heirarchy created this reverence of Mary because
she's the
> most submissive role model those guys in Rome could find"

Which isn't exactly true.   of course, her submission to God's will
in "The Annunciation" story has long been a model for Christians, she
nevertheless is one of the only people recorded in the Bible as not just
openly disagreeing with Jesus, but as also succeeding in changing Jesus'
(God's) mind!   There's something to be said for that!

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious about this wink. Are you not fully on-board with the
> doctrine of the assumption? It's not terribly important to me either
> way, though I am inclined to think that it is a Churchly creation
> intended to exalt Mary, rather than a historical fact.

Not at all.   The Assumption is interesting because it is a "two-fer."
If you disagree with this dogma, then by definition, you also have to
disagree with the dogma of papal infallability.

In this case though, I fully believe the teaching.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Mauro Diotallevi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Several years ago I had the pleasure of attending a presentation in
Kansas
> City made by an archeologist who had been doing research in Chaco
Canyon.
> His theory was that there were major religious festivals between one
and
> three times per year, and that the canyon was eventually abandoned,
but
> instead of heading north to Mesa Verde as in the theory you mention,
JDG, he
> suggested there was a major split in the civilization with some going
north
> but many, perhaps a majority, heading south, perhaps a few hundred
miles or
> more south.
>
> It was a long time ago, but I remember him presenting some evidence
that
> trade with cultures in what we now call Mexico had been on the rise,
and he
> suggested that might have caused a cultural rift. I think he may have
also
> suggested that the Mesa Verde people might have actually come from
farther
> north and interbred with people of the Chaco Canyon civilization, so
you
> have this culture in the middle -- whether they lived or just
worshipped in
> Chaco Canyon -- caught between a "northernizing" of their culture on
the one
> hand and a "southernizing" on the other.


Thanks Mauro - this was very interesting.

The National Park Service did emphasize that there is a lot that we
don't know.   Additionally, it was also pointed out that while Mesa
Verde rose in importance after Chaco Canyon declined in importance, it
almost certainly wasn't a simple matter of the Chacoans moving to Mesa
Verde (especially since Chaco Canyon was most likely a
religious/ceremonial/trading center rather than a population center), as
Mesa Verde was already well-inhabited during the Chaco Canyon years -
but a matter of shifting influence.   I often think that a good analogy
could be the shift in importance from a city like Buffalo (which hosted
the Pan-American Exposition in 1903) to a city like Phoenix or
Austin-San Antonio.

I sometimes wonder what the shift must have been like.  For example, who
was the last person at Chaco Canyon to "turn the lights out"?   Was
there declining attendance at the main festival over the years - until
finally the ceremonial leaders just gave up?   Or did the crowds "pass
by acclamation" one year a motion to next year meet somewhere else?

Anyhow, your theory of cultural split from Chaco Canyon is very
interesting.   It was definitely presented that the southern-area
pueblos and Mesa Verdes were all descended culturally from Chaco Canyon,
but it was more presented as Mesa Verde first rising in influence, and
then the southern-area pueblos rising in influence after the abandonment
of Mesa Verde and the surounding "Canyons of the Ancients" areas.

Thanks for contributing!

JDG






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We agree substantially here. The point of my post is to answer the
question
> of "what is the assumption." JDG, of course, can correct me if I'm
wrong.

The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her
earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, "was assumed bod and soul into
heavenly glory."

;-)

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Fertility Gap

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "J.D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A thought-provoking article about the implications of
> differing fertility rates based on political ideology
> in the US:
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
>
> JDG

Here's a similarly interesting article on how the Democrats are
actually falling even further behind in the "God gap" since 20004 -
Iraq war and all...

  http://www.slate.com/id/2148547/

JDG



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Whose Ox is Gored?

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the eve of the 2004 election, a liberal Christian pastor in
Pasadena
> > preached (what is reportedly) a highly political anti-war and
> > anti-poverty sermon with the result that the IRS is threatening to
take
> > away the church's tax-exempt status. I haven't read the entire
sermon,
> > but it is available on the NPR web site for anyone who is
interested.
>
> The text of the sermon is here:
>
>
http://www.allsaints-pas.org/pdf/(10-31-04)%20If%20Jesus%20Debated.pdf#s\
earch=%22regas%20sermon%22



It looks like Dave Land may have spoken too soon.   In my first glance
at this speech, I see a speech that might get close to the existing
legal lines, but does not, in my estimation cross over them.

