No, Canada!

[R.A. Hettinga]

The Boston Globe
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
No, Canada!

You don't want to go there

By Alex Beam, Globe Staff  |  November 6, 2004

You have probably heard the idle chatter: ''I'm thinking of moving to
Canada." You may have received the JPEG Sent 'Round the World, labeling the
northern part of North America -- the right-thinking part, as liberals
would have it -- as the United States of Canada, and the pro-Bush leaning
''red" US states as Jesusland.

It sounds so alluring. Good beer. Cheap Viagra. Hardly any crime. Friendly,
if somewhat ineffectual, people. Terrific, if underappreciated, novelists.
(This means you, Rohinton Mistry.) Secure borders, courtesy of the US
Department of Defense.

But before you pack, consider this: There are plenty of reasons not  to
move to Canada. Let me count the ways.

1. They don't really want you. Canada is full of losers like you. If you're
really rich, or a brain surgeon, maybe. But if you are, say, a newspaper
reporter, be prepared to wait at least a year just to live there legally,
and several more years to become a citizen.

If you have some special qualifications, like a PhD, plus a lot of work
experience, and if you are under 50, you have a better chance of crashing
the gates of Snow Mexico. Or if you're loaded. That's right. If you have a
net worth of $800,000 Canadian or more, and are willing to invest $400,000
of it in Canada, come on in! And you thought George Bush's America was a
plutocracy. . . . Think again.

2. Speaking of brain surgery -- have you tried Buffalo? Here is what John
Kerry didn't tell you: The problem with free, single-payer health care is
that you get what you pay for.

Even the Canadians acknowledge that their health system is in crisis.
(Sound familiar?) They speak about the inequities of their two-tiered
system, where publicly funded patients wait weeks, if not months, to
consult specialists or have routine surgery, while private patients get
quick service. In fact, it's a three-tiered system. The very well-to-do
travel to the United States for some procedures.

We refer you to a recent editorial in The Windsor (Ontario) Star: ''A
growing number of sick and tired Canadians are beginning to look to the US
for ideas on how to improve our failing health-care system. But Kerry,
inexplicably, is looking north for health care ideas."

3. Parlez-vous francais? Somehow I doubt it. And yet if you want to work
for the Canadian government -- the country's largest employer -- chances
are that you have to be bilingual. And the private sector is following
suit. C'est dur, eh?

4. How do you like your free speech -- well chilled? Canada has no First
Amendment and adheres to primitive British-style libel laws.

Here is a hilarious definition of defamation la Canadienne, from the Media
Libel website: ''A defamatory statement exists if the publication tends to
lower the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of those who are
commonly referred to as 'right thinking' members of society." Allow me to
reiterate my widely known position: Celine Dion is the greatest singer who
ever lived.

Just this year, the Canadian Parliament passed what the religious right has
branded a ''Chill Bill," or ''The Bible as Hate Speech Bill," effectively
preventing churches from using the Bible to preach against homosexuality.
''With the passage of Bill C-250, Canada has now embarked upon a course of
criminalization of dissent," according to a statement released this spring
by the Catholic Civil Rights League.

Fine, you say. Enough gay-bashing by Bible-waving Christian loonies. But
remember John Ashcroft's motto: Your rights are next.

5. It's the black hole of sports fandom. You would seriously consider
leaving the home of North America's greatest baseball team -- ever -- and
of North America's greatest football team, for . . . what? Canadian
football is played on a field that's too long (that's why each team has 12
players), and there are only three downs. Huh?

Fifty percent of Canada's Major League Baseball infrastructure -- les
Montral Expos just decamped for Washington, D.C., because of audience
indifference. Canada's one great sports treasure, professional hockey,
isn't being played this year. You hadn't noticed?

And you can't even name its national sport, can you? What if that question
is on the citizenship application?

6. Have you heard the joke about the Canadian dollar? Not lately. Without
putting too fine a point on this, Canadian currency has been laying a
Euro-style smackdown on the US greenback. What this means to you: less
purchasing power.

