Does DNA have Extraterrestrial Origins?
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a01/a010800/a010822/ Did any of you hear of this? Ticia ',:) ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Does anyone know where the TRILLIONs went?
I don't think the list will allow me to post my usual response to such questions* . . . _ *a photo of a toilet . . . ronn! :P Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Does anyone know where the TRILLIONs went?
A disturbing video of the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve being questioned by Democrat Alan Grayson, a Florida Congressman. http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Does it lead to the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump . . . ?
Officials paving California road that plays William Tell Overture http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/20/musical.road.ap/index.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does it lead to the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump . . . ?
On Sep 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Officials paving California road that plays William Tell Overture http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/20/musical.road.ap/index.html Yup. That's just what America needs: an excuse to drive back and forth over the same stretch of road for no real purpose whatsoever. YouTube videos show people in SUVs and sedans driving down the road at 50MPH or so, then making a U-turn to do it again. Oh, and it's not officials who did it, it was Honda. Evidently, when driven in a vehicle with the exact wheelbase and wheel diameter of a Honda Civic (or Accord, or whatever commercial it was for which the road was grooved), it plays roughly in key. In the couple of videos I watched, it was uniformly awful: the intervals between the notes weren't even right. I suspect that was due to speeding up and slowing down between notes. All in all, the sort of thing I wished people would do to roads when I was, oh, maybe about 6 years old, but now that I've actually developed an awareness of consequences (a real buzz-kill, that), It looks more and more like an example of wretched excess. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does it?
On 03/01/2008, at 5:19 PM, Doug wrote: I take it that Bank's new Culture novel has been released somewhere in the world. I pre-ordered it but it isnt going to be released here until the end of February. Start of Feb in the UK, should have it by the middle of February. Has anyone read it yet? No. See above... Charlie Wrong List Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does it?
Charlie wrote: Has anyone read it yet? Ah, I thought I had heard someone saying that they had gotten it for Christmas. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Does it?
I take it that Bank's new Culture novel has been released somewhere in the world. I pre-ordered it but it isnt going to be released here until the end of February. Has anyone read it yet? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: HOW MANY LIST MEMBERS DOES IT TALE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?
In a message dated 4/29/2007 2:33:14 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Per Judith Hanford: HOW MANY LIST MEMBERS DOES IT TALE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB? Would it not be better to potty train the light bulb so it never again needs to be changed? And just where do you find light bulb diapers? Viyehm ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: HOW MANY LIST MEMBERS DOES IT TALE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Three to tell a funny story about their cat and a light bulb. That whole post was funny. This bit brings to mind a question: What is it with Internet people and cats? Growing up, I didn't know one kid who liked cats better than dogs, but a majority of my Internet friends have cats. I've never quite figured it out. Jim The truth about cats and dogs Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
HOW MANY LIST MEMBERS DOES IT TALE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB?
Per Judith Hanford: HOW MANY LIST MEMBERS DOES IT TALE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB? One to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed. Fourteen to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently. Seven to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs. Seven more to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs. Five to flame the spell checkers. Three to correct spelling/grammar flames. Six to argue over whether it's light bulb or lightbulb another six to condemn those six as stupid. Fifteen to claim experience in the lighting industry and give the correct spelling. Nineteen to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a light bulb (or light bulb) forum. Eleven to defend the posting to the group saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this group. Thirty six to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique and what brands are faulty. Seven to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs. Four to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL. Three to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group. Thirteen to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add Me too. Five to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy. Four to say didn't we go through this already a short time ago? Thirteen to say do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs Three to tell a funny story about their cat and a light bulb. AND One group lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again. xponent Snopes List Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion does more harm than good - poll
On 12/24/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The part of ICM has been caught lying before when well paid to support an agenda and this seems like another case of that? But never mind, you keep going on your crusade for your faith. Brilliant: you assert without evidence that the polls methodology is flawed and then when asked to substantiate this claim declare it is irrelevant because the company is corrupt, whilst again providing no evidence. Poor faith-based Will and his crazy ideas about empiricism. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion does more harm than good - poll
On 23 Dec 2006 at 13:49, William T Goodall wrote: On 23 Dec 2006, at 12:33PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 22 Dec 2006 at 20:46, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: As is the case with so many reports of the results of polls, it would be informative to see how the questions were worded. (Googling guardian religion poll leads to the article, but I don't see a link to a copy of the poll questions there . . . ) And apparently - I'm trying to find a verification I can use - this poll was mainly conducted in a poor inner-city area which has previously been affected by rioting. Which part of ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,006 adults aged 18+ by telephone between December 12 and 13. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. leads you to think that? The part of ICM has been caught lying before when well paid to support an agenda and this seems like another case of that? But never mind, you keep going on your crusade for your faith. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion does more harm than good - poll
On 22 Dec 2006 at 20:46, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: As is the case with so many reports of the results of polls, it would be informative to see how the questions were worded. (Googling guardian religion poll leads to the article, but I don't see a link to a copy of the poll questions there . . . ) And apparently - I'm trying to find a verification I can use - this poll was mainly conducted in a poor inner-city area which has previously been affected by rioting. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion does more harm than good - poll
On 23 Dec 2006, at 2:46AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 08:15 PM Friday 12/22/2006, William T Goodall wrote: Religion does more harm than good - poll 82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious Julian Glover and Alexandra Topping Saturday December 23, 2006 Guardian As is the case with so many reports of the results of polls, it would be informative to see how the questions were worded. (Googling guardian religion poll leads to the article, but I don't see a link to a copy of the poll questions there . . . ) I'm heartened by the evidence that the filthy pus of religion is being purged from the body politic of the UK. It's a shame that the USA still has the glassy stare and glossolalia of the afflicted. Inoculation Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Religion does more harm than good - poll
Religion does more harm than good - poll 82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious Julian Glover and Alexandra Topping Saturday December 23, 2006 Guardian More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good. The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities. Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as a religious person. A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian. Older people and women are the most likely to believe in a god, with 37% of women saying they are religious, compared with 29% of men. The findings come at the end of a year in which multiculturalism and the role of different faiths in society has been at the heart of a divisive political debate. But a spokesman for the Church of England denied yesterday that mainstream religion was the source of tension. He also insisted that the impression of secularism in this country is overrated. You also have to bear in mind how society has changed. It is more difficult to go to church now than it was. Communities are displaced, people work longer hours - it's harder to fit it in. It doesn't alter the fact that the Church of England will get 1 million people in church every Sunday, which is larger than any other gathering in the country. The Right Rev Bishop Dunn, Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, added: The perception that faith is a cause of division can often be because faith is misused for other uses and other agendas. The poll suggests, however, that in modern Britain religious observance has become a habit reserved for special occasions. Only 13% of those questioned claimed to visit a place of worship at least once a week, with 43% saying they never attended religious services. Non-Christians are the most regular attenders - 29% say they attend a religious service at least weekly. Yet Christmas remains a religious festival for many people, with 54% of Christians questioned saying they intended to go to a religious service over the holiday period. Well-off people are more likely to plan to visit a church at Christmas: 64% of those in the highest economic categories expect to attend, compared with 43% of those in the bottom group. Britain's generally tolerant attitude to religion is underlined by the small proportion who say the country is best described as a Christian one. Only 17% think this. The clear majority, 62%, agree Britain is better described as a religious country of many faiths. ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,006 adults aged 18+ by telephone between December 12 and 13. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion does more harm than good - poll
At 08:15 PM Friday 12/22/2006, William T Goodall wrote: Religion does more harm than good - poll 82% say faith causes tension in country where two thirds are not religious Julian Glover and Alexandra Topping Saturday December 23, 2006 Guardian More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good. The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities. Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as a religious person. A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian. As is the case with so many reports of the results of polls, it would be informative to see how the questions were worded. (Googling guardian religion poll leads to the article, but I don't see a link to a copy of the poll questions there . . . ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bill Amend does political humor?
I love Foxtrot; it's the geekiest newspaper strip out there. But today's (10/29) strip takes a different approach: http://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/ I thought it was a pretty good commentary on American politics right now, and some of you might be alternately amused and scared by it. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scholastic Does the Right Thing
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an impressive display of agility, educational publisher Scholastic has cancelled their planned distribution of study guides to accompany the Path to 9/11 miniseries and replaced them with a Media Literacy Discussion Guide that focuses on helping high-schoolers learn how to think about and interpret what they get from the media. Here's Scholastic's statement on the matter: http://www.scholastic.com/medialiteracy/ And the Media Literacy materials themselves: http://content.scholastic.com/browse/unitplan.jsp?id=175 Just imagine if religious conservatives had gotten the material on a Scholastic study guide changed. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scholastic Does the Right Thing
On Sep 15, 2006, at 5:19 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an impressive display of agility, educational publisher Scholastic has cancelled their planned distribution of study guides to accompany the Path to 9/11 miniseries and replaced them with a Media Literacy Discussion Guide that focuses on helping high-schoolers learn how to think about and interpret what they get from the media. Here's Scholastic's statement on the matter: http://www.scholastic.com/medialiteracy/ And the Media Literacy materials themselves: http://content.scholastic.com/browse/unitplan.jsp?id=175 Just imagine if religious conservatives had gotten the material on a Scholastic study guide changed. Actually, I believe Scholastic changed the guide because they themselves recognized that the Path to 9/11 film was flawed, unnecessarily divisive and ill-timed. I think it is telling that it was replaced by a Media Literacy curriculum. I don't think they just caved to all that pressure from us crazed liberals, I think that they felt that the film was so flawed that what students needed was to know how to view it critically. As to your Just imagine, here you go: a bit of imagining... NBC is famously preparing a strongly pro-choice Path to Choice miniseries, which they tout as based on the 'NIH Study on Conception and Life'. The film is previewed to a select group of pro-choice bloggers, NOW, ARAL and other so-called abortion advocates. The film is know to make numerous false statements about when life begins, and shows well-known persons shown doing and saying things that they had not done, in service of the film's agenda. In one scene that draws a lot of fire, it shows a top Focus on the Family staffer deciding to have an abortion, reasoning that life probably begins after a baby takes his or her first breath. Scholastic gets involved to create a study guide for what they feel is an important portrayal of a vital issue or our time. Their curriculum repeats the misleading portrayals in the film, bringing its biased pro-choice message to 100,000 high schools and painting James Dobson as a bit of a fraud. Right-to-life advocates -- spearheaded by James Dobson, furious at how Focus on the Family's position had been misstated -- mount a huge campaign pointing out the flaws in the film and asking NBC to correct its errors or can it. NBC decides to air the program largely intact, including the misleading scenes. Further pressure is brought on Scholastic, which decides to deliver a neutral curriculum on Making Difficult Ethical Decisions instead. Would I be upset by this outcome? Not at all: I would applaud Scholastic for declining to be involved in a smear against Dobson and for refusing to push one view of a highly divisive issue down the throats of millions of kids. Dave Actual Values Voter Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scholastic Does the Right Thing
Folks, In an impressive display of agility, educational publisher Scholastic has cancelled their planned distribution of study guides to accompany the Path to 9/11 miniseries and replaced them with a Media Literacy Discussion Guide that focuses on helping high-schoolers learn how to think about and interpret what they get from the media. Here's Scholastic's statement on the matter: http://www.scholastic.com/medialiteracy/ And the Media Literacy materials themselves: http://content.scholastic.com/browse/unitplan.jsp?id=175 Of course, that these materials could be used _just_ as well to to teach kids how to decide what to think about Fahrenheit 911 as the Path to 9/11 miniseries. I wonder if ABC will show anything like this kind of class? Will they follow CBS's lead on the Reagan docudrama and relegate it to ABC Family or another Disney-owned cable outlet? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Yeah, but how does it taste?
New Animal Resembling Furry Lobster Found from Associated Press PARIS - A team of American-led divers has discovered a new crustacean in the South Pacific that resembles a lobster and is covered with what looks like silky, blond fur, French researchers said Tuesday. Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new family and genus for it. The divers found the animal in waters 7,540 feet deep at a site 900 miles south of Easter Island last year, according to Michel Segonzac of the French Institute for Sea Exploration. http://tinyurl.com/q5c9k --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Yeah, but how does it taste?
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Yeah, but how does it taste? Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 11:00:08 -0600 New Animal Resembling Furry Lobster Found from Associated Press PARIS - A team of American-led divers has discovered a new crustacean in the South Pacific that resembles a lobster and is covered with what looks like silky, blond fur, French researchers said Tuesday. Scientists said the animal, which they named Kiwa hirsuta, was so distinct from other species that they created a new family and genus for it. The divers found the animal in waters 7,540 feet deep at a site 900 miles south of Easter Island last year, according to Michel Segonzac of the French Institute for Sea Exploration. http://tinyurl.com/q5c9k Apparently some blondes _are_ deep! -Twavis _ Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound e-mail and attachments. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Yeah, but how does it taste?
Travis Edmunds wrote: Apparently some blondes _are_ deep! Nah, it probably twirls its claw fur and says I don't get it a lot. :) Besides, it doesn't matter how smart a blond is, the blond thing still applies. My wife has a BS in chemistry, a BA in math, an MA in statistics and a PhD in math education and jokes *still* whiz by her like Vipers in a dogfight half the time. :) Jim Glad she'll never read this message Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yeah, but how does it taste?
On Mar 9, 2006, at 4:00 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: New Animal Resembling Furry Lobster Found I have already begun a campaign to have its common name be Disco Crab. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yeah, but how does it taste?
On 3/8/06, Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: Apparently some blondes _are_ deep! Glad she'll never read this message Maru And what's it worth to you to keep it that way? It could accidentally slip out, you know. Nick Nunzio Maru -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yeah, but how does it taste?
