Re: The Values-Vote Myth
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 08:46:17AM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as Operation Of course. What kind of question is that? Regardless of voting fraud, about half of US has voted for four more years of the same. Guilty. Freedom? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.) Huh? What was the question, again? -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net pgplDt75HxeY3.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: The Values-Vote Myth
He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror. In other words, he won because some hillbilly was afraid that the guy at the local 7-11 was going to blow up his chicked farm. Those of us living close enough to Ground Zero to smell it back in those days are apprarently less than convinced. So: A 'moral values' question for Cypherpunks. Does this election indict the American people as being complicit in the crime known as Operation Freedom? (I notice everyone forgot about that name.) -TD _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
The Values-Vote Myth
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?hp=pagewanted=printposition= The New York Times November 6, 2004 OP-ED COLUMNIST The Values-Vote Myth By DAVID BROOKS Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them. In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top. This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong. Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily. It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues. Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying moral values. But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result. The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums. He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror. The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not. The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction. In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues. But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are? What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man. -- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA ... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable
Re: Why Americans Hate Democrats-A Dialogue
John Young: Tyler, Commie is the term used here like is nazi used elsewhere as the most fearsome if thoughtless epithet. Nazi here is a term of endearment, and also admirable role model by some. Calling someone both is not allowed, check the FAQ under impurity. Tim May, praise Allah, always claimed cypherpunks was a fair and balanced forum thanks to the one person of the left here who was fingered affectionately like a house rodent, an easy target for errant shooters. CJ is not to be recalled, ever. Jim Bell still sends very important legal papers, the latest yesterday, which describe the way things should be understood. But who can believe an MIT chemist political prisoner. CJ and Jim jailed by the Democratic freedom-fighters. CJ is CJ Parker, who posted a few emails to this list back in early 2003? I guess I haven't been around long enough to know all famous cpunks who have been posting to the list. Maybe someone could tell in short who those were, I guess there are one or two on the list who weren't around and would appreciate the stories. I think I remember having read about Bell, something about him having threatened FBI agents or something? Does Jim Bell post emails somewhere today?
Why Americans Hate Dissenters
On CJ (Carl Johnson) and Jim Bell: There was a time when the greatest terrorist threat to the US was located in the northwestern part of the country, Idaho, Washington State and Oregon, some of California. Militia the infidels were called. The US Attorney's Office in Tacoma, WA, was a center of counterterrorist activity, aided by FBI, Treasury, IRS, US Marshals, DEA and others. Jim Bell was twice busted, tried, convicted and jailed, by the Tacoma USA, for alleged acts against the USG, primarily the IRS, but knowledgeable citizens presume the assault was the result of his essay, Assassination Politics (AP), which descibed a system for anonymous killing of varmints, government officials especially, but not limited to those. CJ defended Jim with a series of online statements on his behalf, and for allegedly running an online version of AP. For this misbehavior he was busted, tried, convicted and jailed, also by the Tacoma USA. Jim served his first term, allegedly misbehaved again, and was sent to jail again, where he remains and continues to file appeals of his railroading. CJ served a term and is now free, pursuing among other wonders his career as the King of Country Porn. Bell and CJ posted regularly to cypherpunks during their days of pre-jailing, and some of their messages here were used against them during trial. An agent of the IRS, Jeff Gordon was a known subscriber of cypherpunks for the purpose of surveilling members and stashing useful email evidence to advance his career -- Jeff was indeed awarded honors for his investigation and jailing of the heroes of the revolution. Here's a US Marshal report on Jeff's snooping: - http://cryptome.org/jdb/usms020499.htm On November 25, 1997, Inspector