The speech is a little in the gray area, because despite some rhetorical
flourishes that attempt to appear to criticize both Kerry and Bush, the
speech is, in fact, a systematic knock-down of much of Bush's platform.
Nevertheless, I think that expressing opinions on specific issues - even
if those positions align with those of a specific candidate - should be
permissible for tax-exempt religious organizations.

With that being said, I don't understand how the pastor can imagine
Jesus saying that the State has no right to impose its view of when
human life begins on other people, that there "can never be a just law
requiring uniformity of behavior on the abortion issue," but that the
State has a moral imperative to take other people's property and give it
to others.  It seems to be that that is getting it exactly backwards -
surely if the State can intervene on behalf of property it can intervene
on human life.

So, I don't find much to like in this sermon - its lofic seems
completely fuzzy and faulty, but with that being said, I don't find
anything here to jeopardize its tax-exempt status.

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Klaus Stock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, wait. "Little evidence of city life" and "was clearly at the heart
of an
> extensive trading network" appear contradictory to me. Well, at least
when I
> consider other historical examples of how trading opportunity and/or
> activity lead to the appearance and/or growth of settlments and/or
cities.

There certainly is a lot about Chaco Canyon that we don't fully
understand.

What we do know:

1) Many of the buildings at Chaco Canyon do not show signs of habitation
- for example, heart remains, smoke stains on the walls and ceilings,
trash middens, and artifacts of household goods.

2) To a rough approximation, in the Ancestral Puebloan world, "all roads
lead to Chaco."   The Ancestral Puebloan road system almost seems to
radiate out of Chaco Canyon to other settlements.   Now remember, these
roads weren't totally practical - they maintained nearly straight lines
over whatever obstacles were in the way.   There is also archeological
evidence of goods at Chaco that were traded from as far away as Mexico,
the Pacific, and the Great Plains.

My favorite interpretation of this evidence is that Chaco Canyon was a
religious/spiritual center, that was home to perhaps an annual or
biannual major festival, accompanied by a large trading market.

Other interpretations of the evidence are certainly possible, however -
and the National Park Service emphasizes that we certainly don't have
all the evidence needed to make a completely convincing interpretation
of just what Chaco Canyon was like.

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon

[jdiebremse]

I'm not sure if this went through the first time, so let me try
again




O.k., I promised to take the lead on this Chapter, so here goes.
This will admittedly be interesting, as I am sure that it is
becoming clear by now that I am somewhat of a skeptic of this book.

Anyhow, by now the pattern of Diamond's narrative is becoming
clear.   Prehistoric human civilization flourishes.   Over time,
prehistoric human civilization overpopulates and degrades its
environment causing it to retreat from its former glory.

As I noted earlier, my first objection to this Chapter is his use of
the term "Anasazi" for the people of Chaco Canyon.   "Anasazi" is
believed to have its origins in a Navajo word for "ancient enemy."
This isn't necessarily so bad, especially under the early
interpretation that the people of Chaco Canyon (and related sites
such as Mesa Verde) had mysteriously "disappeared" – which in the
past has inspired some fantastical stories of alien contact and
whatnot.   Modern historians now recognize, however, that the people
of Chaco Canyon did not simply "disappear."   Rather as Chaco Canyon
went into decline, the Mesa Verde site to the north began to grow in
prominence, and there seems to be much evidence that the Mesa Verde
civilization was simply a continuation of the Chaco Culture
civilization.   Continuing to connect the dots, historians now see
linkages from Mesa Verde to the massive petroglyph sites near
Albuquerque and the Salinas Mission Pueblos such as Gran Quivira in
north-central New Mexico; and from there to the peoples of the
modern day pueblos that survive to this day.   As you might imagine,
the modern day Pueblos aren't exactly thrilled about the idea of
their ancestors being called by a name translating as "enemy" – and
translating from a foreign language at that.Thus, most
historians prefer the politically-correct, but much less elegant
term, "Ancestral Puebloans" for the people of Chaco Canyon and Mesa
Verde.What's truly odd, however, is that not only does Diamond
use the term "Anasazi" exclusively, but he doesn't even acknowledge
the existence of the debate.

Now while Diamond does in fact point out that modern-day Puebloans
are indeed descendants of the people of Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde,
I can't help but feel that he brushes over that fact.   After all,
if the Chaco Canyon people continue to thrive to this day, then they
don't make a very good type-example of "collapse"!