Nick Arnett wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Glad she'll never read this message Maru And what's it worth to you to keep it that way? It could accidentally slip out, you know. Nunzio Maru I have visions of finding a severed Uplifted dolphin head in my bed as the Brin-L mafia takes aim. :) It won't do you any good; I already told her of the discussion. She just laughed, because she knows it's true. Although I've noticed it does become a convenient excuse sometimes, tricksy womenses... Besides, I have little room to talk; this weekend I demonstrated my inability to count to fifteen (I helped set up my kids' Magic decks for a Juniors tournament and miscounted my daughter's sideboard), and expect to receive ball-bustings about it from now until *about* doomsday. Jim Three kinds of actuaries Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yeah, but how does it taste?
One day, a blonde named Sally was putting together a puzzle. She was really stumped and very frustrated, so she decided to ask her husband for help. ''It's supposed to be a tiger!'' Sally cried. ''Honey, said Dan, Put the Frosted Flakes back in the box!'' -Twavis _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yeah, but how does it taste?
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:58 PM Subject: Re: Yeah, but how does it taste? One day, a blonde named Sally was putting together a puzzle. She was really stumped and very frustrated, so she decided to ask her husband for help. ''It's supposed to be a tiger!'' Sally cried. ''Honey, said Dan, Put the Frosted Flakes back in the box!'' Q: How do blonde brain cells die? A: Alone. xponent My Wife Too Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Um, does this make any sense?
Julia Thompson wrote: http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. What's the matter? It couldn't be clearer. The world is a rounded cube with only four sides. Each of the sides is oposite to all of the other sides. Athiests are mindless robots and religious people are stooges. -1x1=0. What's there to be confused about? What was I saying again? :-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Um, does this make any sense?
On Feb 16, 2006, at 9:06 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. It used to be that people like the author of this web site had cardboard boxes full of yellow pads with heavy pencil scrawlings all over them. Sometimes, they pinned them up on the walls inside their homes and used colored string to connect various parts. If you've seen A Beautiful Mind, you get the picture. Now they have web sites. Explained. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Um, does this make any sense?
On 2/16/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. What is this bogglement? How can you not understand this page of subsmissive [sic] obscurantism? :-) I think the thing on the page that scared me most is down at the bottom where it says, Next Page... Wow. Maybe someone should introduce this guy to triangle man. Triangle man, Triangle man Triangle man hates Cubicle man They have a fight, Triangle wins Triangle man Who knew that They Might Be Giants would come in this handy? Mauro (Obscurant enough for you?) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Um, does this make any sense?
Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 2/16/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. What is this bogglement? How can you not understand this page of subsmissive [sic] obscurantism? :-) I think the thing on the page that scared me most is down at the bottom where it says, Next Page... Wow. Maybe someone should introduce this guy to triangle man. Triangle man, Triangle man Triangle man hates Cubicle man They have a fight, Triangle wins Triangle man Who knew that They Might Be Giants would come in this handy? Mauro (Obscurant enough for you?) Oh, I *love* TMBG, and I love that album! :D I found reference to it in a comment near the end of the comment thread (now closed) at http://bartholomewcubbins.blogspot.com/2006/01/interverbals-blog-has-great-discussion.html or http://tinyurl.com/8jsgo for anyone who needs the shorter link. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Um, does this make any sense?
At 03:44 PM Friday 2/17/2006, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 2/16/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. What is this bogglement? How can you not understand this page of subsmissive [sic] obscurantism? :-) I think the thing on the page that scared me most is down at the bottom where it says, Next Page... This should scare you even more: I actually went to the next page. Which is about the same length as page 1, and is more of the same, though there are some diagrams at the bottom of page 2. (I will let you decide for yourself if they are useful or not.) Wow. Maybe someone should introduce this guy to triangle man. Triangle man, Triangle man Triangle man hates Cubicle man They have a fight, Triangle wins Triangle man Who knew that They Might Be Giants would come in this handy? Mauro (Obscurant enough for you?) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Um, does this make any sense?
http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Um, does this make any sense?
On 2/17/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. Julia Did you find it here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube ~Maru Until Emails are CUBIC in all their faces (atheistic and catholic) mailing lists will continue to be subeverted by the Scientific Establishment which DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW EMAIL IS TRIANGULAR. This comes from the obvious observation that -1 x -1=+1 is stupid and evil. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Nah, you just haven't spent enough time hanging out in unclear physics labs . . . Is unclear physics a result of computer models programmed using fuzzy logic? :-D Jim Spell check doesn't solve all ills Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
At 07:13 AM Thursday 11/10/2005, Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Nah, you just haven't spent enough time hanging out in unclear physics labs . . . Is unclear physics a result of computer models programmed using fuzzy logic? :-D Jim Spell check doesn't solve all ills Maru It was a deliberate transposition which anyone who spent enough time hanging out in the aforementioned location would likely have encountered repeatedly . . . and understood completely. :P --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Nah, you just haven't spent enough time hanging out in unclear physics labs . . . Is unclear physics a result of computer models programmed using fuzzy logic? :-D It was a deliberate transposition which anyone who spent enough time hanging out in the aforementioned location would likely have encountered repeatedly . . . and understood completely. :P It's good to know that even at our ages, the I meant to do that defense is still a viable one. ;-) Jim Who really was kidding about the spell check thing Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
At 08:30 AM Thursday 11/10/2005, Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Nah, you just haven't spent enough time hanging out in unclear physics labs . . . Is unclear physics a result of computer models programmed using fuzzy logic? :-D It was a deliberate transposition which anyone who spent enough time hanging out in the aforementioned location would likely have encountered repeatedly . . . and understood completely. :P It's good to know that even at our ages, the I meant to do that defense is still a viable one. ;-) Jim Who really was kidding about the spell check thing Maru :) It was, however, an old joke when I first started hanging out around particle accelerators, which was at a time when only the first half of Jerry Pournelle's statement was applicable . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-05zq.html If subatomic particles had personalities, neutrinos would be the ultimate wallflowers. One of the most basic particles of matter in the universe, they've been around for 14 billion years and permeate every inch of space, but they're so inconceivably tiny that they've been called almost nothing and pass straight through things - for example, the Earth - without a bump. So it's easy to see why no one thought they existed until the 1930s, and why it wasn't until the 1950s that scientists were finally able to confirm their inconspicuous presence. It's also easy to see why their masses, once believed to be zero, remain so elusive, but could help unlock the universe's mysteries on everything from dark matter to the births of galaxies. With a Precision Measurement Grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology that will provide up to $150,000 in funding over three years, Florida State University research physicist Edmund G. Myers, in Tallahassee, Fla., and student researchers hope to meet part of that challenge by measuring the precise difference in mass of tritium, a form of hydrogen, and helium-3 atoms. This will help pin down the mass of the electron neutrino. To make such a measurement, Myers will use the state-of-the-art Penning trap that he brought to FSU from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2003. It's arguably the most precise equipment made for the purpose of determining atomic mass. With neutrino mass, the game is to keep lowering the upper limit until you find it, Myers said. Right now, that ceiling is around 2 electron Volts (eV). Myers' work, combined with results from other experiments, could drop this by a factor of at least 10, to 0.2 eV or even lower. By comparison, an electron, which is probably the lightest commonly known subatomic particle, has a mass of 511,000 eV. Myers was one of two recipients of this year's Precision Measurement Grants, which the National Institute of Standards and Technology has been awarding since 1970. Among the 34 applications, Myers' research stood out because it so snugly fit the institute's mission to support physics research at the most fundamental level, said Peter Mohr, the institute's grant program manager. What he's doing is very precise measurements, Mohr said. The results are very important. * I'm having a bit of trouble envisioning how voltage is equivalent to mass. I'm guessing that voltage in the electrical sense is not exactly the same as eV in the electron sense, or is it? Voltage is electrical pressure. Is eV the pressure an electron exerts on its environment? xponent I'm A Dummy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
Robert G. Seeberger quoted: With neutrino mass, the game is to keep lowering the upper limit until you find it, Myers said. Right now, that ceiling is around 2 electron Volts (eV). Was it dismissed the hypothesis that neutrinos had an imaginary mass [i.e., they were tachions]? then asked: I'm having a bit of trouble envisioning how voltage is equivalent to mass. It´s not, but energy is. The eV is not a unit of voltage, but a unit of energy: it´s the energy that corresponds to 1 Volt x the charge of 1 electron. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:13 AM Subject: Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh? Robert G. Seeberger quoted: With neutrino mass, the game is to keep lowering the upper limit until you find it, Myers said. Right now, that ceiling is around 2 electron Volts (eV). Was it dismissed the hypothesis that neutrinos had an imaginary mass [i.e., they were tachions]? then asked: I'm having a bit of trouble envisioning how voltage is equivalent to mass. It´s not, but energy is. The eV is not a unit of voltage, but a unit of energy: it´s the energy that corresponds to 1 Volt x the charge of 1 electron. Ahhhof course.there is an equivalency between mass and energy (E=MCexp2). Should have considered this myself, but it is difficult with the back pain and drugs I'm taking today. (That's why I'm home at this odd hour) Vicodin,Flexaril and lower back pain are not conducive to clearheaded thinking.G xponent Not Far From The Couch Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:13 AM Subject: Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh? Was it dismissed the hypothesis that neutrinos had an imaginary mass [i.e., they were tachions]? IIRC, the only reason anyone thought that neutrinos travel faster than light is that supernova neutrinos have been observed a very short time before the light from the supernova. There are a couple of obvious problems with this. If they go faster than light, then it is by very little, since the timing difference is only a few hours for intergalactic distances (millions of light years). Second, the timing difference is close to the same for different distances...which would not be true if the timing difference is due to speed. Third, tachions are not suppose to interact with normal matter...any interaction would be problematic...and not just with a simple virtual Z or W. A more obvious explanation was that the neutrino flux originated slightly before the light flux. That does make sense, since the star that is about to go supernova is, essentially, transparent to neutrinos, but not to other elements. For example, IIRC, it would take years after the sun stopped neutrino production for it to stop shining...the supernova process is much faster, but not really instantaneous. My memory is that the physics of this has been worked out to general satisfaction. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
Voltage is electrical pressure. No it's not. Voltage is a measurement of electric field potential. In a sense, it's a measure of how far downhill (in electrical terms) one position is from another. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:16 PM Subject: Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh? Voltage is electrical pressure. No it's not. Voltage is a measurement of electric field potential. In a sense, it's a measure of how far downhill (in electrical terms) one position is from another. Voltage is often described as electrical pressure in texts for educating electrical workers. Often in relation to descriptions of the distance an arc will jump between 2 conductors at a given voltage or how far power can be conducted down a conductor without a voltage drop. The term electrical pressure is often used interchangeably with potential in such educational (with regard to electricians) situations. But I understand your objection as a technicality as our paradigms are certain to differ since the rigorous accuracy and specificity your field requires is mostly unnecessary in my field. G Electricians are for the most part quite ignorant on the subject of physics, I have met only one electrician who was better versed than I am (and I imagine your estimations of how little I know are generally accurate enough). You would likely get a good laugh if you could hear the conversations (rare) I've heard about whether electrons actually move or is it the holes that do the moving. (This is actually part of the electrical training curriculum and is pretty much misunderstood by everyone since fields and their relationship to electromagnetism is basically glossed over in favor of simple mechanical movement of electron explanations) I'm always open to understanding they modern physics paradigm of electrical theory. xponent Feeling Druggy At the Moment Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Does 'Almost Nothing' Weigh?
At 10:26 AM Wednesday 11/9/2005, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/physics-05zq.html If subatomic particles had personalities, neutrinos would be the ultimate wallflowers. One of the most basic particles of matter in the universe, they've been around for 14 billion years and permeate every inch of space, but they're so inconceivably tiny that they've been called almost nothing and pass straight through things - for example, the Earth - without a bump. So it's easy to see why no one thought they existed until the 1930s, and why it wasn't until the 1950s that scientists were finally able to confirm their inconspicuous presence. It's also easy to see why their masses, once believed to be zero, remain so elusive, but could help unlock the universe's mysteries on everything from dark matter to the births of galaxies. With a Precision Measurement Grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology that will provide up to $150,000 in funding over three years, Florida State University research physicist Edmund G. Myers, in Tallahassee, Fla., and student researchers hope to meet part of that challenge by measuring the precise difference in mass of tritium, a form of hydrogen, and helium-3 atoms. This will help pin down the mass of the electron neutrino. To make such a measurement, Myers will use the state-of-the-art Penning trap that he brought to FSU from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2003. It's arguably the most precise equipment made for the purpose of determining atomic mass. With neutrino mass, the game is to keep lowering the upper limit until you find it, Myers said. Right now, that ceiling is around 2 electron Volts (eV). Myers' work, combined with results from other experiments, could drop this by a factor of at least 10, to 0.2 eV or even lower. By comparison, an electron, which is probably the lightest commonly known subatomic particle, has a mass of 511,000 eV. Myers was one of two recipients of this year's Precision Measurement Grants, which the National Institute of Standards and Technology has been awarding since 1970. Among the 34 applications, Myers' research stood out because it so snugly fit the institute's mission to support physics research at the most fundamental level, said Peter Mohr, the institute's grant program manager. What he's doing is very precise measurements, Mohr said. The results are very important. * I'm having a bit of trouble envisioning how voltage is equivalent to mass. I'm guessing that voltage in the electrical sense is not exactly the same as eV in the electron sense, or is it? Voltage is electrical pressure. Is eV the pressure an electron exerts on its environment? An electron volt is a unit of *energy*: the amount of energy imparted to an electron when it moves through a potential difference of one volt. By Einstein's equation E=mc^2, mass and energy are equivalent. The mass of an electron is equivalent to about 511 thousand electron volts worth or energy. So, rather than calling it 9.1×10^-31 kilograms, physicists especially in the atomic and nuclear field say that the mass of an electron is 511 keV or 0.511 Mev, both because (1) it is shorter and simpler than carrying along that big negative exponent on the mass in kilograms and (2) it relates the mass-equivalent of a particle to the amount of energy the particle receives when accelerated through a voltage in the laboratory (or in nature, or by the electron gun in a TV picture tube or the like), which for a light particle such as an electron can easily be comparable to or even greater than the energy equivalent of its mass. It also makes it easier when dealing with annihilation reactions and pair production: the mass of an electron or positron is 0.511 MeV, and so the spectrum of a positron emitter shows a peak at that energy due to the gamma rays produced when the positrons emitted by the decay of the radioactive substance annihilate with electrons in the surroundings. xponent I'm A Dummy Maru Nah, you just haven't spent enough time hanging out in unclear physics labs . . . Or Maybe You Already Have A Life Maru --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scientology DOES make a good case....
for removing the tax exempt status of all nonprofits.. LeonardMatusik [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dang! some serious finger/computer problems; perhaps my Thetans need exercising) - Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Does the average American understand poor?
