Re: brin: My big salvo
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo --- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that could also be explained by his relationship with Bandar (among others). I'm sure he wants to curry favor with a longtime family business partner. xponent Alternate Maru rob Why? He's _President of the United States_ - in Bill Clinton's remarkably crass phrase, he has high earning potential after he leaves office. Apart from which, the extent to which the Bushes and the Saudis have a business relationship basically works out to they both invest with the Carlyle Group. I thought about getting a job at Carlyle, it doesn't mean I'm in the pay of the Saudis... In the sense that Bandar is a close family *friend* (as opposed to just a business partner). Would you alienate a close friend by insulting his religion publicly? To the contrary, I would think that it would be beneficial to his friendship and business dealings if he were to stand up for American Islam publicly. Then too, it is beneficial for him politically with the domestic opposition to publicly defend Islamics. He does have a responsibility (as POTUS) to maintain lawfulness. My point being, that being a wonderful human being is not the only explanation for Bush defending domestic Islam. On that account he may well be, but this event does little to prove so. xponent Not The Only Contrarian On The ListG Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 08:23:18PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If he couldn't even bring himself to support the Gulf War in 1991, then the next time somebody kills a few thousand Americans (and it will happen) what is he going to do when France, Russia, and China doesn't give a response their seal of approval (and they won't)? Wouldn't Kerry's opinion on Afghanistan be a better test of this question than his opinion on Iraq? I think whether one supports intervening to promote global freedom and democracy is a very different question than whether one supports a war to directly protect (avenge, deter future taking of, etc.) the lives of Americans -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't Kerry's opinion on Afghanistan be a better test of this question than his opinion on Iraq? I think whether one supports intervening to promote global freedom and democracy is a very different question than whether one supports a war to directly protect (avenge, deter future taking of, etc.) the lives of Americans Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Sure, but Gulf War I was somewhere between those two, right, it was a war to directly protect and defend US interests (i.e. a harder call than your second example and an easier one than your first). So what we know is that Kerry didn't support that one, and that was not a hard choice to make. As for Afghanistan - the problem is we don't really know what Kerry would have done there, because as far as I can tell, every major act in Kerry's political career can be explained by asking the question What could he do that will best advance his short term ambitions? The greatest power of the Presidency is framing the debate, and President Bush framed the debate in a way that made not invading Afghanistan out of the question. It didn't have to be that way. I watched a panel discussion at the Kennedy School soon after 9/11 conducted by four senior Clinton advisors - and all any of them thought we should do is reevaluate our position with regards to the Arab world, rethink our support of Israel, and so on. None of them even mentioned what was, to me, overwhelmingly the most important thing, which was finding the people responsible and killing them. Note, I'm not saying that a Democratic President wouldn't have attacked. I think most Democrats would have - but there's a powerful strain in the Democratic Party that would not have, and Kerry, to the extent he has any principles whatsoever, appears to be a representative of that part of the party. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
as I can tell, every major act in Kerry's political career can be explained by asking the question What could he do that will best advance his short term ambitions? Like his leadership in pushing to find answers about our Vietnam MIAs, back when the nation wanted to just forget it all ever happened. Uh huh. Find one brave or selfless act ever performed by W, beyond allowing his dad's friends to buy him fighter jet lessons and then to buy him a baseball team. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
- Original Message - From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:40 AM Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo as I can tell, every major act in Kerry's political career can be explained by asking the question What could he do that will best advance his short term ambitions? Like his leadership in pushing to find answers about our Vietnam MIAs, back when the nation wanted to just forget it all ever happened. Uh huh. IIRC, Kerry got a decent amount of favorable press on that. In fact, once I associated him instead of Bob Kerry with that action, I realized it was the main that brought him to my attention at the time...(getting him mixed up with Bob doesn't help my case, thought, does it?). Many in the nation did want to forget Viet Nam. But, I can remember seeing a decent number of small POW-MIA flags flying under the US flag during that period...from various flag polls. It was still an issue for a large number of people, and Kerry did something to address it. Now, I wouldn't argue that it wasn't, also, a sincere effort from someone who wanted to bring resolution to the families of those who lost sons/brothers/fathers/husbands under uncertain circumstances. My guess is that it was. But, it did help him politically, so I don't think it qualifies as an action that is absolutely inconsistent with political motivations. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
- Original Message - From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:40 AM Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo Find one brave or selfless act ever performed by W, beyond allowing his dad's friends to buy him fighter jet lessons and then to buy him a baseball team. After 9-11 he went out of his way to ensure that American Muslims would not feel the brunt of the public's anger. He surprised me with how strongly he reacted to those who attacked Muslims in the US, calling them as bad as the terrorists. His record after that, supporting Ashcroft, is more suspect, but at the time he did a great deal to forestall the chances of a lynch mob mentality taking over the US. It may not seem like much to you, but in the Evangelical community, where Islam is considered by many a false religion, his actions would be controversial. Indeed, we lost a good fraction of the conservatives members of our church for hosting a multi-faith Thanksgiving observation at our church, because it included religions other than Christianity and Judaism. He did something that I think a significant fraction of Evangelicals thought was wrong in order to show his support of American Muslims. There are plenty of areas in which I think GWB is just wrong. I think his administration is incompetent. But, like Paul Begala, I have a mostly positive personal view of him. (Paul said...and this is from memory... George Bush is a very likeable guy..._I_ like him, and I'm opposed to most of his policies...I think he is a genuinely nice guy) I agree with you that his tax policy is very wrong. But, unlike you, I think he is just a true believer in Reaganomics. Listen to him in the debate...by cutting taxes you put money in the hands of the people who create jobs. Sure it involves the suspension of disbelief, but no more so than some of the ideas my Libertarian and leftist friends have floated. Unfortunately, while I have a better view of Kerry's potential than Gautam (I think his is from F to C- and mine is from D- to C), I am not happy with our choices. It appears that we now have a choice between people who believe what they will in the face of all facts, and people without much convictionthat's not just left/right, BTW. Its that the centrists seem to have left conviction to the unreasonable true believers of all stripes. To twist a Yeats poem, its as if: Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, ... The competent lack all conviction, while the incompetent Are full of passionate intensity. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree with you that his tax policy is very wrong. But, unlike you, I think he is just a true believer in Reaganomics. Yes, even though it has been decisively repudiated by economists, has failed all experimental evidence in the real world, and is obviously a rationalization for relentlessly favoring an aristocratic elite that do NOT re-invest their windfall in plants and equipment. The true experiment was Clintonomics. Any examination of theory and results would have won over honest people to seeing what simply works. No, this is about character. Bullheaded aristocratic superiority and assumption of God-given rightness, over-ruling evidence. No wonder he makes waffling the principal issue against Kerry. As a pragmatist, JFK may seem insufficiently passionate a centrist. Certainly he seems less passionate a centrist than I am at http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html But by their very nature AS centrists, the people AROUND him will be willing to perceive new evidence and plan new plans. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:22:44 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't Kerry's opinion on Afghanistan be a better test of this question than his opinion on Iraq? I think whether one supports intervening to promote global freedom and democracy is a very different question than whether one supports a war to directly protect (avenge, deter future taking of, etc.) the lives of Americans The Senate was closely divided on Gulf War 1, the opposition, including Kerry, felt that Bush 1 was ignoring opportunities to end it without military conflict. I supported that War but did see Bush and Powell often misleading the public to rush to war. Gary Denton -- #2 on google for liberal news http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