Wait, there's more. You think you're living in a high-tax state right now?
Hahahahahaha.

7. The biggest argument against immigrating to Canada is: You're going in
the wrong direction! With all due respect to our northern neighbors, anyone
who is anyone bolted years ago.

Peter Jennings, Mike Myers, Joni Mitchell, Jim Carr

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Pete Capelli]

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:46:17 -0500, Tyler Durden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.

As the article notes, GWB *improved* his showing in NY over the 2000
election.  Are you implying that the US won't be attacked again?

I could follow your ad-hominem attack with one about mincing
homosexuals, but we both know that singlularity of voters on either
side is incorrect, and does nothing to forward the discussion.
 
> 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.)

Of course it does.  That's what a republic is.  But who's going to
'indict' us?  The UN?  Maybe after we finish the trials for their
self-dealing on the 'Oil for Food' program (as Orwellian a title as
the Patriot Act had).

-- 

Pete Capelli  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.capelli.org PGP Key ID:0x829263B6
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither 
liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

RE: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Tyler Durden wrote:

> 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.

Precisely.

> 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.)

Complicit?  Thats *technically* correct, but not nearly strong enough.

> -TD

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"

S. Plath, Temper of Time

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Justin]

On 2004-11-06T16:39:41+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 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.

Not true.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/

"[Curtis] Gans puts the total turnout at nearly 120 million people.
That represents just under 60% of eligible voters..."

120m * 100%/60% = 200 million eligible voters  (The U.S. population
according to census.gov was 290,809,777 as of 2003-07-01

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
"Bush Vote: 59,459,765"
Let's generously round that up to 65 million.

65m/200m = 32.5% of eligible voters voted for Bush
65m/290.8m = 22.4% of the U.S. population voted for Bush

I can't find an accurate number of registered voters, but one article
suggests 15% of registered voters don't vote.  That means there are
probably around 141m registered voters.  Bush didn't even win majority
support from /those/.

65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush


-- 
The old must give way to the new, falsehood must become exposed by truth,
and truth, though fought, always in the end prevails.  -- L. Ron Hubbard 

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[J.A. Terranson]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Justin wrote:

> On 2004-11-06T16:39:41+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Not true.


The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub.  You
are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.  Inaction
is not good enough.

-- 
Yours,

J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF

"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"

S. Plath, Temper of Time

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Pete Capelli]

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:25:19 +, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not true.



Saddam had 100% turnout, and won 100% of the vote.  Does that make his
election more legitimate to you?


-- 

Pete Capelli  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.capelli.org PGP Key ID:0x829263B6
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither 
liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Landlside maps

[Mercator]

For the map-obsessed, this one shows the depth of support for
President Feckless in the global community. Pretty goddam impressive
I'd say. I takes true flair to blow off so many former clients and
fair weather friends in so short a time.

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/images/worldmap.jpg

And oh yes, for the benefit of Mr. Bean at the Boston Globe, Frank
Gehry got his Canadian passport back three or four years ago.
Prescient I'd say; visionary even.

Re: Why Americans Hate Democrats-A Dialogue

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:31:24AM -0800, James Donald wrote:

> I routinely call people like you nazi-commies.

How novel and interesting.

Cut the rhetoric, get on with the program. Cypherpunks write code.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl
__
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


pgpRySwSekh7f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: No, Canada!

[Tyler Durden]

Wow. What kind of fucking idiot wrote this thing? A piece like this can 
actually get published? This is the biggest set of arguments I've seen yet 
for moving TO Canada!

BTW: I always thought that "Economic Immigration" was an excellent 
ideait siphoned off tons of Hong Kong millionares before the PRC took 
over. The US should have been doing it in addition to the non-Express route.