So, I'm reading the discussion of why some people didn't evacuate New Orleans. I find myself wondering if a lot of people in this country just don't realize how desperately poor some of us are. It seems clear that lots of the folks in charge don't have a clue that you can't just announce, Everybody out! and expect a major city's population -- especially a city with as many people living in poverty as New Orleans -- to pack up and go. I think we just don't hear the stories of the desperately poor most of the time. Not to congratulate myself, but to express gratitude, I'll say that I wouldn't really have a clue if I hadn't gotten involved in one of the poorest communities in our area. And even getting involved doesn't necessarily open my eyes to how life really is for some people, because it is very hard to walk into a poor area and admit that it is necessary to shut up and listen to people, rather than trying to fix them. I'm not sure I could explain here in words my sense of how hard it is for those who seem trapped somewhere on the other side of the poverty line. Just for starters, you have to have luggage, or at last sturdy boxes, to pack up. And you have to have a vehicle that will hold your whole family to go. And you have to have gas money. And it's hard to leave when you have no idea where you're going to go... and you suspect that outside of the city, there are a whole lot of people who are prejudiced against you. My life changed forever when I spent part of a summer in the mid-'80s in Cuernavaca, on a reverse mission, where the whole point was to go a listen, then bring stories back. A year or two ago, I decided that that sort of retreat into story-telling is where I'm called. I'm participating in it right now with a group of Bay Area families who had relatives killed in Iraq, a group that transcends politics in its constituents, thank goodness. Just two data points about politicians, but they're my personal experiences. At the community technology center where I was involved, I talked to a couple of our top officials during their visits. Bill Clinton definitely seemed to grasp what we were about. He had just come back from India and told me how much change could be brought about by just one computer and one computer-literate person in a rural village. Treasury Secretary Don Evans, our current president's best friend, told me, when I asked him what he learned during his visit, that he was looking forward to telling the President about an animation that showed him dancing with Brittany Spears. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
From: Max Battcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: [snipped nice list] Sluggy Freelance is my main daily strip. I would add: VGCats (.com) to your list; nothing like weird video game cats. Kevin and Kell (herdthinners.com) was started by a syndicated print comic artist and is purely online. Girl Genius (girlgeniusonline.com) is really interested because it started as a published cult series (as in comic store comic) and is going online because Studio Foglio thinks its an easier format (regardless of whether or not the business model is better). Also, some of the ones you mentioned (and a whole bunch more) can be summed up by pointing out the big Internet syndicates (comic hosts) such as Keenspot and Drunk-Duck. Because I'm not pimping those comics or services? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
The Fool wrote: [snipped nice list] Sluggy Freelance is my main daily strip. I would add: VGCats (.com) to your list; nothing like weird video game cats. Kevin and Kell (herdthinners.com) was started by a syndicated print comic artist and is purely online. Girl Genius (girlgeniusonline.com) is really interested because it started as a published cult series (as in comic store comic) and is going online because Studio Foglio thinks its an easier format (regardless of whether or not the business model is better). Also, some of the ones you mentioned (and a whole bunch more) can be summed up by pointing out the big Internet syndicates (comic hosts) such as Keenspot and Drunk-Duck. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ I have no idea what I'm doing. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: Their are dozens of free / daily / archived webcomix. A few of the better ones: Pewfell (older behind barrier): http://www.moderntales.com/series.php?name=pewfell5view=current Sluggy Freelance: http://www.sluggy.com/ Schlock Mercenary: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ Errant Story http://www.errantstory.com/ User Friendly: http://www.userfriendly.org/static/ Something Positive: http://www.somethingpositive.net/index.html Angel Moxie: http://www.venisproductions.com/angelmoxie/index.html Goats: http://www.goats.com/ Girly: http://go-girly.com/ Overboard: http://www.ucomics.com/overboard/index.phtml Pearls Before Swine: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/pearls/index.html Little Dee: http://www.littledee.net/ Fighting Words: http://www.comicssherpa.com/site/feature?uc_comic=csnav I Drew This: http://idrewthis.org/index.html The Circle Weave (older behind barrier): http://www.circleweave.com/ Exploitation Now (Ended): http://www.exploitationnow.com/ Bleedman (PPG): http://bleedman.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=0 (It's not like they aren't making PPGZ in Japan...) Sinfest: http://www.sinfest.net/ PvP: http://www.pvponline.com/ I like Sluggy, UF PVP. (Not that I've been keeping up with them very well) Hilight the Archives, all of which they have. I created a Proxomitron filter to put the larger User Friendly from the UF Archive on the front page... Pearls is in my newspaper, and I keep up with that one that way. There have been some really good zots there lately Not everyone gets it their paper. It's nothing great. Not like Something Positive, which is great. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] In answer to the subject line -- um, no? :) I'm guessing that's your belief, anyway. Nice hook. The Fool wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200en=0 8e3777cc4943486ei=5090partner=geartestemc=rss http://tinyurl.com/djskq (I had problems with a cut URL. I figure someone else might have, as well.) THese shortlinks don't show the original source of the URL. As I read the article, I was wondering, On what planet is this woman accessing online comics? My favorites were not mentioned in the least. http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/08/wow_i_get_to_tr.html ... The effect is an article on webcomics written by someone who hasn't actually read the comics in question. (She mentions only one webcomic unreservedly positively -- Count Your Sheep. Which she could read for free. Nice to know the Times won't spring for a three dollar one month subscription for her expense account. And also nice to know that she didn't bother to check around for... oh, I don't know... Webcomics resources to use in research.) Of course, in talking about making money -- and the failures of webcomics to fulfill that promise -- she manages to not talk about PvP, Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, Ctrl-Alt-Del, Something Positive, or much of anything else. In other words, she doesn't know the first thing about the debate of commercial success in webcomics, much less the topic. She doesn't know the Keenspot model versus Modern Tales versus Blank Label versus independent sites. She doesn't know the argument of support versus merchandising support versus subscription versus micropayments. And it's not like it's hard to find evidence of those debates. Just going to Scott McCloud's website would do that. ... Comments: ... For the record, Sarah Boxer asked for, and received, free press passes to all the Modern Tales sites while she was writing this article. And then proceeded to treat the subscription wall as an impenetrable barrier anyway. ... On a hunch, I did a little research on this Sarah Boxer person and it turns out that she's a print cartoonist. ... Yeah. What they said. I'm wondering if her bias totally got in her way of writing something *intelligent* on the topic. :P Thanks for pointing this out to us! Their are dozens of free / daily / archived webcomix. A few of the better ones: Pewfell (older behind barrier): http://www.moderntales.com/series.php?name=pewfell5view=current Sluggy Freelance: http://www.sluggy.com/ Schlock Mercenary: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ Errant Story http://www.errantstory.com/ User Friendly: http://www.userfriendly.org/static/ Something Positive: http://www.somethingpositive.net/index.html Angel Moxie: http://www.venisproductions.com/angelmoxie/index.html Goats: http://www.goats.com/ Girly: http://go-girly.com/ Overboard: http://www.ucomics.com/overboard/index.phtml Pearls Before Swine: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/pearls/index.html Little Dee: http://www.littledee.net/ Fighting Words: http://www.comicssherpa.com/site/feature?uc_comic=csnav I Drew This: http://idrewthis.org/index.html The Circle Weave (older behind barrier): http://www.circleweave.com/ Exploitation Now (Ended): http://www.exploitationnow.com/ Bleedman (PPG): http://bleedman.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=0 (It's not like they aren't making PPGZ in Japan...) Sinfest: http://www.sinfest.net/ PvP: http://www.pvponline.com/ Etc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
The Fool wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] In answer to the subject line -- um, no? :) I'm guessing that's your belief, anyway. Nice hook. The Fool wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200en=0 8e3777cc4943486ei=5090partner=geartestemc=rss http://tinyurl.com/djskq (I had problems with a cut URL. I figure someone else might have, as well.) THese shortlinks don't show the original source of the URL. I like to post both, when reasonable. The source is there, and the easily-clickable thing is there. [massive snippage] Their are dozens of free / daily / archived webcomix. A few of the better ones: Pewfell (older behind barrier): http://www.moderntales.com/series.php?name=pewfell5view=current Sluggy Freelance: http://www.sluggy.com/ Schlock Mercenary: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/ Errant Story http://www.errantstory.com/ User Friendly: http://www.userfriendly.org/static/ Something Positive: http://www.somethingpositive.net/index.html Angel Moxie: http://www.venisproductions.com/angelmoxie/index.html Goats: http://www.goats.com/ Girly: http://go-girly.com/ Overboard: http://www.ucomics.com/overboard/index.phtml Pearls Before Swine: http://www.dilbert.com/comics/pearls/index.html Little Dee: http://www.littledee.net/ Fighting Words: http://www.comicssherpa.com/site/feature?uc_comic=csnav I Drew This: http://idrewthis.org/index.html The Circle Weave (older behind barrier): http://www.circleweave.com/ Exploitation Now (Ended): http://www.exploitationnow.com/ Bleedman (PPG): http://bleedman.snafu-comics.com/?strip_id=0 (It's not like they aren't making PPGZ in Japan...) Sinfest: http://www.sinfest.net/ PvP: http://www.pvponline.com/ I like Sluggy, UF PVP. (Not that I've been keeping up with them very well) Pearls is in my newspaper, and I keep up with that one that way. There have been some really good zots there lately Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
In answer to the subject line -- um, no? :) I'm guessing that's your belief, anyway. Nice hook. The Fool wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200en=0 8e3777cc4943486ei=5090partner=geartestemc=rss http://tinyurl.com/djskq (I had problems with a cut URL. I figure someone else might have, as well.) As I read the article, I was wondering, On what planet is this woman accessing online comics? My favorites were not mentioned in the least. http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/08/wow_i_get_to_tr.html ... The effect is an article on webcomics written by someone who hasn't actually read the comics in question. (She mentions only one webcomic unreservedly positively -- Count Your Sheep. Which she could read for free. Nice to know the Times won't spring for a three dollar one month subscription for her expense account. And also nice to know that she didn't bother to check around for... oh, I don't know... Webcomics resources to use in research.) Of course, in talking about making money -- and the failures of webcomics to fulfill that promise -- she manages to not talk about PvP, Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, Ctrl-Alt-Del, Something Positive, or much of anything else. In other words, she doesn't know the first thing about the debate of commercial success in webcomics, much less the topic. She doesn't know the Keenspot model versus Modern Tales versus Blank Label versus independent sites. She doesn't know the argument of support versus merchandising support versus subscription versus micropayments. And it's not like it's hard to find evidence of those debates. Just going to Scott McCloud's website would do that. ... Comments: ... For the record, Sarah Boxer asked for, and received, free press passes to all the Modern Tales sites while she was writing this article. And then proceeded to treat the subscription wall as an impenetrable barrier anyway. ... On a hunch, I did a little research on this Sarah Boxer person and it turns out that she's a print cartoonist. ... Yeah. What they said. I'm wondering if her bias totally got in her way of writing something *intelligent* on the topic. :P Thanks for pointing this out to us! Julia who should be doing something else right now ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200en=0 8e3777cc4943486ei=5090partner=geartestemc=rss http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/08/wow_i_get_to_tr.html ... The effect is an article on webcomics written by someone who hasn't actually read the comics in question. (She mentions only one webcomic unreservedly positively -- Count Your Sheep. Which she could read for free. Nice to know the Times won't spring for a three dollar one month subscription for her expense account. And also nice to know that she didn't bother to check around for... oh, I don't know... Webcomics resources to use in research.) Of course, in talking about making money -- and the failures of webcomics to fulfill that promise -- she manages to not talk about PvP, Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, Ctrl-Alt-Del, Something Positive, or much of anything else. In other words, she doesn't know the first thing about the debate of commercial success in webcomics, much less the topic. She doesn't know the Keenspot model versus Modern Tales versus Blank Label versus independent sites. She doesn't know the argument of support versus merchandising support versus subscription versus micropayments. And it's not like it's hard to find evidence of those debates. Just going to Scott McCloud's website would do that. ... Comments: ... For the record, Sarah Boxer asked for, and received, free press passes to all the Modern Tales sites while she was writing this article. And then proceeded to treat the subscription wall as an impenetrable barrier anyway. ... On a hunch, I did a little research on this Sarah Boxer person and it turns out that she's a print cartoonist. ... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
At 01:54 PM Friday 8/19/2005, The Fool wrote: Just going to Scott McCloud's website would do that. Is the server for that web site located on the _Starduster_? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dave Land wrote: snipped A pack of Saudi terrorists hijacked planes on the date of 9/11. A pack of Robin Hood-in-Reverse thieves then hijacked society on the basis of 9/11. Nice rethorics. Sonja GCU: Mudslinging=off ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is? L3