I supported that War but did see Bush and Powell often misleading the public to rush to war. Just curious, but if GW1 ended up being a disaster, with 10K American and allied soldiers coming home in body bags, would you have still supported the war? Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
Dan Minette wrote: It may not seem like much to you, but in the Evangelical community, where Islam is considered by many a false religion, (...) What nonsense! Every Evangelical leader should place Muhammad among the precursors of the Reform, a minor reformism before Luther did the right thing! :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:40 AM Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo Find one brave or selfless act ever performed by W, beyond allowing his dad's friends to buy him fighter jet lessons and then to buy him a baseball team. After 9-11 he went out of his way to ensure that American Muslims would not feel the brunt of the public's anger. He surprised me with how strongly he reacted to those who attacked Muslims in the US, calling them as bad as the terrorists. His record after that, supporting Ashcroft, is more suspect, but at the time he did a great deal to forestall the chances of a lynch mob mentality taking over the US. I think that could also be explained by his relationship with Bandar (among others). I'm sure he wants to curry favor with a longtime family business partner. xponent Alternate Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that could also be explained by his relationship with Bandar (among others). I'm sure he wants to curry favor with a longtime family business partner. xponent Alternate Maru rob Why? He's _President of the United States_ - in Bill Clinton's remarkably crass phrase, he has high earning potential after he leaves office. Apart from which, the extent to which the Bushes and the Saudis have a business relationship basically works out to they both invest with the Carlyle Group. I thought about getting a job at Carlyle, it doesn't mean I'm in the pay of the Saudis... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
I'm sure he wants to curry favor with a longtime family business partner. Why? He's _President of the United States_ - in Bill Clinton's remarkably crass phrase, he has high earning potential after he leaves office. Apart from which, the extent to which the Bushes and the Saudis have a business relationship basically works out to they both invest with the Carlyle Group. I thought about getting a job at Carlyle, it doesn't mean I'm in the pay of the Saudis... Now here's what I mean about the futility of these conversations. I long ago put out a challenge to show any evidence that the Bushes are not the lickspittle personal slaves of the Saudi Royal House. Their absolute and total willingness to spreadeagle the US national interest to Riyadh ranges from sabotage of our energy policy to turning a blind eye to utter international Jihad. At first I wondered if W slipped the leash somehow in ordering the spasm attack on Saddam, since Riyadh had ordered the shameful stain, our betrayal of the Shiite rebels in 91, laving Saddam in power. But now it's clear that this reversal, too, utterly serves Saudi self interest. By embroiling us in a Vietnam in the Middle East, the Saudis are getting everything they could want. Each day we provide grist for Al Jazeera's campaign to unite all of Islam, from Morocco to Java, for the 1st time in 1,000 years. Our finest troops are mired and our reserves used up. The economy is taking a hit AND American society is riven with division. The Arab shiites puzzled me a little, since the Saudis ordered the shameful stain in 91 in order to stop free shiite arabs from thriving near their own minority. But now I see. They saw IRANIAN influence rising among the Iraqi shiites. They had to act. We are their tool. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 05:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: Typically meaningless - Clinton had by far the highest percentage of vote of the candidates. Clinton governed centrist, One thing I love about liberals is their modesty.Apparently propsing a government take-over of the national health care industry is centrism in the minds of liberals. Oh yeah, and Clinton's first major initiative was passed without a single Republican vote. Clinton only became a centrist after getting smacked in 1994 for his liberalism, and the Democrats losing both Houses of Congress for the first time in generations. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 02:36 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: --- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections. Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to the truth. In what way? Bush 2000 - 47.87% Clinton 1992 - 43.01% Dan and I have already dealt with the Perot/Nader comparison. I don't know what Nader has to do with anything? You stated your objection to Bush being elected without a plurality. I stated that I find being elected without a plurality to be no more objectionable than being elected with a mere 43.01% of the vote. JDG P.S. In paticular, I do not agree that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, since no popular vote was taken or counted. Suffice to say, that if the popular vote meant anything, turnout patterns would likely have been much different - and could easily have produced a 0.5% difference. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 01:12 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: W ENTERED OFFICE WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY HAVING VOTED AGAINST HIS PROGRAM. Yet, he proceeded NOT to reach out, but to declare a MANDATE. Never ever meeting with opponents. This is a lie. Bush very famously had Ted Kennedy over to watch a movie and discuss education policy to name just one example. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 08:07 PM 10/11/2004 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Kerry, of course, meant by global test that America must not just lay out its causes, but that we must get some form of international approval - beyond the approval of getting at least 21 out of 30 formal US Allies to support the Iraq War as Bush did, and apparently beyond getting UN Security Council approval as we did during the first Gulf War (which Kerry voted against.) He meant that we must test our actions in the arena of international politics. That does not mean that we must require intenational approval but we must interact with othe nations of the world in a way that keeps them and us involved with each other. As never before we live in close conjunction with the rest of the world. What we do affects everyone else but it is important to realize that we need the rest of the world for economy and way of life to thrive. Military might is not enough anymore. We need the rest of the world to deal with us without resentment. O.k. Bob, but if your interpretation of what Kerry said is more accurate - then what do you believe would be required to pass this global test just as John Kerry said. After all, this most recent war had the support of at *least* 21 out of 30 formal US allies, by my count, and was taken to the international community for a period of 15 months before hostilities began, and after 12+ years of sanctions and non-cooperation with UN sanctions and resolutions.I presume John Kerry, however, considers that as failing the global test. Then again, John Kerry also opposed the first Gulf War - the war that had the largest coalition of allies since at least World War II, if not ever, and which had a gold-plated endorsement from the United Nations Security Council. So, Bob, how do you imagine that John Kerry envisions passing this global test' of his based on his record? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:12 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: W ENTERED OFFICE WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY HAVING VOTED AGAINST HIS PROGRAM. Yet, he proceeded NOT to reach out, but to declare a MANDATE. Never ever meeting with opponents. This is a lie. Bush very famously had Ted Kennedy over to watch a movie and discuss education policy to name just one example. for you to quibble over the fact that he is deliberately and proudly self-isolated ... THAT is the lie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