-TD
From: "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: No, Canada!
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:57:22 -0500

The Boston Globe
THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
No, Canada!
You don't want to go there
By Alex Beam, Globe Staff  |  November 6, 2004
You have probably heard the idle chatter: ''I'm thinking of moving to
Canada." You may have received the JPEG Sent 'Round the World, labeling the
northern part of North America -- the right-thinking part, as liberals
would have it -- as the United States of Canada, and the pro-Bush leaning
''red" US states as Jesusland.
It sounds so alluring. Good beer. Cheap Viagra. Hardly any crime. Friendly,
if somewhat ineffectual, people. Terrific, if underappreciated, novelists.
(This means you, Rohinton Mistry.) Secure borders, courtesy of the US
Department of Defense.
But before you pack, consider this: There are plenty of reasons not  to
move to Canada. Let me count the ways.
1. They don't really want you. Canada is full of losers like you. If you're
really rich, or a brain surgeon, maybe. But if you are, say, a newspaper
reporter, be prepared to wait at least a year just to live there legally,
and several more years to become a citizen.
If you have some special qualifications, like a PhD, plus a lot of work
experience, and if you are under 50, you have a better chance of crashing
the gates of Snow Mexico. Or if you're loaded. That's right. If you have a
net worth of $800,000 Canadian or more, and are willing to invest $400,000
of it in Canada, come on in! And you thought George Bush's America was a
plutocracy. . . . Think again.
2. Speaking of brain surgery -- have you tried Buffalo? Here is what John
Kerry didn't tell you: The problem with free, single-payer health care is
that you get what you pay for.
Even the Canadians acknowledge that their health system is in crisis.
(Sound familiar?) They speak about the inequities of their two-tiered
system, where publicly funded patients wait weeks, if not months, to
consult specialists or have routine surgery, while private patients get
quick service. In fact, it's a three-tiered system. The very well-to-do
travel to the United States for some procedures.
We refer you to a recent editorial in The Windsor (Ontario) Star: ''A
growing number of sick and tired Canadians are beginning to look to the US
for ideas on how to improve our failing health-care system. But Kerry,
inexplicably, is looking north for health care ideas."
3. Parlez-vous francais? Somehow I doubt it. And yet if you want to work
for the Canadian government -- the country's largest employer -- chances
are that you have to be bilingual. And the private sector is following
suit. C'est dur, eh?
4. How do you like your free speech -- well chilled? Canada has no First
Amendment and adheres to primitive British-style libel laws.
Here is a hilarious definition of defamation la Canadienne, from the Media
Libel website: ''A defamatory statement exists if the publication tends to
lower the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of those who are
commonly referred to as 'right thinking' members of society." Allow me to
reiterate my widely known position: Celine Dion is the greatest singer who
ever lived.
Just this year, the Canadian Parliament passed what the religious right has
branded a ''Chill Bill," or ''The Bible as Hate Speech Bill," effectively
preventing churches from using the Bible to preach against homosexuality.
''With the passage of Bill C-250, Canada has now embarked upon a course of
criminalization of dissent," according to a statement released this spring
by the Catholic Civil Rights League.
Fine, you say. Enough gay-bashing by Bible-waving Christian loonies. But
remember John Ashcroft's motto: Your rights are next.
5. It's the black hole of sports fandom. You would seriously consider
leaving the home of North America's greatest baseball team -- ever -- and
of North America's greatest football team, for . . . what? Canadian
football is played on a field that's too long (that's why each team has 12
players), and there are only three downs. Huh?
Fifty percent of Canada's Major League Baseball infrastructure -- les
Montral Expos just decamped for Washington, D.C., because of audience
indifference. Canada's one great sports treasure, professional hockey,
isn't being played this year. You hadn't noticed?
And you can't even name its national sport, can you? What if that question
is on the citizenship application?
6. Have you heard the joke about the Canadian dollar? Not l

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Eugen Leitl]

On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 06:25:19PM +, Justin wrote:

> Not true.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/voter.turnout.ap/
> 
> "[Curtis] Gans puts the total turnout at nearly 120 million people.
> That represents just under 60% of eligible voters..."

You didn't vote against a candidate, you tacitly accept whatever other voters
decide. For you. There isn't "none of the above" option, unfortunately.
 