with a shirt but no pants, his belly distended, standing in an alley between shacks amid trash. It is not a pleasant picture, but it hangs in our house to help me remember the world beyond the mountains that ring Silicon Valley. I wanted to feed that little girl who like to stick her stomach out (and my companions and I did give her mother money). But knowing there were thousands like her nearby, millions throughout the world, I also want to do much, much more. It is overwhelming, so I pray to change the things I can, accept the things I cannot, and for the wisdom to know the difference. While I haven't checked on the effectiveness of Lutheran World Relief (not being a Lutheran), I'm sure it is a well respected, hard working NGO. But NGOs do not have the resources to deal with armed forces who are opposed to any relief. I wasn't suggesting that LWF can solve the problem. I'm grateful that through them, I am doing a small thing. The US has threatened the government of Sudan with consequences if the genocide contineus. Alas, it had to water down its Security Council Resolution in order to get it passed. And, with the debacle in Iraq, its hard to believe that the US will streatch its forces to go alone in the Sudan. To me, this is a reason to abandon the current administration's policies, to head in a direction in which real coalitions can be created at a global level. What I was hoping to get at with this question was some sense of what a reasonable response to evil actions is. You and I, by ourselves, the NGOs by themselves can do little to stop this evil. But, collectively, the people of the United States can...while simultaneously limiting other actions that may protect us and help the world. It seems to me that you are not against intevening against bad actions with force; you are arguing for prudence...knowing when we can be effective and knowing when action is likely to cause more harm than goodwhich is a judgement reasonable people can differ on in many cases. Is that accurate? It is, but I'll be first to say that there's not much there. I'm not so interested in making the argument for intervention by force as I am in electing leaders who I believe will do so and do it well. Bush's arguments regarding Iraq, which seemed tenuous before the war, now seem to me to be horrible misrepresentations of Iraq and his own motivations. We may be having trouble with semantics here, because I see you repeatedly adressing your sins in your posts...including this one. Obviously, adressing your sins does not mean taking care of them yourself. But, repentance is critical. We are called to work on our own spiritual development...which includes understanding and working on our habits of sin. I realize that you are not opposed to this, because you proclaim your need to do this. So, my conclusion is that we have a language problem. I don't have any sins. However, there are some that have me. I don't work on my sins. However, sometimes I let God work on them. To me, this is not just semantics, it is at the core of the attitude that seems to allow my spiritual growth. There is a line of Paul's that is often misinterpreted: if God is for us, who can be against us. I know of a number of people who think God guarantees sucess for those who truely try to follow him. Its not that they think they are God, its that God has made a promise: you choose to work towards a goal that fits with my will, and I'll make sure you suceed. I suspect that the most popular form of self-deception is to act as though one thinks one is God while simultaneously denying it. The fact that Bush doesn't think he's God wouldn't dissuade me for a moment from my impression that he does think he's God. I do that all the time, when I try to control things that are beyond my control; or yield to the temptation to think, If I were God... -- a sentence that by defintion is insane... even though I am happy to report that I am not God. Also, one thing I find ironic and frustrating about all this is that you and Gautam have gotten into very heated arguements in this areawhen it now appears that you have been arguing from similar starting points. He has frequently argued that the US is the most powerful nation, but is not all powerful and must act based on that reality. Har. I must agree. Gautam and I manage to apologize to one another when we get carried away, which is wonderful. That's real unity, in my mind. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan, OK, I agree that we cannot stop all terrorist-type activities. But, I think it is a reasonable long term stretch goal to reduce terrorists to just another type of criminal...without the ability to alter society. First of all, I'd like to commend both you and my old friend Nick for carrying on one of the most gentle, meaningful, and respectful dialogs that it has been my good fortune to experience on Brin -L. Both of you seem to be genuinely interested in understanding, not just changing the other. A wonderful rarity in our fiercely divided world. Secondly, allow me to observe that your statement is nearly identical to one by a certain senator from Massachusetts, for which he received much criticism. In these polarized times (we're on a WAR FOOTING, for God's sake. TERRIBLE things could happen to you if you are not in a state of CONSTANT FEAR!), it is apparently unacceptable to express anything short of unwavering certitude on absolutes. While I quite agree with your reasonable long-term stretch goal, of reducing terrorism to just another type of crime, I doubt very much that, even if we were reduce the threat of terrorism to the extent that you and Senator Kerry suggest -- a mere nuisance for most folks most of the time, rather than the central focus of our effort as a nation -- we will not alter its ability to alter society. Terrorism's ability to alter society is partly a result of the strength (or cleverness or fearlessness or ...) of the terrorists. But it is at least as much the result of our willingness to allow it to alter our society. I find the current administration lacking /any/ will to prevent terrorism from altering society. In fact, the current administration has actively and assertively /granted/ terrorism its ability to alter society and enhanced its ability to do so. This administration /wants/ terrorism to be able to alter society. The current administration came in with the intent to alter society. It was unwittingly (I hope) helped in that task by the terrorist acts of a certain date a couple of years ago. A pack of Saudi terrorists hijacked planes on the date of 9/11. A pack of Robin Hood-in-Reverse thieves then hijacked society on the basis of 9/11. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is? L3
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 7:46 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Dan Minette wrote: Anyway, you're starting with a premise that I reject -- that we must stop terrorism. Although that sentiment is not quite in a league with wiping out all the evil-doers, it strikes me as a tempting distraction. Let's do our best to stop terrorists -- from attacking and from coming into existence -- with a humility that accepts the fact that we cannot eradicate evil from the world. OK, I agree that we cannot stop all terrorist-type activities. But, I think it is a reasonable long term stretch goal to reduce terrorists to just another type of criminal...without the ability to alter society. GWB's use of scripture and religious language says to me that he thinks he can, that we as a nation can. But he's not God and neither is the United States. I'd give him a bit more leeway than that. While he and we are not God, he and we can be willing instruments of God's will for the world. The idea of the United States as the last best hope of mankind didn't begin with him or Reaganit is a quote from Lincoln. This view has its risks of course. Calls are often mistaken for liscence. But, it is without doubt that the US is the most important single power in the world. It seems clear to me that this power's net effect has been more for the good than for the bad. Turn the US into Balkanized, feuding groups of states...a very possible outcome of the Civil War...and liberal democracies might very well be few and far between now. Discernment is a critical issue, of course. But, there are some things that are reasonably straightforward. The continuation of slavery in the US was wrong. The actions of Stalin were wrong. Some things we should end if it within our capacity. But, as you said, while the United States is strong, it is not all powerful. Thus, prudence must also be cautioned. We had to stand aside and not interfere with the invasion of Hungary and Tibet because going to war was not a reasonable option then. That is just a reasonable conservative view...which I think you express. Are you thinking that I'm in favor of only helping people I happen to bump into? I don't think that's my idea. It is a daily struggle for me to have some glimmer of an idea of what's my business and what isn't, but that's not based on who I bump into. OK, that's a good clarification. The faith of James. James 2:18-17,24 We're reading that quite differently, perhaps. This says to me that faith calls and empowers us to good works, and to avoid the temptation of simply offering lip service. I understand that's a fairly traditional non-Methodist Protestant approach. But, quoting the Cost of Discipleship, about 1/4th of the way in the Call to Discipleship chapter: The idea of a situation in which faith is possible is only a way of stating the facts of a case in which the following two propositions hold good and are equally true: 'only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.' The big problem I have with measuring morality by outcomes is that we generally give in to our human desire to try to control things that are beyond our control, such as the existence of evil. In my experience, when I demand that things go the way *I* think they should, I'm playing God. Not that I've managed to let go of much of that sort of habit in myself. That's a problem. That's tied into our inability to earn salvation. But, that's only one of the potholes. The other, as Bonhoeffer elequently puts it, is cheap grace. Right now, I'm struggling with how to have this discussion without demanding that you see things my way, for example. Not everybody struggles with this, but everybody struggles with something. I'd be happy to see things how you see them; I'd just reserve the right to see things differently. You are right, we all struggle with something. My point is that this struggle is essential to accepting grace. For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. There's some self-righteousness in Bonhoeffer, but not much -- far less than in most of us. What I appreciate most about him at the moment is his insight into how to live in community. I don't think he had pat answers to our response to evil (did he talk about duty or reponse?), He called himself a soldier. which earns my respect. The Cost of Discipleship describes very human struggles with understanding the Beatitudes, which seems rather nutty from a worldly viewpoint. We probably focus on different parts of the book, which is fine. As for worrying just about our own sins, I think we're called to let go of worry about anybody's sins, including our own, as they were nailed to a cross 2000
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
At 02:49 PM 21/10/04 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Dan Minette wrote: By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. Certainly not economically. His personal concerns are unknown to me, but I'm certain that he may be reacting to his perception of how his people, however he might categorize them, are treated. I'm not sure it matters. I suspect that we could find economically oppressed people among those whom are led by him. I think that if you want to try to understand why humans do things you have to look at how our psychological mechanisms were shaped in the EEA, the environment of evolutionary adaption. That is to say hunter gatherer tribes. We did this for a million years and like other animals our hominid ancestors over populated their world from time to time. So, once or twice a generation, if something else didn't get them, human groups reduced their populations by violence, i.e., wars. *Chimps* wage something very much like war on neighboring groups, sometimes completely wiping them out (genocide). What trips off the psychological mechanisms leading to wars is something that has the same effect of looking out over a land where the game had been hunted out and the berry crop eaten up. I have used looming privation and falling income per capita as descriptive of the trigger for the behavioral switch. It takes a while for this mechanism to work. It does (I propose) by turning up the gain on the circulation of xenophobic memes among a population facing looming privation. You can see an echo of this in the well known fact that neo nazi movements do better in hard economic times in the US. Since income per capita is the proposed trigger, it can be set off by economic disruptions (Nazi Germany) or population that is rising faster than the growth of the economy (Rwanda). So why now and not 50 years ago for Bin Laden? Simple. High population growth and low economic growth in the Islamic countries has switch a substantial enough number of them into this mode. When this mode was switched on 100k years ago, even up to Biblical times, one tribe would attack another, with the winner killing all of the loser tribe except for the young women who became extra wives for the winners. In any event, I don't think we are called to figure out the self-justifications of a terrorist, so I'm not sure where you were going with this...? I think it informative to understand what is going on to drive the social disruptions in the Mid East even if does not lead to obvious ways to fix the situation. But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. Are we not called to treat people with justice and mercy -- love -- simply because they are people, rather than to achieve some outcome? Aren't we called to do small things with great love (Mother Theresa's words), rather than trying to focus on the big picture of West v. Middle East? Is it Christian to measure our morality on outcomes? Where is the faith in that? In my experience, faith (and peace, joy, happiness) has meant doing the next right thing without being attached to the outcome, trusting that the big picture is already covered. Unfortunately morality seems to be optimized for the other side of the cycle, where the humans are small in numbers compared to the resources available. In such times it makes far more sense for war mode to stay switched off and for the humans to concentrate on hunting and raising kids for the *next* cycle. There is more of this depressing subject, but unless someone wants more I will cut it off here. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Keith Henson wrote: I think that if you want to try to understand why humans do things you have to look at how our psychological mechanisms were shaped in the EEA, the environment of evolutionary adaption. I have to? There's no other way? ;-) No non-evolutionary explanations? Not that I am proposing to discard evolution. It just seems to me that there's more to us than can be explained by evolution, especially given our limited understanding of it. So why now and not 50 years ago for Bin Laden? Simple. I doubt that. High population growth and low economic growth in the Islamic countries has switch a substantial enough number of them into this mode. When this mode was switched on 100k years ago, even up to Biblical times, one tribe would attack another, with the winner killing all of the loser tribe except for the young women who became extra wives for the winners. Seems vastly over-simplified, but perhaps useful. My question is, how is this meaningful to the decisions I may make today? Unfortunately morality seems to be optimized for the other side of the cycle, where the humans are small in numbers compared to the resources available. In such times it makes far more sense for war mode to stay switched off and for the humans to concentrate on hunting and raising kids for the *next* cycle. There is more of this depressing subject, but unless someone wants more I will cut it off here. I do appreciate Thom Hartmann's thinking along these lines with regard to my favorite disorder, ADHD. http://www.thomhartmann.com/home-add.shtml especially this: http://www.thomhartmann.com/addapt.shtml Nick P.S. Not long ago, I was chatting for the first time in about 10 years with the guy who was my product manager at CompuServe when I used to manage some of their forums. He was updating me on some of the other folks who we both knew from there and he mentioned Thom Hartmann. Until then, I hadn't realized that I actually used to know this guy whose books I've enjoyed so much since recognizing my own ADHD. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Who does GWB think he is?