On Oct 14, 2004, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: At 05:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: Typically meaningless - Clinton had by far the highest percentage of vote of the candidates. Clinton governed centrist, One thing I love about liberals is their modesty.Apparently propsing a government take-over of the national health care industry is centrism in the minds of liberals. But continuing the corporate hegemony of the health care industry, with the attendant and well-documented loss of service and rise in costs is just fine with conservatives. Dave Conserving what, exactly? Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 14, 2004, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: At 05:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote: Typically meaningless - Clinton had by far the highest percentage of vote of the candidates. Clinton governed centrist, One thing I love about liberals is their modesty. Apparently propsing a government take-over of the national health care industry is centrism in the minds of liberals. But continuing the corporate hegemony of the health care industry, with the attendant and well-documented loss of service and rise in costs is just fine with conservatives. I blame Hillary, of course, for trying to bite off the whole loaf when Americans are incrementalists. But a close look at her plan shows it really did try to get all americans into alliances that would then dicker using market forces with insurance companies. Only the poor would have been govt subsidized. In fact, her plan was far less socialistic than the proposal made by RICHARD NIXON (caps = emphasis not shouting) and foolishly turned down by Melvin Laird. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
In a message dated 10/14/2004 7:17:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: O.k. Bob, but if your interpretation of what Kerry said is more accurate - then what do you believe would be required to pass this global test just as John Kerry said. After all, this most recent war had the support of at *least* 21 out of 30 formal US allies, by my count, and was taken to the international community for a period of 15 months before hostilities began, and after 12+ years of sanctions and non-cooperation with UN sanctions and resolutions.I presume John Kerry, however, considers that as failing the global test. It means building consensus before going to war (as his father did) if possible. Of course if things are urgent then we do what we have to do. But we have to be sure that have our facts right in order to maintain our credibility in the abscence of support. We have to evaluate our intelligence with more skeptism. Some actions require more stringent proof then others. By the way sanctions were working, Sadaam's military strength was markedly degraded. The supporf of ourf allies is deceptive. The 21 include some small regimes beholding to us (some for quite noble reasons - we helped free them from Russia). So, Bob, how do you imagine that John Kerry envisions passing this global test' of his based on his record? Engaging the international community in real dialogues and real negotiations. Reestablising our reputation for fairness and restraint. Being a good neighbor not a swaggering bully ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/14/2004 7:17:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: O.k. Bob, but if your interpretation of what Kerry said is more accurate - then what do you believe would be required to pass this global test ... SImple. Start by showing up in front of the international community and NOT lying through your teeth. Or while lying, DON'T sneer endlessly at others for being dupes and fools, just because they express skepticism over your faked and trumped up evidence. Then recall the jerks who are all over the world sneering at furriners for their impotence. Try counting support in terms that matter. A few of our allies are on the ground in Iraq, yes, out of gratitude for what we did in the past. Ask the people in Spain Britain what THEY think of taking part in Iraq. Public opinion polls show extreme unpopularity. Why do I bother. Go to my Salvo. Compare the Balkans to this fiasco. They were diametrically opposite in all ways except One Dictator Toppled. The Balkans showed EXACTLY how a global test can work well. It answers your question in great detail. It worked, we became MORE respected and powerful, and we did not ...lose...a... single...american. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
JDG wrote: At 01:12 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: W ENTERED OFFICE WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY HAVING VOTED AGAINST HIS PROGRAM. Yet, he proceeded NOT to reach out, but to declare a MANDATE. Never ever meeting with opponents. This is a lie. Bush very famously had Ted Kennedy over to watch a movie and discuss education policy to name just one example. Which was a continuation of his reaching across the aisle that he started between the election and taking the office of Governor of the State of Texas -- he went to the Lieutenant Governor, Bob Bullock, a Democrat who was rather annoyed that Bush had won, and he told Bullock something to the effect of, hey, I've never done this before, but you've had your job for awhile, and I'm going to need your help, let's do the best we can together for the people of Texas. Whatever else may have happened *since* Bush took office as President, he went in wanting to act without partisanship. Him *sticking* to that can be taken up in another discussion. (As can whether or not being governor of Texas is a reasonable preparation for being President of the United States, due to the odd distribution of powers between the Governor and Lieutenant Governor in Texas) Julia and don't anyone get me started on DeLay, OK? Rob doesn't need to hear me yelling from Hutto clear to Houston ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
And why is it that the first Gulf War, with a gold-plated UN Security Council endorsement and a vast coalition did not pass this global test? False distraction. If Kerry opposed the 91 campaign, I have yet to see evidence for that. In any event, if he did, that is but one strike against him. I'll take note. It brings his list up to W's toes. 91 was totally justified. So? It is the prequel of Cheney's relentless support for Saddam... and the aftermath (see: http://www.davidbrin.com/shame.html) that concern me. These monsters heaped upon our nation the worst stain upon its honor that I can ever recall. Then they have the nerve to call themselves strong against Saddam. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- Julia Whatever else may have happened *since* Bush took office as President, he went in wanting to act without partisanship. This is a subjective impression and I am glad you show such optimistic interpretations. I saw nothing but bellicosity from day one. Starting with appointing enemies of renwable energy in charge of RE programs, enemies of conservation in charge of conservation programs, loggers in charge of forest protection... and a hundred other examples. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: False distraction. If Kerry opposed the 91 campaign, I have yet to see evidence for that. In any event, if he did, that is but one strike against him. I'll take note. It brings his list up to W's toes. He absolutely did oppose it - he voted against the first Gulf War and his grounds, IIRC, were that there was an insufficient international coalition in favor of it. Which is, of course, absurd. This is the criticism that people have to address about Kerry, Dr. Brin, and I don't see you doing it. I think it's entirely fair. What does bring our allies in mean _other than France_? The British supported us. The Italians supported us. The Spanish supported us (although they do not now support us, of course). The Japanese supported us. The Australians supported us. The South Koreans supported us. As soon as Angela Merkle wins the next German election (and she will) the Germans will support us. The Danish supported us. The Netherlands supported us. So what does it mean to say that we didn't have international support? Does it mean Russia and China? If it does, then you can't possibly favorably compare Kosovo to Iraq, because Russia and China were every bit as opposed to Kosovo as they were to Iraq. So, other than a cheap bit of dishonest rhetoric on Kerry's part about allies, what the hell is that supposed to mean, and what is he going to do when he finds out on his first day in office that Jacques Chirac is giving him the finger from across the Atlantic? Furthermore, given France's behavior over the last 10 years, shouldn't we be _proud_ that France is opposed to us? Do we want to be on the same side as the country that aided and abetted the Rwandan genocide? This does not seem to me a place of honor. If the criticism of the Bush Administration is that it is inept (and I think it is) surely it's fair to ask Kerry what the hell he means by statements that are far more clearly a lie than anything you've ever criticized Bush about. If he couldn't even bring himself to support the Gulf War in 1991, then the next time somebody kills a few thousand Americans (and it will happen) what is he going to do when France, Russia, and China doesn't give a response their seal of approval (and they won't)? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 08:06 PM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: Starting with appointing enemies of renwable energy in charge of RE programs, enemies of conservation in charge of conservation programs, loggers in charge of forest protection... and a hundred other examples. I presume that you are referring to that noted anti-conservationist Christie Todd Whitman being appointed to head the EPA? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
This is a valid and interesting criticism of Kerry. I confess, that his standing as a mainstream DLC democrat has made me lazy about scrutinizing him very closely. His overall values and intelligence and willingness to bring a pan-spectrum coalition of DC professionals to replace the monstrous cult now controlling the republic... these things are adequate for me. But I am willing to begin accumulating and listing suspicions, demerits and deficits. What you describe below, if accurate, reflects perhaps a too strong aversion to war sometimes seen in combat veterans. Or perhaps too strong a reflex aversion to Bush Sr. Or perhaps a strong sense that the sheiks are not our friends, never were, and that our sons should not be spent for their sake... or I will keep my eyes open. Thanks. May (God willing) John Kerry be a topic of major conversation on Brin-L for the next four years. I have had enough talking about fanatical shrubs. --- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: False distraction. If Kerry opposed the 91 campaign, I have yet to see evidence for that. In any event, if he did, that is but one strike against him. I'll take note. It brings his list up to W's toes. He absolutely did oppose it - he voted against the first Gulf War and his grounds, IIRC, were that there was an insufficient international coalition in favor of it. Which is, of course, absurd. This is the criticism that people have to address about Kerry, Dr. Brin, and I don't see you doing it. I think it's entirely fair. What does bring our allies in mean _other than France_? The British supported us. The Italians supported us. The Spanish supported us (although they do not now support us, of course). The Japanese supported us. The Australians supported us. The South Koreans supported us. As soon as Angela Merkle wins the next German election (and she will) the Germans will support us. The Danish supported us. The Netherlands supported us. So what does it mean to say that we didn't have international support? Does it mean Russia and China? If it does, then you can't possibly favorably compare Kosovo to Iraq, because Russia and China were every bit as opposed to Kosovo as they were to Iraq. So, other than a cheap bit of dishonest rhetoric on Kerry's part about allies, what the hell is that supposed to mean, and what is he going to do when he finds out on his first day in office that Jacques Chirac is giving him the finger from across the Atlantic? Furthermore, given France's behavior over the last 10 years, shouldn't we be _proud_ that France is opposed to us? Do we want to be on the same side as the country that aided and abetted the Rwandan genocide? This does not seem to me a place of honor. If the criticism of the Bush Administration is that it is inept (and I think it is) surely it's fair to ask Kerry what the hell he means by statements that are far more clearly a lie than anything you've ever criticized Bush about. If he couldn't even bring himself to support the Gulf War in 1991, then the next time somebody kills a few thousand Americans (and it will happen) what is he going to do when France, Russia, and China doesn't give a response their seal of approval (and they won't)? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a valid and interesting criticism of Kerry. I appreciate your saying that, Dr. Brin. This is actually helping me think through my own decision. Here, perhaps is where we disagree (and please, correct me if I'm misinterpreting you - I'm trying to lay out your opinions as fairly as I can). On days when I'm likely to support President Bush, my argument goes like this. President Bush, for all of his many flaws, understands that the world is not filled with friends of ours. France, Russia, and China, for example, are not our friends. Given that, a President who runs his entire campaign based on the premise that a policy carried through without the support of these countries (and that seems to me to be what Kerry is saying) is saying that American foreign policy is subject to the veto of three countries that can plausibly be described as our enemies. President Bush is not willing to do that. For all of his flaws (massive) he will make his own decisions in pursuit of the interests of the United States, and he will at least try to move in the right direction, instead of allowing our policies to be shaped by those who have our worst interests at heart. This strikes me as a reasonable position. Now, on the days I'm a Kerry supporter, I say, yes, all of the above is true, actually (note that I didn't say I'm an _enthusiastic Kerry supporter). But Kerry is (in Winston Churchill's wonderful phrase) the boneless wonder, and the public will not allow him to bow down to the French, Russians, and Germans and sacrifice the interests of the US in search of a purely hallucinatory international popularity. But Kerry will have better domestic and economic policies, and in foreign policy there's at least a chance that what he decides to do will at least be executed properly. This strikes me as a reasonable position as well. Now it seems to me that your position is that the first of these two views is _not_ a reasonable position, because George Bush is basically a bad guy who is in hock to Saudi interests, or something like that. Am I interpreting you correctly? Now, suppose someone doesn't believe that (and I don't, as you know). Do you understand what I mean that this isn't a very helpful argument for people like me? In fact, in a sense it seems that the opposite argument almost has more power - that _Kerry_, not Bush, is in hock to interests that are fundamentally antagonistic to the welfare of the US. So if the most important thing is who has influence over your actions, them I'm not sure whose side that should bring me or any other undecided voter down on. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
You are trying to be fair, Gautam. Alas, I cannot accept your dichotomy for many reasons. It is simply absurd to call this about enslaving our foreign policy to others. Under Clinton we were leaders of the planet. We were assertive. We did it naively/badly in Somalia. Then we did it with excruciating patience and maturity and diplomacy in the Balkans. Then BC laid the groundwork for what should have been seen as a triumph of bipartisanship, afghanistan. In the latter two cases, we got the world behind us. KEEPING them behind us is paramount. If we remain the unipolar leader - not resented but respected and liked - then we may get to set the agenda of talks over WCN. (Whatever Comes Next). I am terrified that the Eurasian Confederation will take over leadership of that discussion, basing it on European bureaucratism, Russian unaccountability and Chinese contempt for the individual. My reasons for hating Bush include the fact that he is empowering our enemies in the struggle over WCN, every day that he destroys the moral authority of Pax Americana. Mopreover, his criminal destruction of our military readiness is staggering. We have no reserves left. Our best units are embroiled in a mess that we cannot possibly extricate them from in less than six months at best. We are naked and spreadeagled for the next surprise... when we could have off'd Saddam (these guys former best friends)... far more easily a thousand other ways. Meanwhile, we have called in all the chips in order to get Britain and Spain and such to go along, offering a fig leaf coalition while we pay all the blood and money. We needed those chips. We had earned them, saving civilization in the Balkans and elsewhere. It chaps my hide seeing all this portrayed as strength when it is utter and calamitous weakness and incompetence and venality. We are almost