> 120m * 100%/60% = 200 million eligible voters  (The U.S. population
> according to census.gov was 290,809,777 as of 2003-07-01
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/
> "Bush Vote: 59,459,765"
> Let's generously round that up to 65 million.
> 
> 65m/200m = 32.5% of eligible voters voted for Bush
> 65m/290.8m = 22.4% of the U.S. population voted for Bush
> 
> I can't find an accurate number of registered voters, but one article
> suggests 15% of registered voters don't vote.  That means there are
> probably around 141m registered voters.  Bush didn't even win majority
> support from /those/.
> 
> 65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush

Don't mince numbers. About half of those who could and could be bothered to
vote voted for more of the same.

At least that's how the rest of the world is going to see it.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl
__
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


pgpssFR0nkjou.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why Americans Hate Democrats-A Dialogue

[James Donald]

--
 John Young wrote:
> 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.

I routinely call people like you nazi-commies.

As George Orwell observed, anyone who thinks there is a significant 
difference between nazis and commies is in favor of one or the other.

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 tcPPLhn9aMTaLb/hq3C0TK4TWGyDiUmRgFC+48C2
 4sa/dBFoKxqt/B8oRTgvooxp3PmvXeSL3LjqpFI+W



___
$0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
Signup at www.doteasy.com

Re: No, Canada!

[John Young]

Fair enough. Canada is a role model for the US, as is the US for
the world: nobody is wanted unless they are willing to pay for the 
mistakes and messes the locals have made, or best, work for 
starvation wages, usually off the books, long the prime source of 
penal-grade labor in the Echelon nations, not to say the, spit, 
Western and Eastern cultures -- out-sourcing has always been 
first in line right at home: wives, kids and the invisible caste-classes
who swab your puke and dump your garbage and bail you out of
the drunk tank.

Contamination by settlement of North America (and man-woman
marriage): pay for it, new immigrants (wives and kids), with cheap 
labor and keeping your thoughts very, very quiet, and don't bitch 
about master's eccentricities about sex. 

The first New World, as Old, settlers set these conditions for 
the natives and for anybody who came afterwards. That's how 
you succeed in the New Worlds, behave like Calvinist cum 
Libertarian cum Roman cum Roman Church pretend aristocrats: 
if you dont'have it you don't deserve it, but you can always steal
it the legal way, stock market and tithe basket, praise Allah for 
his valorizing wealth as salvation.

But, more of the defense budget goes for clean-up of its messes in
the US than for military health-care and benefits (overseas it has
hardly begun). The clean-up corporations are mostly the same ones 
which made the messes (this is the pattern since the Revolutionary
War), and they are not doing the job worth a shit, overruns and 
performance failures as bad as for unworkable but richly bragged-about 
armaments. If the bitching about contamination gets too loud, why
start another war.

The DC-area is one of the most contaminated parts of the US due 
to the plethora of toxic-puking mil installations. One of the worst is 
under American University and surrounding neighborhoods, across 
Nebraska Avenue from the headquarters of Homeland Security, 
itself once home of the military's oldest comsec unit.

As sleazy Hitchens and slews of other suck-ups of the rich and 
powerful have demonstrated, especially those predating from Canada: 

defend and flatter and amuse the privileged of the US-supremacist 
model of the New World as if the Old in new clothing, and you'll do 
quite well. But do not engage in dissent or your product won't move 
and your wise ass will be banished -- thanks to the scoundrels' 
patriotism embedded in the capitalist regime since day one.

Re: In a Sky Dark With Arrows, Death Rained Down

[James A. Donald]

--
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> 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)
I find this very hard to believe.  Post links, or give citations.
> (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.
Wrong
French nobles were taken prisoner in the usual fashion, but executed
because the English King commanded them executed.
--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 R2tc27UGwjykTsUjBSVNU/VakHCZzthZfJpceSzP
 49ifULPODBC+M+WzhF3jxg1W5+UV7ABaMjvVW7R8b

Re: No, Canada!

[R.A. Hettinga]

At 11:42 AM -0800 11/6/04, John Young wrote:
>capitalist

There you go, speaking marxist again...