Following up on John Edwards' yucky statement that paralytics will rise up from their wheelchairs under a Kerry administration, suggesting to some that Edwards thinks Kerry is Jesus, here is language that our president and his speechwriters chose. On the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks: Our prayer tonight is that God will see us through and keep us worthy, Bush said. Hope still lights our way, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness will not overcome it. In the State of the Union speech: There is power -- wonder-working power -- in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people. Each of those quotes uses words that describe Jesus Christ instead to describe our country and its war. This is terrible, I believe. The United States is NOT the light in the darkness and the wonder-working power in the hymn There is Power in the Blood (http://members.tripod.com/~Synergy_2/lyrics/power.html) is not the American people, it is Christ. To me, it is a far different thing for a vice-presidential candidate to make foolishly hyperbolic campaign remark than for the president of the United States to give major speeches in which he all but says straight out that his political agenda is God's mission and his chosen enemies are demons. Jesus calls us to be peace-makers, not dividers of the world into good nations and evil-doers. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: Who does GWB think he is? Following up on John Edwards' yucky statement that paralytics will rise up from their wheelchairs under a Kerry administration, suggesting to some that Edwards thinks Kerry is Jesus, here is language that our president and his speechwriters chose. On the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks: Our prayer tonight is that God will see us through and keep us worthy, Bush said. Hope still lights our way, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness will not overcome it. Well, except for the fact that, according to Paul, none of us is worthy, this statement doesn't over-reach. We can still rely on the light that shines in the darkness during our toughest times; without considering ourselves the light. Worthy of grace is very problematic from a Christian perspective, In the State of the Union speech: There is power -- wonder-working power -- in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people. If one is very generous; one would say this is a Body of Christ statement, but I do have problems with it. To me, it is a far different thing for a vice-presidential candidate to make foolishly hyperbolic campaign remark than for the president of the United States to give major speeches in which he all but says straight out that his political agenda is God's mission and his chosen enemies are demons. Jesus calls us to be peace-makers, not dividers of the world into good nations and evil-doers. But, here is the question that has faced Christians for ~1600 years. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? One certainly has to be careful in judging the actions of others, but I don't think that means one cannot see evil in the world and state what one sees as wrong. For example, someone who rapes, tortures, and murders a 5 year old girl is an evil-doer. Whether he is a sinner or not is between him and God (he might be sufficiently mentally ill so that he does not pass the full will test for sin). But, we can label his actions evil. There is no doubt that the attack on the WTC was an evil act. I see Bush's view as the vast majority of the people of the world falling into the good people camp, with relatively few evil-doers spoiling it for everyone. Let me give an example apart from Bush. There are people practicing genocide in the Sudan. That practice is evil. The people actively engaged in this are evil-doers. We don't have to be self righteous in order to be indignant over genocide. I don't think we have to be sure we do no wrong before stopping genocide. I think it is acceptable to stop genocide even though one knows that, by doing so, one will accidentally cause the death of people who might have lived if we did nothing. AFAIK, you aren't a pacifist, so I won't ask you the list of questions I have for pacifists. But, even though I agree that self righteousness is a real risk; I don't place the almost complete emphasis on it that your posts seem to call for. I certainly think that GWB has too much of a black and white view of the world. Not everyone who opposes us is an evil doer; our actions aren't perfect. But, at the same time, refraining from pointing out the spec in one's neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in one's own is not the same as refraining from pointing out the log in one's neighbor's eye before removing every spec from one's own. IMHO, there needs to be a balance between avoiding self righteousness, and being willing to take a stand. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan Minette wrote: Jesus calls us to be peace-makers, not dividers of the world into good nations and evil-doers. But, here is the question that has faced Christians for ~1600 years. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? I don't think that's the question at hand, although it's a fine question, one that belongs in every consideration of use of force. Aside from the fact that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, the question today, as I see it, is whether we end terrorism by imagining that we can wipe our evil-doers or shall we agree with Jim Wallis that unless we drain the swamps of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we will never overcome the terrorist threat. I don't hear God calling on me to wipe out evil-doers, but I certainly hear a call to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly! The beginning of Psalm 37, where the word evil-doers shows up: 1 [1] Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; 2 for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away. 3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. 4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart. 5 Commit your way to the LORD ; trust in him and he will do this: 6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun. 7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 12:41 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Dan Minette wrote: But, here is the question that has faced Christians for ~1600 years. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? I don't think that's the question at hand, although it's a fine question, one that belongs in every consideration of use of force. It certainly sounds as if you imply it with your comments, including the comments below. So, it sounds as thought the use of force is occasionally Aside from the fact that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, the question today, as I see it, is whether we end terrorism by imagining that we can wipe our evil-doers or shall we agree with Jim Wallis that unless we drain the swamps of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we will never overcome the terrorist threat. But, this implies that those who use terror do so against those who opress them, and do so out of reaction to that opression. By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. He easily could have lived on an income that is many times yours, mine, Gautam's, Davids, JDGs combined. He is the son of a family with billions in wealth. If you look at those involved in terror groups, you do not...for the most part, see Africans living hand to mouth. Rather you see, on average, people who are educated and relatively well off. Further, while the government of the terrorists are often opressive, the terrorists would wish to set up even more repressive governments, with them at the head. Now, that doesn't say that a Middle East filled with liberal democracies would not undercut terrorists. Most people, including Bush, would agree to that. But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. As it stands, ex-pats are third or fourth on the totem poll in the Mid-Eastdepending on how you slice it. The totem poll is: 1) Citizens of the country 2) Non-Palestinian Arabs 3) Palestinians 4) ex-pats 5) Pakis The attitude of #4 is not critical. I don't hear God calling on me to wipe out evil-doers, but I certainly hear a call to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly! So, we are called to simply pray in response to evil. Was it wrong to stop the genocide in the Balkins? Would it be wrong to stop it in the Sudan? Are Christians required to be passive, worrying only about their own sins? The beginning of Psalm 37, where the word evil-doers shows up: 1 [1] Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; 2 for like the grass they will soon wither, like green plants they will soon die away. 3 Trust in the LORD and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. 4 Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart. 5 Commit your way to the LORD ; trust in him and he will do this: 6 He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun. 7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. So, what I hear from this is that we should let evil happen in the world, and wait for divine intervention to stop it? It would be wrong to work against those that do evil. The Psalm accurately represents an early viewpoint of Judaism; the Lord would reward and punish people in this life. But, by the time of Eccleasties and Job, this was being strongly questioned. By the time of the Macabees, it was clearly seen that people were expected to fight against wrongdoing. Indeed, the idea that Israel shouldn't fight is not in the OT, AFAIK. Now, I realize your denomination was founded by someone who threw Macabees out of scripture when someone successfully argued against him from these books. :-) But, nonetheless, it is part of the cannon for most Christians (both Roman Catholic and the various Orthodox churches). Were the Macabees wrong to fight? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:46 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Finishing a thought. It is acceptable to fight to protect innocents? I don't think that's the question at hand, although it's a fine question, one that belongs in every consideration of use of force. It certainly sounds as if you imply it with your comments, including the comments below. So, it sounds as thought the use of force is occasionally acceptable, but I am having serious trouble seeing where from your posts. I'm trying hard to put boundaries on your views (as a means of understanding..Nick views are somewhere between here and there) but am having trouble. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan Minette wrote: By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. Certainly not economically. His personal concerns are unknown to me, but I'm certain that he may be reacting to his perception of how his people, however he might categorize them, are treated. I'm not sure it matters. I suspect that we could find economically oppressed people among those whom are led by him. In any event, I don't think we are called to figure out the self-justifications of a terrorist, so I'm not sure where you were going with this...? But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. Are we not called to treat people with justice and mercy -- love -- simply because they are people, rather than to achieve some outcome? Aren't we called to do small things with great love (Mother Theresa's words), rather than trying to focus on the big picture of West v. Middle East? Is it Christian to measure our morality on outcomes? Where is the faith in that? In my experience, faith (and peace, joy, happiness) has meant doing the next right thing without being attached to the outcome, trusting that the big picture is already covered. I don't hear God calling on me to wipe out evil-doers, but I certainly hear a call to love mercy, do justice and walk humbly! So, we are called to simply pray in response to evil. Was it wrong to stop the genocide in the Balkins? Would it be wrong to stop it in the Sudan? Are Christians required to be passive, worrying only about their own sins? Was this sarcasm? I don't recall that you're ever sarcastic, but I'm unsure if you're really serious, since I didn't say I hear a call to prayer alone. So, what I hear from this is that we should let evil happen in the world, and wait for divine intervention to stop it? It would be wrong to work against those that do evil. Only if you take Psalm 37 out of context. You described some things about Lutheranism, but left out just war theology. Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace (Martin Luther). Obedience to authority was a strong theme in Nazi Germany, which many argue was encouraged by Lutheran tradition. Lutherans have no corner on truth. What is the first casualty of war? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:49 PM Subject: Re: Who does GWB think he is? Dan Minette wrote: By no stretch of the imagination was Bin Laden opressed. Certainly not economically. His personal concerns are unknown to me, but I'm certain that he may be reacting to his perception of how his people, however he might categorize them, are treated. I'm not sure it matters. I suspect that we could find economically oppressed people among those whom are led by him. In any event, I don't think we are called to figure out the self-justifications of a terrorist, so I'm not sure where you were going with this...? I'm trying to figure out your arguement. The question is whether we'll stop terrorism by simply being as just as we can But, I don't see how the West treating the people of the Middle East better will change things all that much. Are we not called to treat people with justice and mercy -- love -- simply because they are people, rather than to achieve some outcome? But, becasue they are people, are we not called to act to help them, not just treat them decently when we happen to bump into them. If our actions do not actually help them, Aren't we called to do small things with great love (Mother Theresa's words), rather than trying to focus on the big picture of West v. Middle East? Sometimes, but not all the time. I think Bonehoffer was a saint, for example. His actions as well as his writings speak to his committment to Christ. Is it Christian to measure our morality on outcomes? Yes. Where is the faith in that? The faith of James. James 2:18-17,24 How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good axct claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ' I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plentyu,' without giving them theser bare necessities of life, then what good is that.You see now thit ist is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified. In my experience, faith (and peace, joy, happiness) has meant doing the next right thing without being attached to the outcome, Yes trusting that the big picture is already covered. But that is only true in the very broadest sense...as sense where the Holocaust can occur because a bigger picture has been covered. It depends on the balance one wishes to strike. I'm trying to find your viewpoint on where that is, but you seem to be dodging direct questions. If the questions are not relevant, why not? That hight help me.' For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. So, we are called to simply pray in response to evil. Was it wrong to stop the genocide in the Balkins? Would it be wrong to stop it in the Sudan? Are Christians required to be passive, worrying only about their own sins? Was this sarcasm? I don't recall that you're ever sarcastic, One rare occasion, with someone who's arguements I have lost respect for, I have been. Maybe a few times in the last 5 years. I respect your point of view, so I've never been sarcastic in my replies. but I'm unsure if you're really serious, since I didn't say I hear a call to prayer alone. Actually, I was wondering why you quoted: quote Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. end quote with respect to this discussion. You also said the big picture was taken care of. If it is, then we only need to focus on our immediate surroundings; social injustice is none of our business. But I don't think you believe that, So, what I hear from this is that we should let evil happen in the world, and wait for divine intervention to stop it? It would be wrong to work against those that do evil. Only if you take Psalm 37 out of context. OK, but then what is the context when deciding whether to act? You described some things about Lutheranism, but left out just war theology. Which goes back to Augustine...who I know Luther liked. Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace (Martin Luther). OK, but is it OK to wage war to stop injustice instead of just repelling it from one's own home? I'll agree that great care is needed to be sure that this isn't just self-justification, but there are times when it is clearly true. Going to the Sudan again, my daughter Neli's best friend Naomi is from a family caught up in the violence there What would
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dan Minette wrote: I'm trying to figure out your arguement. The question is whether we'll stop terrorism by simply being as just as we can That's not a question for me. I don't think we're called to stop terrorism. I don't think that's within human power. The question for me is how to love God and love my neighbor. It is certainly arguable that sometimes the way to love my neighbor is to kill him. Anyway, you're starting with a premise that I reject -- that we must stop terrorism. Although that sentiment is not quite in a league with wiping out all the evil-doers, it strikes me as a tempting distraction. Let's do our best to stop terrorists -- from attacking and from coming into existence -- with a humility that accepts the fact that we cannot eradicate evil from the world. GWB's use of scripture and religious language says to me that he thinks he can, that we as a nation can. But he's not God and neither is the United States. But, becasue they are people, are we not called to act to help them, not just treat them decently when we happen to bump into them. If our actions do not actually help them, Are you thinking that I'm in favor of only helping people I happen to bump into? I don't think that's my idea. It is a daily struggle for me to have some glimmer of an idea of what's my business and what isn't, but that's not based on who I bump into. The faith of James. James 2:18-17,24 How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good axct claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation? If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ' I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plentyu,' without giving them theser bare necessities of life, then what good is that.You see now thit ist is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified. We're reading that quite differently, perhaps. This says to me that faith calls and empowers us to good works, and to avoid the temptation of simply offering lip service. The big problem I have with measuring morality by outcomes is that we generally give in to our human desire to try to control things that are beyond our control, such as the existence of evil. In my experience, when I demand that things go the way *I* think they should, I'm playing God. Not that I've managed to let go of much of that sort of habit in myself. Right now, I'm struggling with how to have this discussion without demanding that you see things my way, for example. Not everybody struggles with this, but everybody struggles with something. For example, do you agree with the Bonehoffer on Christian duty in the face of evil? Or do you think he was self-righteous. There's some self-righteousness in Bonhoeffer, but not much -- far less than in most of us. What I appreciate most about him at the moment is his insight into how to live in community. I don't think he had pat answers to our response to evil (did he talk about duty or reponse?), which earns my respect. The Cost of Discipleship describes very human struggles with understanding the Beatitudes, which seems rather nutty from a worldly viewpoint. As for worrying just about our own sins, I think we're called to let go of worry about anybody's sins, including our own, as they were nailed to a cross 2000 years ago. Actually, I was wondering why you quoted: quote Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret-it leads only to evil. 9 For evil men will be cut off, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. end quote with respect to this discussion. You also said the big picture was taken care of. If it is, then we only need to focus on our immediate surroundings; social injustice is none of our business. But I don't think you believe that, Oh, I see now. I don't read that Psalm as just pray. I think it urges us to accept the world as it really is, instead of demanding that it should be some other way or trying to control things that we cannot. It calls us to put great trust in God to take care of that which is beyond our control, trust that God is at work in the lives of our friends and enemies, freeing us from playing God in their lives, allowing us to be real with them. OK, but then what is the context when deciding whether to act? That's where prayer enters in, along with other means of piety, discipleship, grace, study, etc. -- and faith, lots of faith. Not to mention acceptance, perhaps especially acceptance that people of faith disagree. The real question for me is the extent to which I have accepted the fact that I am acceptable as I am, that God loves me not despite my errors, but comes to me in my errors, freeing me from the trap of guilt. To the extent that I don't accept this, I