crippled... and that's ALL measuring events on the litmus test of what's good for Pax Americana! I have mentioned NONE of the left's complaints. (And a great many of those are valid, too.) The incredible nastiness of an aristocratic class insisting on US paying for guns while they slather butter, unwilling to pay for a war they foisted on our sons... that is unprecedented in American history. (Not ALL of the aristocrats... just the klepto ungrateful would-be feudalists. MAny of the rich can see that what's good for a decent, diamond-shaped America is good for them, and they are willing to fork over help to stanch the flow of red ink injuring our childrens' tomorrow.) Gautam, by your own standards, there can be no basis for tradeoffs and alternating days. There are NO upsides to these monsters. None at all. As for Kerry, you point out things we need to watch. If a time comes when you see his spine needing stiffening, well maybe I'll be right there with you. But our boys will be home and rested, the reserves back in reserve, and the alliances re-forged. --- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a valid and interesting criticism of Kerry. I appreciate your saying that, Dr. Brin. This is actually helping me think through my own decision. Here, perhaps is where we disagree (and please, correct me if I'm misinterpreting you - I'm trying to lay out your opinions as fairly as I can). On days when I'm likely to support President Bush, my argument goes like this. President Bush, for all of his many flaws, understands that the world is not filled with friends of ours. France, Russia, and China, for example, are not our friends. Given that, a President who runs his entire campaign based on the premise that a policy carried through without the support of these countries (and that seems to me to be what Kerry is saying) is saying that American foreign policy is subject to the veto of three countries that can plausibly be described as our enemies. President Bush is not willing to do that. For all of his flaws (massive) he will make his own decisions in pursuit of the interests of the United States, and he will at least try to move in the right direction, instead of allowing our policies to be shaped by those who have our worst interests at heart. This strikes me as a reasonable position. Now, on the days I'm a Kerry supporter, I say, yes, all of the above is true, actually (note that I didn't say I'm an _enthusiastic Kerry supporter). But Kerry is (in Winston Churchill's wonderful phrase) the boneless wonder, and the public will not allow him to bow down to the French, Russians, and Germans and sacrifice the interests of the US in search of a purely hallucinatory international popularity. But Kerry will have better domestic and economic policies, and in foreign policy there's at least a chance that what he decides to do will at least be executed properly. This strikes me as a reasonable position as well. Now it seems to me that your position is
re: brin: My big salvo
Hello gang. Well here it is. My big salvo of the political campaign. It is intended to analyze the present administration by CONSERVATIVE standards and especially with an eye to what it takes to win strategic struggles - even war - in the 21st Century. It involves HTML a lot in the use of sidebars and popouts, since I wanted the main linear argument to be short and undaunting. So it cannot easily be emailed. But you'll find it at: http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or suggestions for more material. Just kindly do not quote me except when citing words and opinions that I actually say. If you find it persuasive, please share it with undecideds - and decided conservatives who have at least an open mind - in battleground states. Oh, and here's an item below. Last week, the Bush-Cheney campaign launched TV ads, and Bush in his political stump speech has been, attacking Kerry for proposing a Kerry Doctrine that would consist of a global test before launch a pre-emptive war. That line of attack is based on this comment from Kerry in the first debate: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. It struck me that I had heard of that global test before. Imagine the attack ads the Bush-Cheney could come up with based on this line: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were! ... a decent respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes which impel them... [snort] Dubya wouldn't feel required to seek out the opinions of the French and other foreign America-haters, I can tell you that! = The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks. With home bases in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral votes. The same ones that (by a margin of just one, plus Floridian shenanigans) made W the first president in a century without a plurality. It's going to take some lifting by all of us... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
At 12:03 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote: I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or suggestions for more material. Just kindly do not quote me except when citing words and opinions that I actually say. A low blow. The only word I quoted before was officially. The point of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be accurate described as having official positions. Never mind the fact that the passage in question of yours was found to be demonstrably false. As even Nick Arnett, noted, George Bush has *not*, quote, openly espoused the millenialism you described. As I noted in follow-ups this egregious error on your part led to some mistaken interpretations, in my case it was my mistaken - albeit perfectly honest - interpretation that you were criticizing Christianity, since Chrisitianity is a far better match for an ideologoy openly espoused by President Bush than millenialism. Last week, the Bush-Cheney campaign launched TV ads, and Bush in his political stump speech has been, attacking Kerry for proposing a Kerry Doctrine that would consist of a global test before launch a pre-emptive war. That line of attack is based on this comment from Kerry in the first debate: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. It struck me that I had heard of that global test before. Imagine the attack ads the Bush-Cheney could come up with based on this line: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were! ... a decent respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes which impel them... [snort] Dubya wouldn't feel required to seek out the opinions of the French and other foreign America-haters, I can tell you that! This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards. John Kerry did not mean by global test that America must simply make a declaration of causes. Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that - that's why Bush wanted FIFTEEN MONTHS after the axis of evil speech before attacking Iraq, which is why he sought unanimous passage at the United Nations of Security Council resolution 1441, and why he sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the US to take its actions. John Kerry, of course, meant by global test that America must not just lay out its causes, but that we must get some form of international approval - beyond the approval of getting at least 21 out of 30 formal US Allies to support the Iraq War as Bush did, and apparently beyond getting UN Security Council approval as we did during the first Gulf War (which Kerry voted against.) = The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks. With home bases in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral votes. 30 Extra? The same ones that (by a margin of just one, plus Floridian shenanigans) made W the first president in a century without a plurality. So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992. It's going to take some lifting by all of us... Ahem not *all* of us. Some of us believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a right and good thing. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: re: brin: My big salvo At 12:03 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote: I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or suggestions for more material. Just kindly do not quote me except when citing words and opinions that I actually say. A low blow. The only word I quoted before was officially. The point of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be accurate described as having official positions. Never mind the fact that the passage in question of yours was found to be demonstrably false. As even Nick Arnett, noted, George Bush has *not*, quote, openly espoused the millenialism you described. As I noted in follow-ups this egregious error on your part led to some mistaken interpretations, in my case it was my mistaken - albeit perfectly honest - interpretation that you were criticizing Christianity, since Chrisitianity is a far better match for an ideologoy openly espoused by President Bush than millenialism. Last week, the Bush-Cheney campaign launched TV ads, and Bush in his political stump speech has been, attacking Kerry for proposing a Kerry Doctrine that would consist of a global test before launch a pre-emptive war. That line of attack is based on this comment from Kerry in the first debate: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. It struck me that I had heard of that global test before. Imagine the attack ads the Bush-Cheney could come up with based on this line: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/ What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were! ... a decent respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes which impel them... [snort] Dubya wouldn't feel required to seek out the opinions of the French and other foreign America-haters, I can tell you that! This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards. John Kerry did not mean by global test that America must simply make a declaration of causes. Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that - that's why Bush wanted FIFTEEN MONTHS after the axis of evil speech before attacking Iraq, which is why he sought unanimous passage at the United Nations of Security Council resolution 1441, and why he sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the US to take its actions. John Kerry, of course, meant by global test that America must not just lay out its causes, but that we must get some form of international approval - beyond the approval of getting at least 21 out of 30 formal US Allies to support the Iraq War as Bush did, and apparently beyond getting UN Security Council approval as we did during the first Gulf War (which Kerry voted against.) = The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks. With home bases in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral votes. 30 Extra? I'm not sure it is 30, but Bush has the advantage that his voters, on average, have higher weighed votes than Kerry voters. So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992. The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000. More people wanted Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot. Fewer people wanted Bush than wanted Gore. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 2:26 PM Subject: re: brin: My big salvo At 12:03 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 d.brin wrote: I will happily take brickbats and/or criticism about it and/or suggestions for more material. Just kindly do not quote me except when citing words and opinions that I actually say. A low blow. The only word I quoted before was officially. The point of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be accurate described as having official positions. I probably should have taken brin out of the last reply, but I think it belongs in this one. I found it rather difficult parsing the meaning of your comments, because the most obvious meaning of a straight reading of the text , was Bush was a Jehovah's Witness..since they are the only body that I know of that takes the 144k literally. I'm almost certain you didn't think that, but I had to guess at the real meaning. In other words, a bit more precision and a bit less steam would go a long way in helping us obtain your meaning. Misunderstanding is not the same as twisting. I go toe to toe with John on a lot of topics, as my last few posts show, but I can certainly see how he mistakenly parsed that meaning from your text. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
A low blow. The only word I quoted before was officially. The point of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be accurate described as having official positions. This is utter sophistry. You QUOTED ME! ANd the quotations were false. This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards. Yes, your insults are customary and shrugged off. John Kerry did not mean by global test that America must simply make a declaration of causes. Ah, so you are the grand mystical interpreter of what an opponent means, never considering that this is what you WANT HIM TO MEAN in order to justify hating him. A lack of skepticism toward one's own motives is the sure fire sign of a romantic. I will repeat what he SAID below. Moreover, if you HAD READ my salvo at http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html you would see that I never once mention asking for permission in describing the long list of successes and failures of Pax Americana interventions. INDEED I DO THE OPPOSITE. Showing balance I lay claim to Pax Americana freedom of action that makes many liberals AND old fashioned conservatives shiver! Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that - that's why Bush wanted FIFTEEN MONTHS after the axis of evil speech before attacking Iraq, which is why he sought unanimous passage at the United Nations of Security Council resolution 1441, and why he sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the US to take its actions. Excuse me. But EXPLAINING to the world does not mean telling relentless lies and then bullying and bribing to get your way. Then interpreting resolutions as they were never meant. The above all amount to a Second Tonkin Gulf Resolution, with a repetition of every monstrous mistake of Vietnam, including dividing the USA down the middle. THE STUPIDEST AND MOST DESTRUCTIVE THING ANY PRESIDENT CAN DO IN A WAR. John Kerry, of course, meant I have had enough of this. Here are his actual words. No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. The one person I know will not actually read or absorb ot study my salvo is you, John. So please, unless you do so, opt out of this. Go follow this mad alliance of kleptocrats, apocalypts and neocon Imperialists. Any concerned American conservatives are welcome to drop by http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html and argue pros and cons sensibly. With cordial regards, David Brin www.davidbrin.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- Dan Minette answered: So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992. with: The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000. More people wanted Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot. Fewer people wanted Bush than wanted Gore. ALSO ! Perot's voters split pretty evenly as to who would be their second choice, if we had a sensible preferential ballot. But nearly ALL of Naders' voters polled as utterly despising all Bush policies while merely thinking Gore too compromising with business interests. ALL would have second choiced Gore. W ENTERED OFFICE WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY HAVING VOTED AGAINST HIS PROGRAM. Yet, he proceeded NOT to reach out, but to declare a MANDATE. Never ever meeting with opponents. Never reading any news but what's pre-digested by his handlers. Never reading books. Holding 1/10 as many news conferences as ANY other president ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 02:37 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks. With home bases in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral votes. 30 Extra? I'm not sure it is 30, but Bush has the advantage that his voters, on average, have higher weighed votes than Kerry voters. As I pointed out in my Electoral College Analysis reply to Byron, this is a popular misconception that just plain isn't true.This is because, Democrats get 3 charity EV's from DC, DE, and VT (somewhat offsetting AK, MT, ND, SD, WY)and dominate the lower end of the 4 EV tier with HI, RI, ME and somewhat Democrat-trending NH. For example, if one assigns all of the States on the basis of the 2000 Presidential vote, and divides 2003 population by 2004 electoral votes, you get: 461,913 Blue Staters per Electoral Vote 453,567 Red Staters per Electoral Vote Not as big a difference as you might expect. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections. Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to the truth. I showed how in my last message. What utter sophistry. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: brin: My big salvo
Behalf Of d.brin What a bunch of wusses those Founding Fathers were! ... a decent respect for the opinions REQUIRES that they declare the causes which impel them... [snort] Dubya wouldn't feel required to seek out the opinions of the French and other foreign America-haters, I can tell you that! Let's face it, in today's terms the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Liberal, Extremist Wackos! And look what happened once THEY got into power. Sheesh. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
Let's see the full list, John. Giving the dems ME and NH bodes ill for this being untendentious, given a scan of voting history. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