;-)

Cheers,
RAH
"Capitalism" is totalitarian for "economics"...
-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
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 to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Why Americans Hate Democrats-A Dialogue

[James A. Donald]

--
James Donald:
> > I routinely call people like you nazi-commies.
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> How novel and interesting.
>
> Cut the rhetoric, get on with the program. Cypherpunks write code.
I also write code, unlike people like you.
See for example www.echeque.com/Kong
--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 iRF6jCg0M9tIDOFv9wmxaZxcMi0N2C6vQn8oF4IO
 42OhxMux7d4g+wGUgQBqxmiP8H6QXmmOGpbq5bqCd

Supreme Court Issues

[Justin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/07/politics/07court.html?partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print

We're going to get some extremist anti-abortion, pro-internment,
anti-1A, anti-4A, anti-5A, anti-14A, right-wing wacko.

Imagine Ashcroft as Chief Justice.

I really hope I'm wrong.

What happens when the Chief Justice is dead?  Can someone close to him
(like his secretary) pull the strings on his corpose and "send in" his
votes indefinitely, without his being in attendance during the
conferences, receiving case briefs from his law clerks, or attending
oral arguments?

> In the two weeks that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, has been
> treated for a serious form of thyroid cancer, life at the court has
> proceeded without a sense of crisis. The judicial function is shared
> by eight other people, with Justice John Paul Stevens, the senior
> associate justice, presiding over courtroom sessions and the justices'
> private conferences. The administrative tasks are carried out, as they
> usually are under the chief justice's direction, by his administrative
> assistant, Sally M. Rider, a former federal prosecutor and State
> Department lawyer.
> 
> These arrangements can continue almost indefinitely. Nonetheless, as it
> has become evident that Chief Justice Rehnquist will not be returning
> soon, a sense of sadness and uncertainty has spread throughout the court
> and into the wider community of federal judges who have received no more
> information than the general public about the chief justice's condition
> and prospects.
> 
> Judges have refrained from calling either Chief Justice Rehnquist or Ms.
> Rider. "I don't have the nerve," one judge who has worked closely with
> the chief justice said Friday. "The vibes I get just aren't good."
> 
> A judge who did call the chief justice's chambers in anticipation of a
> visit to Washington was steered away from visiting his home in
> Arlington, Va. The justices have sent notes, but it is not clear whether
> any have seen or even talked to him.
> 
> Information from official channels has been minimal. The court's press
> office would not say whether the chief justice was present for the
> justices' regular Friday morning conference, at which they review new
> cases and decide which to grant. (He was not.) Nor would the press
> office say whether, if he did not attend, he sent in his votes. (He
> did.)

> The chief justice, it appears, has functioned as his own press
> officer. Surely a professional would have cautioned him, on the day it
> was announced that he had just undergone a tracheotomy, against making
> a public promise to be back at work in a week. Every cancer specialist
> whom reporters consulted after the announcement found that prediction
> highly implausible.
> 
> And when the chief justice found on Monday that he could not fulfill the
> promise, he subtly but unmistakably indicated that the error had been
> his own and not his doctors': "According to my doctors, my plan to
> return to the office today was too optimistic."
> 
> Chief Justice Rehnquist's statement on Monday said that he was receiving
> radiation and chemotherapy on an outpatient basis. Both the aggressive
> treatment and the observations of those who have seen him in recent
> weeks suggest that the disease is advanced and rapidly progressing.
> 
> A judge who attended a meeting with him in late September said the chief
> justice looked well and spoke without the hoarseness that was apparent
> by the time the court's new term began Oct. 4; a spreading thyroid tumor
> can impinge on the nerves that control the vocal cords. By mid-October,
> one court employee who saw the chief justice in his street clothes was
> struck by his frailty. "That robe can hide a lot," this employee said.
> 
> The court will hear arguments in this coming week and then again in the
> two weeks following the Thanksgiving weekend. It will then go on recess
> until Jan. 10. During that substantial interval, people at the court now
> appear to think, the chief justice will have a chance to assess his
> situation and decide whether to retire.
> 
> Although there seems to be widespread public confusion on this point -
> memories have faded in the 18 years since Chief Justice Rehnquist's
> contentious confirmation hearing - a chief justice must be separately
> nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, even if the
> person is already sitting on the Supreme Court. If the president wants
> to choose a sitting justice, he can pick any of them, without regard to
> seniority.
> 
> Historically, promotion from within has been the exception; only 5 of
> the 16 chief justices previously served as associate justices,
> including Chief Justice Rehnquist, who spent his first 14 years on
> the court as an associate before President Ronald Reagan offered him
> a promotion in 1986.
> 
> The timing of his illness, more than two months before the start of the
> 109th Congress, raises another prospect: that of a recess app