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
JDG wrote: I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this issue. Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same intelligence. That's because neither Administration was treating intelligence as a black box.They weren't saying I wonder if Iraq has some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence to find out.The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN.We knew Iraq had WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly implausable that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and enduring sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated. One of the reasons we keep talking past each other is because you continue to use the phrase knew when in fact you should be saying we thought we knew. In fact we didn't know as recent events have demonstrated. Another is that you keep using events that occurred 20 years ago, prior to the fist war (and with the tacit approval of the Republican administration at the time) to justify the second war. Furthermore, we've seen time and again that the Bush administration exaggerated the threat and continued to use discredited information long after other administration officials had admitted that the information was false. Bush approached the situation in Iraq with tunnel vision once he had found his justification in 911. When he should have been concentrating on the overall anti-terror picture his mind was set on Iraq and little else. Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq. While this may be true it in no way justifies invasion. It justified the inspections that were taking place prior to the war and which were proving effective. They were not the instant gratification Bush was hoping to achieve with the invasion, but they don't have the baggage that came with the invasion and they could conceivably been used to force other internal reforms. I know you'll probably scoff at that last, but it's my opinion that gradual changes are more effective and less disruptive than abrupt ones. At this point I think that the very best we can hope for is a state similar to Iran, with a hatred for Israel (the site of yet another Bush disaster) and western society in general and the U.S. in particular. The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to be faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French to continue to stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all humans are naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to be true. In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same knowledge of the truth. I'm relatively certain that Clinton would never have brought in a fox to asses whether or not it was a good idea to raid the hen house. -- Doug Slow and steady wins the race maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 11:15 PM 5/20/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many occasions that he agreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat, that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience there, Doug. Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate Iraqis with an agenda to make the case for invasion, while ignoring evidence to the contrary from more reliable sources? Would Clinton have commissioned a study on the costs and difficulties of a war on Iraq and then ignored its results? Would Clinton have cut short the new inspection regimen that was revealing that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs? I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this issue. Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same intelligence. That's because neither Administration was treating intelligence as a black box.They weren't saying I wonder if Iraq has some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence to find out.The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN.We knew Iraq had WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly implausable that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and enduring sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated. Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq. The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to be faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French to continue to stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all humans are naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to be true. In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same knowledge of the truth. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 09:00 PM 5/17/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: The right idea: -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO) -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections -torture of political prisoners -brutality against Olympic athletes -a near-permanent lukewarm war with Iraqis shooting at our pilots -child prisons -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people -numerous mass graves -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations The right idea being that a poorly planned, abysmally administrated invasion and subsequent reconstruction, using the trademark Bush administration tactic of ignoring experts that don't come up with the right answer, would do little or nothing to solve most of the above problems. Exactly which of the above problems have not been solved? And how does this compare to the number of the above problems that have been solved? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gautam wrote: Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many occasions that he agreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat, that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience there, Doug. Would Clinton have depended on stove piped intelligence from expatriate Iraqis with an agenda to make the case for invasion, while ignoring evidence to the contrary from more reliable sources? Would Clinton have commissioned a study on the costs and difficulties of a war on Iraq and then ignored its results? Would Clinton have cut short the new inspection regimen that was revealing that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMDs? You are right (and I was wrong), Clinton believed that Iraq was a threat. But he never would have approached the problem in the haphazard, incompetent manner the Bush administration has. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You asked in a different post if Clinton would have been able to get France to join the coalition. Clinton (or Gore for that matter) would have been able to interpret the intelligence well enough to realize that Iraq wasn't a real threat, and would have built on the good will in the wake of 911 to create a _real_ coalition of free nations united in the fight to rid the world of the blight of terrorism. Doug Since Bill Clinton himself has stated on many occasions that he agreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of Iraqi threat, that's a remarkable statement of his omniscience there, Doug. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
On Mon, 17 May 2004 21:09:51 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 06:54 PM 5/13/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. The right idea: Let me turn all of these around. -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors Assault of Iran, supported and funded by the US and Saudi Arabia. Assault on Kuwait, only after getting the go-ahead from the US ambassador. Gulf War 1, after the US refused to recognize it's offer to withdraw. Attacks on Kurds pre-Gulf War 1 with no objections by the US. No attacks on Israel but did reward the families of suicide bombers - as did religious groups and members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia. Attacks on Shiites with no intervention by the US after Bush 1 encourage them to revolt. -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO) 10,000 children dying per month due to the embargo on food and medicine imposed on Iraq by the US. -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs As in the above who are you blaming, Saddam or the US? -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections The UN inspectors were withdrawn after the US said they would likely be harmed if they didn't withdraw. -torture of political prisoners See above, the US or Saddam? -brutality against Olympic athletes Stretching there. -a near-permanent lukewarm war with Iraqis shooting at our pilots After Bush took office an escalation of attacks on all military and quasi-military targets in the non-UN sanctioned no-fly zones with the purpose to roll up all defenses and possibly provoke some response worthy of massive retaliation. -child prisons Photos not available in the US yet depicts the children and women's wing of Iraqi prisons. -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine No known funding of terrorists except for the family survivor money. This in contrast to Saudi funding. -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press NO elections, last year reports of how Bremer defunded the election preparations. The start of the civil war occurred when the CPA shut down a Shiite newspaper for critical reporting. Prisoners and relatives of prisoners have reported many are in jail because neighbors have made false accusations of being against the CPA. This spring things started to go bad in the north after US troops fired on marches. -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs Criticism of Israel policies not caring how many innocents are killed to hit one possible terrorist now non-existent in most US media. -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture Revolt encouraged by Bush. Many Shiites believe now to enable Saddam to destroy their culture. -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb US CIA repeatedly informed by reliable sources that nuclear bomb development ended as specified in the Gulf War 1 treaty -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people As reported at the time with no action taken. -numerous mass graves US responsible for mass graves of thousands in Gulf War 1. After Gulf War 1, Bush refused to intervene to stop mass killings after encouraging revolts. -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations You are talking about the U.S. aren't you? Oh yes, Doug - France, China, Russia, and Germany had the right idea allright. Without George Bush, things would have been so much better in Iraq. Don't you agree Absolutely, we would have gotten rid of Saddam with world cooperation or verified that he was not a threat to his neighbors. In fact, we might have done what Cheney suggested in 1998 and ended sanctions and reopened trade so Halliburton could make money without costing US taxpayers $200 billion and what will soon be over a thousand US soldier lives. JDG - Who doesn't seriously expect anyone here to have the guts to actually say that. Surprise, This war was a massive failure, planned in the 90's, entered into illegally, immorally, with patriotic speeches and sleazy back door corrupt deals. It may have permanently damaged the reputation of the US in the rest of the world. It not only clearly demonstrates the corruption of this administration but it's massive incompetence. Saddam was a brutal mass murdering thug supported by the US until some people had better plans for Iraq. I am glad he is gone, but this administration's only sorry excuse now that they are in charge of Iraq is that at least they are not as bad as the worst in the world. FYI, before Bush took office I was considered a moderate and took grief from
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony L3
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:21 AM Subject: FW: What America Does with its Hegemony From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't recall all the details of Rwanda or Bosnia, so I take your points as given. I would argue that there was sufficient warlike activity going in both places for the reasonable person to classify them as wars, but you raise a good point. When is it a war and when is it a country perusing its own legitimate internal security program. I would think we all agree that in both these cases what was going on was more then just internal security. But there will be cases where it is less clear. That's true.I'll ask my Zambian daughter about some of the details when she comes home from her trip to South America. But, I was not thinking about the demarkation line as war/legitimate internal security. I'm thinking about it as war/one group in control. The slaughter of the Jews in Germany (which is just part of the Holocaust of course) wasn't a war because the Jewish people didn't have an effective armed resistance. Since Poland offered some initial resistance, then the slaughter of Jews in Poland might be called part of war. I think we agree that both would be worth intervening over, and neither is a legitimate security interest. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other sovereign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. I didn't know that. I have always wondered why they did not take him out. It highlights the current problems with the UN I guess. Who made Bush promise that? It was the only way to get the rest of the world to cooperate. I I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Yes, and there is the rub. I am thinking of a meaningful UN, cos yes, as it stands, there is too much politics. I think that this may be an indication of the foundation of our differences. While I can admire idealism; I don't think an idealistic goal without a practial plan to get there is a real option. One rule of thumb in engineering is that the best is often the enemy of the good. Let me understand your point clearly then. Take Gautam's example of the advisability of the British and French stopping the remiliterization of the Rhine. By your standards, that would have been wrong. Again, my lack of history is showing here. But I thought that happened after war had been declared over Poland? They didn't start a war over the Rhine did they? Or am I barking up another tree? At http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=enModuleId=10005439 quote In the 1925 Treaty of Locarno, Germany had recognized both the inviolability of its borders with France and Belgium and the demilitarization of the Rhineland. On March 7, 1936, however, Hitler repudiated this agreement and ordered the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) into the demilitarized Rhineland. Hitler's action brought condemnation from Britain and France, but neither nation intervened end quote Many people think that this was a place were WWII could have been stopped, with a relatively small price to be paid. Indeed, since Hitler had ordered his troops to retreat if this move was opposed, the lives lost would have been mostly due to accidents. Looking back at WWI, one of the lessons learned was that the nations were too quick to go to war over treaties. Indeed, the lessons could be said to be overlearned, with France and Germany overcompensating for previous errors and not taking any prudent measures to stop Hitler...until it was too late. It appears to me that you think it was immoral to stop WWII at this point. Well, see, I don't call intervening to prevent genocide as in Rwanda is starting a war of aggression. And I don't want the US to be the one to have to fix it. I want the world community to agree genocide is happening, do all it can diplomatically to prevent it, and then, if needed, assemble
FW: What America Does with its Hegemony
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. In Rwanda the tribal war was over. One side had won. After it won, it killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those members of its own tribe that protested. So, there was no war to stop, just genocide. The UN would definitely not support intervention, because it would violate the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the sovereign nature of each state in the UN. In other words, the right of a nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically, more important than stopping the evil of genocide. In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you could say the war was still going on. But, the UN's position was crystal clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide. What is amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people what they would do. There was no way this would change at the UN. Supporting the supremacy of the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking years after the mess started. At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard. It is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on the US to force a solution on them. Looking back, this seems to flow naturally from the tragedy of the commons. I don't recall all the details of Rwanda or Bosnia, so I take your points as given. I would argue that there was sufficient warlike activity going in both places for the reasonable person to classify them as wars, but you raise a good point. When is it a war and when is it a country perusing its own legitimate internal security program. I would think we all agree that in both these cases what was going on was more then just internal security. But there will be cases where it is less clear. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other sovereign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. I didn't know that. I have always wondered why they did not take him out. It highlights the current problems with the UN I guess. Who made Bush promise that? And even it would not start wars, it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Yes, and there is the rub. I am thinking of a meaningful UN, cos yes, as it stands, there is too much politics. Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein. Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this. French comments have supported his thesis. Oversimplifying it, I would say it is nations strive to improve their relative position with the other nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US. If France gains commercial contracts with Hussein, France benefits. Thus, Hussein