In order to understand the "collapse" of Chaco Canyon it is
important to also understand the role that Chaco Canyon had in
Ancestral Puebloan culture before its abandonment.   Diamond
presents a little bit of this, but overall I think he proceeds a
little too quickly to the (admittedly fascinating) story of how
examination of timbers and analysis of packrat middens illuminated
the story of environmental degradation around Chaco Canyon.For
example, Diamond opens the chapter by comparing Chaco Canyon to the
great Mayan cities (mentioning on the side that they were naturally
of a much smaller scale.)Yet, it is not actually clear that
Chaco Canyon was a city at all.   The National Park Service's
interpretation often presents evidence that buildings of Chaco
Canyon may have been primarily religious in nature, or some other
form of public architecture.   For example, there are stone markers
that mark the solstices, and little evidence of city life.   It is
possible that Chaco Canyon was used primarily for religious
festivals, with only a small year-round population of priestly
attendants.   Its also possible that perhaps these festivals were
accompanied by a large market for trading.  Diamond only obliquely
mentions the road network of the Ancestral Puebloans, which appears
to have been centered on Chaco Canyon.   One of the most remarkable
features of these roads is that they are almost perfectly straight –
they do not bend around any obstacles.   If a Cliffside is
encountered, the road literally goes almost straight up the
hillside!   This suggests that the roads served some sort of
ceremonial or religious purpose, and further lends credence to the
idea that Chaco Canyon may have had more significance as a
religious, spiritual, and social center than as a population
center.   And if that is true, what does that truly say about
the "collapse" of the Chaco Canyon civilization, that seems to occur
right about the time that Mesa Verde, to the north, is growing in
prominence?   Is it possible that religious and social factors
played as large a role, if not a larger role, than the environmental
factors Diamond cites – particular if this is a case not of
civilizational "collapse", but civilization "transience"?

Diamond does present a fascinating scientific "detective tale" of
uncovering the environmental degradation around Chaco Canyon through
analysis of the various timbers used in the buildings of Chaco
Canyon, and the clues left behind in packrat middens.Yet, at the
end of this Chapter, Diamond 

Re: Whose Ox is Gored?

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
> evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
> watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
> especially in the South - and more recently listening to my California
> mother in-law recount her pastor advocating first Bob Dole and then
the
> GwB tickets with strong admonitions to his flock against the other
> candidates {with an amazing amount of vitriol towards Kerry}...

On the other hand, there seems to be a much stronger tradition of
Democratic candidates actually campaigning in Churches, than of
Republicans.  Of course, these are in historically African-American
Churches, and for whatever reason it doesn't seem to generate much
outrage every four years.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Keep Propaganda Off The Airwaves

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rather than continuing to trade rhetorical points, perhaps you could
> > start by specifying those things that are broadly-accepted factual
> > inaccuracies - and not just partisan factual inaccuracies
>
> ... So that you can just dismiss them as partisan factual
inaccuracies?


If I can do that, then perhaps they aren't as "factual" as you
think.

> Here's one, though: NOBODY in the Clinton admin was called by
> ANYBODY in Afghanistan who was ready to "pick up the package"
> or whatever was their code for capturing Bin Laden and refused
> to give the authorization. The film included such a scene,
> clearly intended only to make Clinton look bad.

O.k., I can't find any reference to that specific code, but the
following is a quotation from the 9-11 Commission final report,
describing the words of a CIA officer :

"Hit him tonight - we may not get another chance" (130)

JDG - "Propaganda", Maru...







___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and
> > boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of
food,
> > clothing, and boots?
>
> That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
>
> To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just
> war, economics isn't how it is justified.

Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is having a coffee
with the person who lauds all abortions.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > That's not the language of triage, Nick. That's the language of an
> > abortion is just as good as any other choice.
>
> Ever had to make a real triage decision? A life-and-death one?
>
> John, there are *no* "good" choices in a triage decision. That's what
> make it triage.


Which is precisely my point.Thanks, Nick.

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
> > >
> > > Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks,
Nick.
> > >
> > > I may use that in the future.
> >
> >
> > Too bad its not true.
> >
> > Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token
> > sentence about "choices", I don't see the words "triage" anywhere
here:
>
> So what? The following, from that site, is certainly the language of
triage:
>
> "Your decision has to be made free of coercion, and you have to be
> well-informed about all the alternatives. Every woman with an
> unplanned pregnancy faces different and sometimes conflicting
> emotions: feelings such as insecurity, desperation, anxiety,
> depression, shame or guilt may compete with happiness. Our counselling
> service will help you cope with these feelings now and in the future,
> providing information about all your options and supporting you in
> making your personal choice."