Re: Why Americans Hate Democrats-A Dialogue

[R.A. Hettinga]

At 8:08 PM +0100 11/6/04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>Cypherpunks write code.

Right. That's it. Wanna write me a bearer mint? For free?

;-)

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
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 to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: This Memorable Day

[John Young]

The US made a bundle from WW1 and WW2 warfare, in both
cases being rescued from an economic slump, and some have
argued the US delayed sending troops as long as possible to
extend the demand for supplies, supplies which appeared to
always be insufficient but enough to keep the warring parties
going at it.

To be sure, the US Civil War provided the same beneficence
to its overseas exploiters, not to say domestic entrpreneurs,
not to say hordes of today's reenactors.

Historians have noted that Northern generals in particular 
worked hard to avoid battle while begging for more troops and 
supplies. Shrewd commentators write there could have been 
Southern-general complicity in this paradic churning before it 
got out of hand due to Lincoln demanding action to keep his
comfy future -- kapow! went the prez to his virgins.

It is a truism that power in leaders is enlarged during wartime,
no matter their ideology, so it is a surefire way to boost flagging
support (60 million can be that DUMB). And the more humans 
slaughtered the greater the support as each homeland, praise 
Allah's cloven hooves, and seeks revenge for the loss of its 
prime beef, and if all goes well, the fighting never comes home 
to roost in hilltop mansions, damn those paraplegics who 
won't parade their grotesqueries: axe their meds.

Red poppies, how do they bloom in November, remember Fallujah.
Halls of Montezuma, Shores of Tripoli, yadda.

Re: Broward machines count backward

[Sunder]

It sounds suspiciously like an int16 issue.

32K is close enough to 32767 after which a 16 bit integer goes negative 
when incremented.  Which is odd because it should roll over, not count 
backwards.

perhaps they did something like this:

note the use of abs on reporting.


int16 votes[MAX_CANDIDATES];

void add_a_vote(uint8 candidate)
{
 if (candidate>MAX_CANDIDATES) return;
 votes[candidate]++;
}

void report(void)
{
 int i;

 for (i=0; i:and our people, and neither do we." -G. W. Bush, 2004.08.05 \/|\/
  /|\  : \|/
 + v + :War is Peace, freedom is slavery, Bush is President.
-

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, R.A. Hettinga wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Palm Beach Post
> 
> Broward machines count backward
> 
>  By Eliot Kleinberg
> 
> Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
> 
> Friday, November 05, 2004
> 
> 
> FORT LAUDERDALE - It had to happen. Things were just going too smoothly.
> 
> Early Thursday, as Broward County elections officials wrapped up after a
> long day of canvassing votes, something unusual caught their eye. Tallies
> should go up as more votes are counted. That's simple math. But in some
> races, the numbers had gone . . . down.
> 
> 
> Officials found the software used in Broward can handle only 32,000 votes
> per precinct. After that, the system starts counting backward.

Re: Why Americans Hate Democrats-A Dialogue

[Chris Kuethe]

Fun bits to read, somewhat related to Owell and the perceived notional
differences between various... extremists.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/f/fa/fascism.html
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/opinion/essays/storgaard1.html
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Certainly one could infer from reading "Politics and the English
Language" that Orwell could've or would've thought such a thing.  If
anyone finds it before I do, post a link, will ya?