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 06:54 PM 5/13/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. The right idea: -military assaults on no less than four of its neighbors -10,000 children dying per month (per UNICEF and WHO) -a near permanent US presence in the Muslim Holy Land outraging Arabs -four years and counting of defiance of UN weapons inspections -torture of political prisoners -brutality against Olympic athletes -a near-permanent lukewarm war with Iraqis shooting at our pilots -child prisons -funding of international terrorists, particularly in Palestine -no elections, no freedom of speech, religion, assembly, or the press -anti-Semitic propaganda/brainwashing of 38 million Arabs -genocide of the Marsh Arab culture -the constant threat that Hussein would someday succeed in acquiring either a ready-made nuclear bomb, or the necessary ingredients of a nuclear bomb -plundering of oil revenues to build palaces while impoverishing the people -numerous mass graves -12+ years of sanctions, lies, broken promises, and failed negotiations Oh yes, Doug - France, China, Russia, and Germany had the right idea allright. Without George Bush, things would have been so much better in Iraq. Don't you agree JDG - Who doesn't seriously expect anyone here to have the guts to actually say that. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
At 09:54 PM 5/13/2004, you wrote: Steve Sloan wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had something useful enough for past European imperialists to colonize the country, and the critics could use that. There have been very few critics of our intervention in Bosnia. Even those who were opposed to it at the time point to it as proof of our good intentions. If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical companies. Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't hurt them so far. Are you sure about that? Were _all_ of France's motives for opposing the war dishonest? And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. -- Doug Sure they had the right idea. Filling up their treasuries and lining individual pockets with stolen lucre and sweetheart deals while innocents died by the thousands, ten thousand a month.who wouldn't support that? Kevin T. - VRWC Devil in the details ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan wrote: So, let my put forth a hypothetical. Lets assume this was done by an administration that had shown a real sucess rebuilding Afganistan, and had a very good team ready to work in reconstructing Iraq, and had laid out the real costs to the American people and gotten buy in. Lets suppose that Bush had not exaggerated the level of certainty for WMD from there are very strong indications...even French intelligence thinks so to total certainty. In this case, with proper preparation for sucess, would completing the Gulf War have been wrong?...especially since it faded into a often violated cease fire agreement instead of ending in '91. I'm a bit confused. You seem to be talking about the current struggle at the beginning of the paragraph and the first Gulf war at the end of it. But if the question is would I have supported the present war had the administration been better prepared and told the truth about its intentions and motivations, the answer is a definate maybe. I think that's the kind of thing you can't really speculate on unless you know all the details of the situation. I'll be honest with you though, Bush's interest in Iraq is too much like a bear's interest in a honey tree for me to feel comfortable with his judgement in this situation. And the fact that the UN repeatedly insisted on not acting. As Gautam said, stopping the slaughter violated international law. This brings up the obvious question: what is the value in international law when it requires us to, when asked, stand aside so genocide can occure? Are we required to follow the wishes of the UN and allow genocide to take place, or are we morally compelled to stop genocide. (I will argue strongly that the third option, getting the UN to stop genocide is often not a real option.) Some laws are just wrong. The U.N. is a flawed institution, but the idea of an impartial world governing body that can solve these kinds of problems is, IMO, a good one. We need to either fix the U.N. or create something that works. I just don't think we can expect the rest of the world to be saddled and ridden by the U.S. That said, I agree with the criticism of European nations in matters such as the Yugoslavia debacle. I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to save half a million human lives? What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. One thing I think a lot of people don't understand. Terrorism and the war against it are not about convincing the terrorists that they are right or convincing those that fight terrorism that they are right - its about convincing those people that aren't sure who to believe who is right. Terrorists can behead a hundred Americans and it won't be as damaging to their reputation as the prison guard scandal is to us. We're the ones waving the flag of freedom and democracy and human dignity, and the scandal calls our sincerity into question. That the terrorists are murdering, gutless scumbags is not breaking news, but the prison scandal reinforces the idea that they _have_ to be murdering, gutless scumbags in order to combat this mega-power that humiliates their people. Please don't construe the above as justifying anything the terrorists do. Terrorism needs to be eliminated, but we're going about it all wrong. Win the hearts and minds of the undecided. Prove your sincerity in a manner it's difficult to question. Intervening in Rwanda with nothing to gain other than knowing we we're doing the right thing, is the kind of thing that convinces the undecided that we are sincere. Invading Iraq where our motives are more easily questioned, no matter how sincere we might be, is a much more difficult proposition. I've got to cut this off and get some sleep. Hopefully I can finish tomorrow. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Doug Pensinger wrote: I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to save half a million human lives? What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had something useful enough for past European imperialists to colonize the country, and the critics could use that. If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical companies. Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't hurt them so far. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Steve Sloan wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: What did the U.S. have to gain by intervening in Rwanda? Diddly squat, but that doesn't mean dedicated critics of the US couldn't come up with something. Presumably, Rwanda had something useful enough for past European imperialists to colonize the country, and the critics could use that. There have been very few critics of our intervention in Bosnia. Even those who were opposed to it at the time point to it as proof of our good intentions. If we were successful in preventing a genocide and that was our clear motive in interveneing, the success of our mission would speak for itself. If, instead of asking for another $25 B for Iraq, we put that kind of money and effort towards ending the AIDS epidemic, who could doubt our motive was pure? Critics would claim the politicians who proposed it were using African AIDS victims as an excuse for taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to their buddies in the pharmaceutical companies. Only those who have dishonest motives themselves. France's dishonest motives for opposing the war in Iraq haven't hurt them so far. Are you sure about that? Were _all_ of France's motives for opposing the war dishonest? And are you so sure that some in the U.S. don't have motives that are less than honest? Whatever their motives, at this point it sure looks like the French (Chineese, Russians, Germans, Canadians etc. etc.) had the right idea. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. In Rwanda the tribal war was over. One side had won. After it won, it killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those members of its own tribe that protested. So, there was no war to stop, just genocide. The UN would definately not support intervention, because it would violate the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the soverign nature of each state in the UN. In other words, the right of a nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically, more important than stopping the evil of genocide. In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you could say the war was still going on. But, the UN's position was crystal clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide. What is amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people what they would do. There was no way this would change at the UN. Supporting the supremacy of the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking years after the mess started. At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard. It is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on the US to force a solution on them. Looking back, this seems to flow naturally from the tragedy of the commons. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other soverign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. And even it would not start wars, it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein. Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this. French comments have supported his thesis. Oversimplifying it, I would say it is nations strive to improve their relative position with the other nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US. If France gains commercial contracts with Hussein, France benefits. Thus, Hussein represents a benefit to France...and it is in France's best interest to keep Hussein in power. It is also in France's best interest for the US to check that power, since a nuclear armed Hussein would pose a danger to France. But, since France can count on Israel and the US to check these ambitions, it even behooves France to help Hussein become a nuclear power. Back to the Gulf War. Hussein started a new campaign of killing (which looked like the start of genocide) after recovering a bit from the first Gulf War. The US and GB intervened to stop it, maintaining a uneasy status quo. So, the Gulf War was more ongoing than the civil war
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan Minette wrote: I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Consider what? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:23 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony I had an unfinished thought...sorry. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider the genocide in Rwanda in any serious manner. They only way that it would have been stopped in time was for the US to make a plausible threat to immediately intervene with all due speed and all necessary means to stop it. The US would be called all sorts of names for this, of course, if the genocide were stopped early enough most of the rest of the world would have denied its existence...but the disgust of the rest of the world would have been the necessary price paid by the US to stop genocide. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:08 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony Dan wrote: wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. I think the world needs a mechanism to deal with these crisis. This would obviously require the cooperation of many disparate nations and after the current debacle is more of a pipe dream than ever. What Bush has tried to do is to tell the world how things are going to be and I think that the lesson we are learning is that no matter how powerful we are, we're not going to get the Middle East or any other region of the world to tow the line based on our say so. To be fair to him, I think what he was trying to do was change the nature of the game. The thought was, just like Japan and Germany, people would be happy with a good representative government in Iraq. This happiness would make them very protective of that government, and in short order we'd have a shining example of what could be in the mid-East. This would be the first step in draining the swamp. In principal, it is a worthwhile goal. Our own Gautam has been trying to risk his life to help accomplish this goal. I think that the folks who pushed for this from way back are idealists...complete with the blindness to reality that some realists have. I fault the Bush administration for acting as if, once Hussein was overthrown, things would work out very straightforwardly. They were horrendously unprepared, and acted as a typical leadership team caught up in management by wishful thinking. They considered those who pointed out real difficulties nay-sayers and either ignored them or pushed them out. So, let my put forth a hypothetical. Lets assume this was done by an administration that had shown a real sucess rebuilding Afganistan, and had a very good team ready to work in reconstructing Iraq, and had laid out the real costs to the American people and gotten buy in. Lets suppose that Bush had not exaggerated the level of certainty for WMD from there are very strong indications...even French intelligence thinks so to total certainty. In this case, with proper preparation for sucess, would completing the Gulf War have been wrong?...especially since it faded into a often violated cease fire agreement instead of ending in '91. Our action in Bosnia was the culmination of a problem that had festered in eastern Europe for a decade or so. It wasn't just the 'cleansing' that was taking place at the time that prompted the action, but the fact that a series of atrocities had occurred over the years and it became obvious that the cycle of violence had to be ended. And the fact that the UN repeatedly insisted on not acting. As Gautam said, stopping the slaughter violated international law. This brings up the obvious question: what is the value in international law when it requires us to, when asked, stand aside so genocide can occure? Are we required to follow the wishes of the UN and allow genocide to take place, or are we morally compelled to stop genocide. (I will argue strongly that the third option, getting the UN to stop genocide is often not a real option.) While I'm asking questions, I should explictly give my own position here. The best thing to have happened was for NATO to intervene with all force necessary immediately...with Europe in the lead...with or without UN blessing. The next best thing was for the US to prod Europe into doing this. Rwanda is probably the most persuasive argument for a policing mechanism. There is very little political interest in these poor African nations and just as importantly there is little interest in the press. The AIDS epidemic is a festering wound and our lack of decisiveness to combat it is going to come back to bite us. Big time. So yes, we should have taken action in Rwanda and I think that if Clinton had tried to he could have made a huge difference there. Its a black mark on his record, and no one knows it more than he does. I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to save half a million human lives? Iraq was (and remains) a much more difficult problem. In basing our economy around oil we have accorded an importance to the nations of the Middle East that they would never have achieved otherwise. One of Bush's big mistakes, IMO, was to reverse the trend towards trying to develop alternatives to the oil that fuels this exaggerated importance. You might recall a post that JDG made about how we are much less vulnerable to inflation as the result of a fuel shortage than we were in the late '70s, reason being we are _less_ dependant on that fuel. Well, yes and no. Natural gas was always available. Oil imports are now a greater
[L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote] I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc. The reason why I inquired is because, as you may know, I have a history degree, and would tenatively describe myself as a military historian. I have plenty of source material on the subject. But when you say that Arabians revolutionized cavalry, you must be very careful to define specifically what you mean. Arabians and Barbs, I wrote; the 'revolution' was in the changeover from heavier-type horses to lighter, more responsive ones -- although this is certainly from the horseman's perspective, and I daresay the introduction of guns had a far more revolutionary impact on warfare than a change of riding technique. It was not overnight, as the Muslim invasion began in ~711 AD, and conflict continued for centuries. http://www.sulphurs.com/history.htm Regardless of the exact influence of one breed over another [Iberian Sorreia and North African Barb - there is some evidence that the Barb came from the Sorreia and not the other way 'round], it is evident that the exchange of blood was mutually beneficial and that it produced many similarities between the two breeds, to the point that the modern Barb resembles the Iberian stock and the Criollo horses of South America. During the almost eight hundred years in which Spain and Portugal were in constant war with the Moors, horse and horsemanship had become finely attuned to the war exercises. This superb war horse was the one that the conquistadors introduced and dispersed throughout the New World together with the a la gineta style of riding, which influenced the horse cultures of the Gauchos, Charros and Llaneros. They spell it gineta. (I'd seen it as something more like jineta.) [This site is somewhat biased in favor of the antiquity of the Iberian horse and its influence - but so are Arabian, Appaloosa and many other breeders/sites! IMHO, the Arabian and the Iberian are both very important in the history of horsebreeds - but not coincidentally, I adore both.] I also mentioned 'other oriental horses' and they were introduced to the Iberian Penninsula at various times: http://www.appaloosa-crossing.com/history101.htm Great quantities of Oriental blood were introduced into Spain centuries prior to the birth of Christ. Periods of civilization and/or invasion of the peninsula include those of the Iberians (originally from north of Africa), peoples of the Alamanni, Basques (province of Navarre), Carthaginians, Celts, Cimbrians, Franks, Greeks, the Moorish invasion of 172-175 A.D., the Muslim invasion of 711 A.D., Ostragoths, Phoenicians, Romans, Suebi, Teutons, Vandals, Vistigoths, and perhaps some others (and not in order given). Each of these civilizations brought horses that had an influence on the native horses of Spain. [although the Sorreia-type has I think the more ancient claim and influence, and I believe that it is also found in cave paintings.] For example, I'm a big proponent of the Late Medieval military revolution of using fully mounted armies. This revolution was strategic, rather than tactical (most of the troops would ride to the battlefield, but dismount to actually come to grips with the enemy). So obviously our terms differ. OK - and I'm coming at it from a horseman's perspective as well. But then is this site incorrect, WRT the Battle of Hastings? http://www.imh.org/imh/kyhpl2a.html#xtocid165601 In 1066, William the Conqueror of Normandy put 3,000 horses on 700 small sailing ships and headed across the channel to England. William had come to secure his right to the English throne from King Harold. They met in a valley near Hastings where William's army was victorious due largely to his cavalry assisted by archers. They charged into the wall of shields put up by the Saxon infantry, but shields were little defense against war-horses and knights. For more information, I would highly reccommend looking at medieval history books. In particular, Michael Prestwich in _Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience_ has some good info on warhorses in medieval England (which would probably be applicable to other areas of Europe, especially as the English busily imported breeding stock from Spain during the 14th C). grin And from Friesland as well: http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/friesian.html From records of the past we know that the Friesian horse of old was famous. There is information from as early as 1251 and there are books in which Friesian horses were mentioned and praised from as early as the 16th century. Armored knights of old found this horse very desirable, having the strength to carry great weight into battle and still maneuver quickly. Later, its suppleness and agility made the breed much sought after for use in riding schools in Paris and Spain during the 15th and 16th centuries... ...The well-known English writer on horses, Anthony Dent, and