At 01:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: A low blow. The only word I quoted before was officially. The point of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be accurate described as having official positions. This is utter sophistry. You QUOTED ME! ANd the quotations were false. For the record, I reprint the relevant section of my post. You will note that the only quotation marks appear around the word officially. As for lecturing me about schaedenfreude. again, it is your fearless leader who openly supports an idological movement that officially looks forward to 150,000 people getting a special pass to heaven, then millions suffering in a pre-ordained stage show battle, and the BILLIONS being cast down to roast in hell. The above is a gross caricature of Christianity, and instead reflects the view of only a narrow sect. It is ludicrous to call it a, quote, official viewpoint of Christianity This caricature reflects neither my views, nor those of the President, nor those of the majority of Christians in this country. And please don't try to tell me that everyone who has ever bought a Left Behind book subscribes to the above viewpoint. As Nick Arnett has noted, your above quoted passage is demonstrably false. Bush has openly support[ed] Christianity, but has not openly supported any of the millennialist thinking you have described. As Dan Minette has noted, this error on your part left you open to many honest misinterpretations. Now that your intent has been explained by others, I have conceded that I was mistaken to conclude that you were talking about Christianity. It was, however, my honest reading of that passage at the time. As he said, a bit more precision and a bit less steam would go a long way in helping us obtain your meaning. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
At 01:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: This is pretty pathetic, even by your standards. Yes, your insults are customary and shrugged off. This would be as opposed to your usual polite and reasoned discussion on this List? For example, the following?: The one person I know will not actually read or absorb ot study my salvo is you, John. So please, unless you do so, opt out of this. Go follow this mad alliance of kleptocrats, apocalypts and neocon Imperialists. [snip] A lack of skepticism toward one's own motives is the sure fire sign of a romantic. I would mention your susceptibility to chain mail about hurricanes here, to name just one example, but that would be too easy I will repeat what he SAID below. Moreover, if you HAD READ my salvo at http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html you would see that I never once mention asking for permission in describing the long list of successes and failures of Pax Americana interventions. Its not my fault that your salvo is hardly an endorsement of John Kerry. Remember, John Kerry voted *AGAINST* the First Gulf War - the one supported by the largest allied coalition since at least World War II, if not ever, and the one with a gold-plated United Nations Security Council endorsement. John Kerry is hardly the flag-bearer for the Pax Americana movement of you describe. That probably explains why you spend so little time in your salvo, ostensibly on the upcoming election, talking about John Kerry and his policies. In fact, you mention Kerry just once in its entire length - and at that in the final paragraph and at that only in passing. You have clearly damned Kerry with your faint praise. How else can we interpret your grand salvo on the upcoming election where you can only lambaste your opponents, and can't find a single word to say in favor of your side? Hell, even George Bush agreed we should do that - that's why Bush wanted FIFTEEN MONTHS after the axis of evil speech before attacking Iraq, which is why he sought unanimous passage at the United Nations of Security Council resolution 1441, and why he sent Colin Powell to the United Nations to lay out the causes that were leading the US to take its actions. Excuse me. But EXPLAINING to the world does not mean telling relentless lies They aren't lies if you sincerely believe them to be true. Aren't you the one who just noted that everyone is susceptible to evidence that reconfirms what they already want to believe? and then bullying and bribing to get your way. Then interpreting resolutions as they were never meant. Never meant? UNSC Resolution 678 (1990): The Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait .. 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the government of Kuwait, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. UNSC Resolution 1441: The Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait ... The Security Council, recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990 The legal justification for this war was open-and-shut by a plain reading of the text. UNSC 1441 was passed unanimously by the UNSC (including *Syria*, China France, and Russian Federation), Iraq clearly did not comply with UNSC 1441, and UNSC 1441 was clearly subsequent to UNSC 678. John Kerry, of course, meant I have had enough of this. Here are his actual words. No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded -- and nor would I -- the right to preempt in any way necessary, to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do it in a way that passes the, the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. This global test hardly sounds like making a simple open declaration. 21 of 30 US allies supported the Iraq War. Colin Powell went to the United Nations. The Bush Administration spent 15 months presenting their case.If this is failure under John Kerry's global test, if Gulf War I is failure under John Kerry's global test - then what is a passing grade? The world may never know. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:08 PM Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo At 02:37 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton did in 1992. The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000. More people wanted Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot. Fewer people wanted Bush than wanted Gore. And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections. If Perot were a far right wing politician, like Nader is far left wing, you might have had a point. But, he wasn't. He was a maverick centralist a plague on both your houses option. I remember vividly the polls at the time that show him getting roughly a third of the votes before he dropped out for a while (in June I think), and Clinton and Bush I being roughly equal after he dropped out. Nader voters in 2000, on the other hand, condemned Gore for being too much like Bush II. Even so, if Bush II got more votes than Gore, but less than Gore+Nader, I would have groused at the Nader voters, not the system. The point is Bush II got fewer voters than Gore, but won because the natural bias of the electoral college favors the Republicans...at least according to your analysis. :-) BTW, the population of DC is higher than Wyoming. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections. Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to the truth. In what way? Bush 2000 - 47.87% Clinton 1992 - 43.01% JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
The quoted passage has nothing to do with the two places where you openly stated you were quoting me. Not paraphrasing but quoting. Go visit the apocalypts' web sites to see whether THEY think W agress with them. Just as Black americans called Bill Clinton the first black US president the apocalypts call W one of us. --- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: A low blow. The only word I quoted before was officially. The point of the quote was to draw attention to the fact that the sort of millenialist movement you were describing is far too decentralized to be accurate described as having official positions. This is utter sophistry. You QUOTED ME! ANd the quotations were false. For the record, I reprint the relevant section of my post. You will note that the only quotation marks appear around the word officially. As for lecturing me about schaedenfreude. again, it is your fearless leader who openly supports an idological movement that officially looks forward to 150,000 people getting a special pass to heaven, then millions suffering in a pre-ordained stage show battle, and the BILLIONS being cast down to roast in hell. The above is a gross caricature of Christianity, and instead reflects the view of only a narrow sect. It is ludicrous to call it a, quote, official viewpoint of Christianity This caricature reflects neither my views, nor those of the President, nor those of the majority of Christians in this country. And please don't try to tell me that everyone who has ever bought a Left Behind book subscribes to the above viewpoint. As Nick Arnett has noted, your above quoted passage is demonstrably false. Bush has openly support[ed] Christianity, but has not openly supported any of the millennialist thinking you have described. As Dan Minette has noted, this error on your part left you open to many honest misinterpretations. Now that your intent has been explained by others, I have conceded that I was mistaken to conclude that you were talking about Christianity. It was, however, my honest reading of that passage at the time. As he said, a bit more precision and a bit less steam would go a long way in helping us obtain your meaning. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