CK

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 18:38:21 -0500, R.A. Hettinga <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> At 9:31 AM -0800 11/6/04, James Donald wrote:
> >As George Orwell observed, anyone who thinks there is a significant
> >difference between nazis and commies is in favor of one or the other.
> 
> I'm going to have hunt that one up for my .sig file.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> RAH
> 
> --
> -
> R. A. Hettinga 
> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
> 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 to
> experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
> 
> 


-- 
GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?

Re: Why Americans Hate Democrats-A Dialogue

[R.A. Hettinga]

At 9:31 AM -0800 11/6/04, James Donald wrote:
>As George Orwell observed, anyone who thinks there is a significant
>difference between nazis and commies is in favor of one or the other.

I'm going to have hunt that one up for my .sig file.

Thank you.

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
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 to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[R.A. Hettinga]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

At 6:25 PM + 11/6/04, Justin wrote:
>65m/141m = 46% of registered voters voted for Bush

Of course, you can invert the math and say the same about Kerry, plus
Bush's 3-something million margin, I'm afraid. Hell, Rush said
exactly the same thing on Friday. :-). Numerology doesn't win
elections, I'm afraid.


Remember, boys and girls, government itself is the not-so-polite
fiction that the highwayman is acting in our best interest at all
times if we pay him enough to leave us, individually, alone.

So, as Brooks indirectly proves, rather than blathering here, or
elsewhere, about "values", or "equality", or "fairness", or
"justice", or other lofty nonsense, electoral or otherwise, look at
how well a given *culture* and its implicit force-control mechanism,
does *economically* for its citizenry (a parasite doesn't kill its
own host, and all that...), besides just being able to kill more and
better soldiers on the other side of the battlefield is actually
putting the cart before the horse.

The fact that increasing personal liberty results in such higher
per-capita income, and thus the ability to project force than
reducing liberty does isn't necessarily the same level of
metaphysical mystery as the fact that some kinds of mathematics
predict reality, but it's close enough for, heh, government work.

Someday, hopefully, financial cryptography will reduce transaction
costs by actually *increasing* privacy (see math and reality, liberty
and income, above), the *economic* rationale for force-monopoly will
go away, and *then* we can all exhume Lysander Spooner, prop him up,
and talk about constitutions of no authority, or whatever.

Cheers,
RAH

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQY1vN8PxH8jf3ohaEQKyGACbB6XlMBht53x48ugBvJQqOUJ/4P8AnRlX
4M/JvqrHdU9LvnTlrEilGzoK
=D4M9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
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 to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Sarad AV]

--- "R.A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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.

An american lady during the iraq war told me-"How do
you think we will continue to get government benifits
without the war?"

What it means is open for interpretation.
Sarath.



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. 
www.yahoo.com 
 

L/Cs, e-gold and regulated banking

[Ian Grigg]

(Guys, this has drifted out of crypto into finance, so I
have a feeling that it will disappear of the crypto list.
But the topics that are raised are interesting and important
enough to carry on, I think.)