Re: [L3] Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
la gineta style of riding, which influenced the horse cultures of the Gauchos, Charros and Llaneros. They spell it gineta. (I'd seen it as something more like jineta.) FYI this seems to be alluding to the Jinetes class of military fighting men of Spain, of lower class and equipment than a knight and IIRC drawn from the free peasantry or possibly holding fiefs as sergeants. They wore little to no armor, and were adept at horsemanship in a way and style that was different from knights and other mtd sergeants then in Europe (using short sturrups and smaller saddles, rather than in other nations, where the trend was towards longer stirrups and higher saddles, which were beneficial when fighting on horseback). OK - and I'm coming at it from a horseman's perspective as well. But then is this site incorrect, WRT the Battle of Hastings? Numbers seem a little off, or rather, a little high. Willian probably had half that number. Additionally, William's knights were less than decisive. In a time when battles lasted a few hours at the most, Hastings apparently (according to the sources) lasted most of the day, from about dawn to dusk. William's cavalry had great difficulty against the English, who had arrayed themselves on a ridge that IIRC straddled the Old Roman road from the coast. So not only was Willaim charging up-hill, but he was additionally charging into the shields and spears of the English. The English fighting style of the day was a shieldwall...essentially fighting men would array themselves much like a Greek phalanx with shields nearly overlapping, presenting the enemy a wall bristling with spears. As long as they kept the formation and remained steady (the front ranks were often made up the best armored and steadiest of men, usually wealthy freemen oweing fyrd service, or even the household troops -- Housecarls -- of the nobles and the King) horses will not charge through such an impedement. Additionally, the terrain was such that Willaim couldn't turn the flanks. Some of the sources suggest that one branch of King Harold Godwinson's army became emboldened at the latest failed charge of Willaims knights and tried to pursue. They broke formation and were destroyed by the knights. This breach allowed the knights then to roll up the flanks and (eventually) kill Harold (though the sources differ on how he was killed). OTOH, this site says they carried under 300#: Yes, I agree more with this. My sources (such as Prestwich, Contamine and Nicolle) suggest the size and power of warhorses were more for the endurance they could provide, rather than sheer lifting (or carrying) power. Additionally (to dispell more myths) a fully armored fighting man in plate armor was quite agile, and probably less burdened than a modern infantryman wearing a full pack. Sources (not to mention modern reenactors) show that a fully armored man could leap over the hindquarters of his mount and do other feats. Additionally, horse armor was rare in European armies until much later. Although there is tantalizing mentions of mail bard for warhorses as early as the late 12th C, horse armor didn't really appear to be popular (unless you count the heraldric bard of earlier times -- trappers and such -- which may have hid padded armor that was surprisingly effective against slashing blows than one would think) until the 14th C, when leather and/or steel armor was used to protect the head and chest of horses. It wasn't until a century later that full plate bard would come to use, probably starting early in the 15th C, but becoming more popular (relatively speaking) around the middle to late 15th C. Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't agree with Andrew completely. For instance the pre-emptive strike by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified. Thats a tricky one, to be honest I don't know enough about it to comment. Taking a premptive strike, like if the French had launched an attack hours before the Germans invaded in 1940, to gain a strategic advantage over an enemy poised to invade and essentially already at war, I would not view that as starting a war. The balance of strenght is also relevant. I am not opposed to defensive wars, they are unfortunate but beyond ones control really. Its wars of agression that you dont start. For any who wish to cast this as the situation in Iraq, with TWAT as the war already declared, I would seek three bits of info. 1) Where were the poised Iraqi Armies about to invade America, or England, or Australia et al. 2) Where is the evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 etc, ie that he was at war with any of the above. 3)Even if both the above were true, what sort of evidence do we have that America was in any way threated by Iraq. It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.) OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate. But, let me explore it further. Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable? Should we have stopped the genocide in Rwanda? Our hands are full, but should somebody stop what's going on in Sudan? What about my position. If Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better, would it have been justified? I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. Afghanistan is a little more complex, but I can see that as a legitimate response to an attack. The war started on 9/11, and it was clear that the Taliban were a party to it. I dont think that was starting a war, and it had the tacit backing of the world community. The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in my believing the war in Iraq was unwise. But, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. And even it would not start wars, it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. Soverign nations dont start wars with other soverign nations. Wars are forced upon you, not undertaken cos it seems like a good idea at the time. Anyway, moral issues aside, I just thought it was a stupid idea to invade Iraq. Ohh, I got bitten by an insect ! Hey look there is a bee's nest, lets go and poke a stick in it and swirl it about a bit, that will stop it happening again. Sure.. great idea guys. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 1:11 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony I don't agree with Andrew completely. For instance the pre-emptive strike by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified. It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.) OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate. But, let me explore it further. Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable? Should we have stopped the genocide in Rwanda? Our hands are full, but should somebody stop what's going on in Sudan? What about my position. If Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better, would it have been justified? The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in my believing the war in Iraq was unwise. But, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan wrote: OK, you put brackets on your opinion, which I appreciate. But, let me explore it further. Was our intervention in Bosnia acceptable? Should we have stopped the genocide in Rwanda? Our hands are full, but should somebody stop what's going on in Sudan? What about my position. If Hussein was sill killing people by the tens of thousands per year after we had a success in Afghanistan, and the sanctions were working no better, would it have been justified? The lack of preparation by the Bush administration clearly was a factor in my believing the war in Iraq was unwise. But, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. I think the world needs a mechanism to deal with these crisis. This would obviously require the cooperation of many disparate nations and after the current debacle is more of a pipe dream than ever. What Bush has tried to do is to tell the world how things are going to be and I think that the lesson we are learning is that no matter how powerful we are, we're not going to get the Middle East or any other region of the world to tow the line based on our say so. Our action in Bosnia was the culmination of a problem that had festered in eastern Europe for a decade or so. It wasn't just the 'cleansing' that was taking place at the time that prompted the action, but the fact that a series of atrocities had occurred over the years and it became obvious that the cycle of violence had to be ended. Rwanda is probably the most persuasive argument for a policing mechanism. There is very little political interest in these poor African nations and just as importantly there is little interest in the press. The AIDS epidemic is a festering wound and our lack of decisiveness to combat it is going to come back to bite us. Big time. So yes, we should have taken action in Rwanda and I think that if Clinton had tried to he could have made a huge difference there. Its a black mark on his record, and no one knows it more than he does. Iraq was (and remains) a much more difficult problem. In basing our economy around oil we have accorded an importance to the nations of the Middle East that they would never have achieved otherwise. One of Bush's big mistakes, IMO, was to reverse the trend towards trying to develop alternatives to the oil that fuels this exaggerated importance. You might recall a post that JDG made about how we are much less vulnerable to inflation as the result of a fuel shortage than we were in the late '70s, reason being we are _less_ dependant on that fuel. But with the emergence of China as a consumer nation and the maturing of other populous nations such as India, the demand for fossil fuels is rising quickly, and the importance of the Middle East - the relevance of the Middle East is rapidly rising. What does this have to do with the invasion of Iraq? Everything. No matter how desperate the condition of the people in Iraq, any intervention there had to be approached with the utmost delicacy. Our motivations, even with the best of intentions, are automatically suspect by the Iraqis, by all Arab/Middle East nations and indeed by the entire world community. That's why it was even more important to line up an air-tight coalition prior to intervention for humanitarian purposes. Of course, despite the smoke and mirrors thrown up by the supporters of the invasion after the fact, the stated reason for the invasion was not humanitarian in nature. So the question really goes back to did Iraq pose a threat to us and in retrospect, they did not. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan wrote: But, if one supports Andrew's statement as it stands, it would be worthwhile to see how they consider the most obvious counter-examples. I don't agree with Andrew completely. For instance the pre-emptive strike by Israel in the Seven Day War was justified. It becomes more obvious every day however, that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified, ill advised and poorly executed (not withstanding the effectiveness of the military whose initial performance was exemplary.) -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gautam wrote: Gautam has spent long enough on this list that his patience is entirely worn out, which occasionally shows up in unwarranted sarcasm. That's perfectly understandable. :) Please feel free to take an occasional swipe at me. After all, it lets me do the same and there *are* times when nothing is quite as satisfying as being sarcastic. Wouldn't you agree? ;) And, Ritu, to be fair to myself I could ask you the same. If you want to posture about how I'm unobjective or the superiority of your foreign news sources, you can certainly expect some of the same back. I daresay I have my own ways of getting information that stand up to those of most people outside the government. Gautam, I don't consider my foreign news sources 'superior'. All I can access atm is the net and that is available to everyone. As for the 'unobjective' bit, that wasn't posturing. It was my honest opinion. I wasn't challenging the validity of your sources, just your interpretation of the news. I don't mean to offend, but I do think that your enthusiasm for this project [democratising the mid-east via Iraq] often clouds your perception of how well the project is shaping up on the ground. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
--- Ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the 'unobjective' bit, that wasn't posturing. It was my honest opinion. I wasn't challenging the validity of your sources, just your interpretation of the news. I don't mean to offend, but I do think that your enthusiasm for this project [democratising the mid-east via Iraq] often clouds your perception of how well the project is shaping up on the ground. Ritu Ritu, I'm pretty confident that only one person on this list _knows_ what my perception of how well the project is shaping up is. I have been very careful not to share it. If I usually argue that certain reports on the list that things are disastrous are not true, that's because almost everyone else on the list is in the opposite direction and I _loathe_ groupthink. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 11:41 AM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony If I usually argue that certain reports on the list that things are disastrous are not true, that's because almost everyone else on the list is in the opposite direction and I _loathe_ groupthink. One of the things that I noticed is that discussion on the finer points of the question involved usually trails off into nothing. For example, yesterday Andrew Paul stated that starting a war is always wrong because it always turns out for the worst. Gautam and I question the word always and gave some potential counter examples. Nothing came in response. It seems that this is fertile ground for debate. My guess for a generality is that the right answer is that starting a war is usually wrong but sometimes necessary. The real question is what are the factors. Gautam came up with what sounded like a reasonable set of criteria back before the war started. We could debate those criteria if we disagree with them; we could debate the present circumstance against those criteria if we agree with them. All that would generate more light than heat. IMHO, a good start would either be a defense of Andrew's statement or statements that this is an overgeneralization, but that a better statement would be Xby those who think the Iraq war was a bad idea. Obviously I'm biased here, because I see a very complex question...and naturally see my own position as most reasonable. But, if one supports Andrew's statement as it stands, it would be worthwhile to see how they consider the most obvious counter-examples. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] Arabian horses, of course! ;) I'm being a little over-the-top, but since at the time horses were the best overland transport and military assets, the impact of the introduction of Arabian and Barb horses, along with style-of-riding, was huge. As anyone who has worked with heavy/draft horses vs. Arabs their cousins can tell you, the responsiveness of the light horse is remarkable; they changed cavalry tactics -- perhaps not, in retrospect, a thing for the better... Can you put this in historical context? Medieval warhorses were not clydesdales, or draft horses. They were larger, yes, but according to my sources this meant they had larger chests and hindquarters. I'm going to answer from the books I've read, but will check out 'net sources later -- because I've spotted at least one error in _The Encyclopedia Of The Horse_, which is generally a very good sourcebook put out by the British Riding Club (or Association?). The drafts Shire, Belgian and probably the Percheron were all descendents of what is called either the Great Horse of Flanders or the Great Medieval Warhorse (when crossed with native mares in England, it became the Great English Black Horse - eventually the Shire). These horses carried roughly 400# of man, armor, tack and horse-armor, IIRC; as a horse cannot easily carry more than a quarter of its bodyweight for significant periods of time, that would make these animals need to be 1600#, which puts them in the drafter category. The Friesian-type, a lighter draft, goes back for at least 1000 years (it was modified by the addition of Andalusian blood centuries ago, they in turn a result of the crossing of Moorish Barbs and other oriental horses with the Spanish native jennets), and would be less bulky and more nimble than the other drafters (of course the Percheron also was influenced by the introduction of Arabian blood after -IIRC- the Battle of Tours, and they too are a bit lighter and nimbler than the Shire). Interestingly, there were 'clydesdale-type' horses in some prehistoric European cave paintings, as well as Exmoor pony-types and tarpan-types (the latter typical of the Assyrian charioteer horses). However, the modern German Holsteiner (now greatly lightened by the addition of Thoroughbred and other blood) did descend from the German medieval warhorse, and those were more of a carriage-type build than draft-type -- I recall seeing some woodcuts of German knights who appeared to be less heavily-armored, and on lighter horses such as you describe. I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc. Debbi Don't Throw Me Into That Briar-patch Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Warhorses (was: What America Does with its Hegemony)
I'll try to find some on-line pix of the various riding styles (knight vs. Moor) etc. The reason why I inquired is because, as you may know, I have a history degree, and would tenatively describe myself as a military historian. I have plenty of source material on the subject. But when you say that Arabians revolutionized cavalry, you must be very careful to define specifically what you mean. For example, I'm a big proponent of the Late Medieval military revolution of using fully mounted armies. This revolution was strategic, rather than tactical (most of the troops would ride to the battlefield, but dismount to actually come to grips with the enemy). So obviously our terms differ. For more information, I would highly reccommend looking at medieval history books. In particular, Michael Prestwich in _Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: The English Experience_ has some good info on warhorses in medieval England (which would probably be applicable to other areas of Europe, especially as the English busily imported breeding stock from Spain during the 14th C). Don't Throw Me Into That Briar-patch Maru ;) We all have our briar patches... Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What America Does with its Hegemony
Gary Denton, traitor in waiting: Neo-imperialist or even, as a couple political scientists have pointed, out neo-confederate might be better. Hey, Gary, there's a whole bunch of us not afraid to say that Western democracy is better by far than anything the Muslims have done since the invention of zero. I'm all for imperialism or confederacy or whatever it takes to make the sand Nazis quit cutting off little girls' clits and being racist morons and go out and get a job. Islam sucks. Anybody who can't say that out loud and proud is PC pussy-whipped dhimmi-bait. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