That's not the language of triage, Nick.   That's the language of an
abortion is just as good as any other choice.

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

[jdiebremse]

--- 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?Or at least to only pay a death stipend?

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?

JDG






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/17/06, Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > But for this type of
> > conspiracy to have occurred - one in which the towers
> > were destroyed by explosives inside the building, and
> > then the evidence of this suppressed after the attacks
> > - then literally thousands of people would have to be
> > involved in the coverup, because that's how many
> > people were involved in the investigation and/or have
> > the skills to identify flaws in the published reports
> > about the investigation.
>
> Now I understand what your reasoning. I didn't realize that you were
> positing a vast coverup as part of all the conspiracy theories.
>
> Assuming that a large number of people can't be wrong about something
> because they are smart and well-connected is a tautology. I think
> there are many examples of large numbers of smart, well-connected
> people who turned a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Not that I
> arguing that that's the case with 9/11... but I've generally found it
> more profitable to question authority than to make the kind of
> assumption that you are arguing.

Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions
about peer-review in science?

This argument is very similar to the argument used by Creationists when
I start pointing out the tremendous geological evidence against the
young-Earth hypothesis.

JDG






___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Week 2 NFL Picks

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> John D. Giorgis wrote:
> >NY Giants at Philadelphia - Pick: EAGLES
>
> How about them Giants?? I can't believe they turned that around, as
> they were being soundly whupped for the first 40 minutes of the game.
> Though I have to wonder if it's a sign of their resiliency or the
> Eagles' inability to close out games.


Great!   Some football discussion.

My opinion?   These things happen in football.   The Giants benefited
from a very fluky fumble recovery in the end zone, and an inexplicable
penalty on the penultimate play of regulation that turned the
game-tieing FG from a difficult 50 yarder into a makeable 35 yarder.
If either of these things don't happen, the Giants almost certainly
lose.   I don't think that either of these things demonstrates either
the Giants' resiliency nor an inability by the Eagles to close out a
game.   Well, o.k., the Giants did show some resiliency to stay with the
game, even when it looked lost - but we're only talking about it because
the Giants were resilient and lucky.

It reminds me of one of my favorite bits of football trivia.   On the
Patriots' first run to the Super Bowl, they were playing a game at the
3-13 Buffalo Bills, found themselves down in the 4th quarter and driving
for a go-ahead score.   Tom Brady completed a pass to David Patten, who
was clobbered, fumbled, and the Bills picked up the ball and returned it
for what woud likely have been a game-clinching TD.The play was
reviewed, however, and the replay review showed that after David Patten
had been knocked unconscious by the hit, his head had landed out of
bounds while part of his leg (I think - but some part of his body) was
touching the football.   By rule, a player who is out of bounds and
touches the football ends the play.The Patriots kept the ball and
went on to kick the game-winning football against a bad Bills team.
The funny thing is, if David Patten's unconscious head doesn't roll out
of bounds, the Patriots almost certainly lose the game, and as such miss
the playoffs - then there's no "tuck role" game against Oakland, no snow
angels, and no Super Bowl Championship that year.Suddenly, Bill
Belichick is a career .500 football coach, with little to show.Of
course, we now know that Bill Belichick is a coaching genius - but would
anybody have known it back then if not for David Patten's unconscious
head?

Such is football...

JDG





___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Keep Propaganda Off The Airwaves

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/15/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I personally think that it would be good for the TV networks
> > to take on controversial atttudes.
>
> Airing a factually inaccurate historical docu-drama? That is as much
> like taking on controversial issues as going on a holiday cruise is
> like walking on water.


Rather than continuing to trade rhetorical points, perhaps you could
start by specifying those things that are broadly-accepted factual
inaccuracies - and not just partisan factual inaccuracies

JDG




___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

[jdiebremse]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "John W Redelfs" jredelfs@ wrote:
> >> > People extol the virtues of abortion
> >>
> >> Not *all* people, Maru.
> >
> > Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
>
> Wow. Finally a view that really gets to the heart of it. Thanks, Nick.
>
> I may use that in the future.


Too bad its not true.

Consider the website of this abortion provider - other than a token
sentence about "choices", I don't see the words "triage" anywhere here:

  http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.273-en.html


Heck, they even provide their own ultrasound pictures of the unborn
child!

JDG

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l