They aren't lies if you sincerely believe them to be true. Far, far, far worse. To be led into war by men who believed such fantasies. History shows they are following the Tonkin Gulf script to the letter. And now imaginary blueprints for brave South Vietnamese... er... Iraqi local forces to very soon take over and let our boys go home... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections. Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to the truth. In what way? Bush 2000 - 47.87% Clinton 1992 - 43.01% Dan and I have already dealt with the Perot/Nader comparison. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 3:41 PM Subject: Re: brin: My big salvo At 02:37 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: The monsters have a huge advantage going in, folks. With home bases in Confederate and rural states, they get up to 30 extra electoral votes. 30 Extra? I'm not sure it is 30, but Bush has the advantage that his voters, on average, have higher weighed votes than Kerry voters. As I pointed out in my Electoral College Analysis reply to Byron, this is a popular misconception that just plain isn't true.This is because, Democrats get 3 charity EV's from DC, DE, and VT (somewhat offsetting AK, MT, ND, SD, WY)and dominate the lower end of the 4 EV tier with HI, RI, ME and somewhat Democrat-trending NH. For example, if one assigns all of the States on the basis of the 2000 Presidential vote, and divides 2003 population by 2004 electoral votes, you get: 461,913 Blue Staters per Electoral Vote 453,567 Red Staters per Electoral Vote If one does something just slightly different, one sees a more significant difference. Look at the states where the difference in the popular vote is 5%. There are 20 states with 200 electoral votes for Bush, and 15 states with 200 electoral votes for Gore. This leaves 141 votes in the swing states. In the Bush states, there are 494k voters per electoral vote, while in the Gore states, there are 550k. This is a much more significant difference. I didn't cherry pick 5% either. I tried 10%, but that left too many swing state votes. Even so, the same trend was there. Again, using your analysis for 2004, one gets similar results. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:15:09 -0400, John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans were happy with the outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992 elections. Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to the truth. In what way? Bush 2000 - 47.87% Clinton 1992 - 43.01% Typically meaningless - Clinton had by far the highest percentage of vote of the candidates. Clinton governed centrist, a major criticism of the GOP was that he kept stealing their programs, and Perot supporters were split on which of the two major candidates was their second choice. - Gore had the highest percentage of the vote but was not elected President. Bush after promising to govern in a modest bi-partisan manner governed hard-right and supported the GOP back room deals that have removed any input from the Democratic party. Doesn't matter, as voters see the two candidates side by side they are making their decisions. My Christian GOP-leaning upper-income sister after watching the two debates has decided to vote for Kerry rather than the angry elitist candidate who can't admit he has made mistakes. . Of course, she is probably basing this on Kerry being taller and looks more presidential. Gary Denton -- #2 on google for liberal news I don't try harder ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
At 05:04 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: For example, if one assigns all of the States on the basis of the 2000 Presidential vote, and divides 2003 population by 2004 electoral votes, you get: 461,913 Blue Staters per Electoral Vote 453,567 Red Staters per Electoral Vote If one does something just slightly different, one sees a more significant difference. Look at the states where the difference in the popular vote is 5%. There are 20 states with 200 electoral votes for Bush, and 15 states with 200 electoral votes for Gore. This leaves 141 votes in the swing states. In the Bush states, there are 494k voters per electoral vote, while in the Gore states, there are 550k. This is a much more significant difference. I didn't cherry pick 5% either. I tried 10%, but that left too many swing state votes. Even so, the same trend was there. Again, using your analysis for 2004, one gets similar results. Actually, if you use my analysis for 2004, and only exclude the final group of swing States, you get: 456,997 per EV in Democratic States, and 447,490 per EV in Republican States. So, does that mean you were cherry-picking my 2004 analysis? ;-) Even better, if you allocate those battlegrounds as follows: PA and NH to the Democrats, and FL, OH, WI, IA, NV, and NM to the Republicans - an extremely possible outcome, you get: 456,809 per EV in Democratic States, and 457,120 per EV in Republican States Overall, I find it very difficult to believe that the Electoral College is atrociously weighted towards the Republicans. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
At 02:34 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: They aren't lies if you sincerely believe them to be true. Far, far, far worse. To be led into war by men who believed such fantasies. History shows they are following the Tonkin Gulf script to the letter. And now imaginary blueprints for brave South Vietnamese... er... Iraqi local forces to very soon take over and let our boys go home... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
At 02:29 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: The quoted passage has nothing to do with the two places where you openly stated you were quoting me. Not paraphrasing but quoting. Not true: At 08:06 PM 10/2/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: [snip] It is ludicrous to call it a, quote, official viewpoint of Christianity Your use of quotes here is dishonest to a degree that borders on despicable.. Go visit the apocalypts' web sites to see whether THEY think W agress with them. Just as Black americans called Bill Clinton the first black US president the apocalypts call W one of us. Out of curiosity, which websites would these be? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: brin: My big salvo
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:29 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: The quoted passage has nothing to do with the two places where you openly stated you were quoting me. Not paraphrasing but quoting. Not true: At 08:06 PM 10/2/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: [snip] It is ludicrous to call it a, quote, official viewpoint of Christianity Your use of quotes here is dishonest to a degree that borders on despicable.. Go visit the apocalypts' web sites to see whether THEY think W agress with them. Just as Black americans called Bill Clinton the first black US president the apocalypts call W one of us. Out of curiosity, which websites would these be? Tom Delay. Bill Frist. Zell Miller. Trent Lott. Rick Santourum. Antonin (more orgies) Scalia. All Christian Reconstructionist AKA Dominionists. AKA 'apocalypts'. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: brin: My big salvo
From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: re: brin: My big salvo Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:07:51 -0700 (PDT) A lack of skepticism toward one's own motives is the sure fire sign of a romantic. Allow me but a moment to interject, and to offer a digressive thought followed by it's own requisite question: That's great! Pure gold in words. Can I quote ya? As you may know, a Brin is much more quotable than an Edmunds. -Travis Edmunds Edmunds _ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. 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: brin: My big salvo
In a message dated 10/11/2004 3:26:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Kerry, of course, meant by global test that America must not just lay out its causes, but that we must get some form of international approval - beyond the approval of getting at least 21 out of 30 formal US Allies to support the Iraq War as Bush did, and apparently beyond getting UN Security Council approval as we did during the first Gulf War (which Kerry voted against.) He meant that we must test our actions in the arena of international politics. That does not mean that we must require intenational approval but we must interact with othe nations of the world in a way that keeps them and us involved with each other. As never before we live in close conjunction with the rest of the world. What we do affects everyone else but it is important to realize that we need the rest of the world for economy and way of life to thrive. Military might is not enough anymore. We need the rest of the world to deal with us without resentment. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