Jeff GORDAN with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Portland, Oregon, contacted the U.S. Marshals Service, Tacoma, Washington, regarding an internet posting he had obtained on this day (see attached). [http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.97.11.20-97.11.26/msg00274.html] On the same date, Deputy U.S. Marshal STEPHENSON contacted Inspector GORDAN in an attempt obtain further details regarding the individuals mentioned in the internet posting. Inspector GORDAN related the following: On May 17, 1997, the IRS in Vancouver, Washington, arrested James Dalton BELL (#26906-086) for threats, assaults, obstruction, and intimidation of employees and officers of the IRS. During IRS's initial investigation of BELL, the IRS discovered that BELL was associated with the Multnomah County Common Law Court as well as the author of Assassination Politics, an essay that describes and advocates the development and use of a system to reward people who kill selected Government employees. BELL was also known to transmit his beliefs via internet services (see W/WA case #CR97-5270FDB). Inspector GORDON indicated that since BELL's arrest his office has been monitoring internet postings by the Cypherpunks, one of the groups BELL was known to be communicating with. Many of the postings are simply communications between members of the group regarding their dissatisfaction with the Government. Inspector GORDAN related that this posting was a concern due to the statement made by the author, indicating that Tim MAY announced he would be murdering Jim Bell's judge (known to be U.S. District Judge Franklin BURGESS or Magistrate J. Kelly ARNOLD) on Friday, at 4;00 p.m. Inspector GORDAN indicated that he is not familiar with the author of the posting, Bad BobbyH, however he was familiar with Tim MAY. Inspector GORDAN described MAY as being an anarchist/survivalist who seems to spend much of his time communicating his beliefs via the internet. According to Inspector GORDAN, MAY is retired and fairly well off, making his fortune years ago by developing computer programs. May also has a tendency to attempt to goat or bait law enforcement officers into taking action and has repeatedly stated he would shoot any law enforcement officers who attempted to arrest him. Inspector GORDAN provided the following information regarding the individuals mentioned in the posting: Timothy C. MAY (DoB: 12/21/51 SSN: XXX-XX-XXX) XXX Corralltos, CA 95078 Robert HETTINGA XXX Boston, MA 02131 Inspector GORDAN disclosed that his office is unable to trace the posting because the address, Robert Heidegger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), is false/untraceable. On November 25, 1997, U.S. District Judge Franklin BURGESS and Magistrate Judge J. Kelly ARNOLD were notified by Supervisory Deputy Glenn WHALEY and Deputy STEPHENSON reference the internet posting. A copy of the internet posting was forwarded to FBI Special Agent Ron Stankye (360) 695-5661. Attached is a copy of another posting by the Cypherpunks previously received on June 23, 1997 regarding Magistrate J. Kelly ARNOLD. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Deputy STEPHENSON at (253) 593-6344. - Several cypherpunks
Re: In a Sky Dark With Arrows, Death Rained Down
R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: These were not the sort of sporting arrows skillfully shot toward gayly colored targets by Victorian archery societies (charmingly described by Mr. Soar in later chapters) but heavy bodkin pointed battle shafts that went through the armor of man and horse. That's the traditional Agincourt interpretation. More modern ones (backed up by actual tests with arrows of the time against armour, in which the relatively soft metal of the arrows was rather ineffective against the armour) tend to favour the muddy ground trapping men and horses, lack of room to manoeuver/compression effects, and arrows killing horses out from under the knights, at which point see the muddy ground section. Obviously the machine- gun effect of the arrows was going to cause a number of minor injuries, and would be lethal to unarmoured troops, but they weren't quite the wonder-weapon they're made out to be. (There were other problems as well, e.g. the unusually high death toll and removal of ancient aristocratic lineages was caused by English commoners who weren't aware of the tradition of capturing opposing nobles and having them ransomed back, rather than hacking them to pieces on the spot. Again, arrows didn't have much to do with the loss of so many nobles). Peter.
Re: This Memorable Day
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Tiarn=E1n_=D3_Corr=E1in?=) writes: The Russians (for example) conquered Hitler's capital, Berlin. And I believe the Russian zone in Germany was larger than any of the others, reflecting the fact that Stalin bore most of entire burden of defeating Germany, uncomfortable as it may be. The figure that's usually quoted is that 80% of German's military force was directed against Russia. Of the remaining 20%, a lot had already been engaged by France, the UK (via the BEF, the RAF, North Africa), Greece, etc etc before the US got involved in Europe. So the Russians should get most of the credit. Peter.