>> > [Hal:]
>> > Interesting.  In the e-gold case, both parties have the same bank,
>> > e-gold ltd.  The corresponding protocol would be for the buyer to
>> > instruct e-gold to set aside some money which would go to the
>> > seller once the seller supplied a certain receipt.  That receipt
>> > would be an email return receipt showing that the seller had sent
>> > the buyer the content with hash so-and-so, using a cryptographic
>> > email return-receipt protocol.
>> [iang:]
>> This is to mix up banking and payment systems.  Enzo's
>> description shows banks doing banking - lending money
>> on paper that eventually pays a rate of return.  In
>> contrast, in the DGC or digital gold currency world,
>> the issuers of gold like e-gold are payment systems and
>> not banks.  The distinction is that a payment system
>> does not issue credit.
> [enzo:]
> Actually, seeing issuance and acceptance of L/C's only as a money-lending
> activity is not 100% accurate. "Letter of credit" is a misnomer: an L/C
> _may_ be used by the seller to obtain credit, but if the documents are
> "sent for collection" rather than "negotiated", the payment to the seller
> is delayed until the opening bank will have debited the buyer's account
> and remitted the due amount to the negotiating bank. To be precise: when
> the documents are submitted to the negotiating bank by the seller, the
> latter also draws under the terms of the L/C a "bill of exchange" to be
> accepted by the buyer; that instrument, just like any draft, may be either
> sent for collection or negotiated immediately, subject, of course, to
> final settlement. Also, depending on the agreements between the seller and
> his bank, the received L/C may be considered as collateral to get further
> allocation of credit, e.g. to open a "back-to-back L/C" to a seller of raw
> materials.
>
> However, if the documents and the draft are sent for collection, and no
> other extension of credit are obtained by the buyer, the only advantage of
> an L/C for the seller is the certainty of being paid by _his_
> (negotiating) bank, which he trusts not to collude with the buyer to claim
> fictitious discrepancies between the actual documents submitted and what
> the L/C was requesting. (And even in case such discrepancies will turn out
> to be real, the opening bank will not surrender the Bill of Lading, and
> therefore the cargo, to the buyer until the latter will have accepted all
> the discrepancies: so in the worst case the cargo will remain under the
> seller's control, to be shipped back and/or sold to some other buyer.
> If it acted differently, the opening bank would go against the standard
> practice defined in the UCP ICC 500
> (http://internet.ggu.edu/~emilian/PUBL500.htm) and its reputation would be
> badly damaged). So, the L/C mechanism, independently from allocation of
> credit, _does_ provide a way out of the dilemma "which one should come
> first, payment or delivery?"; and this is achieved by leveraging on the
> reputation of parties separately trusted by the endpoints of the
> transaction.

An excellent description;  I was unaware that the system
could be used in a non-credit fashion.  Thanks for correcting
me.

> Generally speaking, it is debatable whether "doing banking" only means
> "accepting deposits and providing credit" or also "handling payments for a
> fee":

There are many definitions of "banking" and unfortunately
they are different enough that one will make mistakes
routinely.  Here are the most useful three that I know of:

1.  borrowing from the public as deposits and lending those
deposits to the public.  This is the favoured definition for
economists, because it concentrates on the specialness that
is banking, which is the foundation for its special regulatory
structure.

2.  Banking is what banks do, and banks do banking.  This is
the favoured definition of banks, and often times, regulators,
because it gives them a free hand to exploit their special
franchise / subsidy.  It was codified in law in many countries
as just this, but I believe it is out of favour to write it
down these days.  However, the Fed and other US regulators have
from time to time resorted to this definition, when convenient.

3.  Banking is what the regulator says is banking.  This is
the favoured definition of regulators, and sometimes of banks.
It means that there is little or no argument or discussion in
protecting the flock.  This is the much more prevalent in
smaller countries, where the notion of "sending in the lawyers"
is simply too expensive.

4.  There is a popular definition that says something like,
if it is to do with money it is banking.  That's not a very
useful one, but it's prevalent enough to need to be aware of
it.

> ... surely banks routinely do both, although 

Re: Your source code, for sale

[Ian Grigg]

> Enzo Michelangeli writes:
>> In the world of international trade, where mutual distrust between buyer
>> and seller is often the rule and there is no central authority to
>> enforce
>> the law, this is traditionally achieved by interposing not less than
>> three
>> trusted third parties: the shipping line, the opening bank and the
>> negotiating bank.
>
> Interesting.  In the e-gold case, both parties have the same bank,
> e-gold ltd.  The corresponding protocol would be for the buyer to instruct
> e-gold to set aside some money which would go to the seller once the
> seller supplied a certain receipt.  That receipt would be an email return
> receipt showing that the seller had sent the buyer the content with hash
> so-and-so, using a cryptographic email return-receipt protocol.

This is to mix up banking and payment systems.  Enzo's
description shows banks doing banking - lending money
on paper that eventually pays a rate of return.  In
contrast, in the DGC or digital gold currency world,
the issuers of gold like e-gold are payment systems and
not banks.  The distinction is that a payment system
does not issue credit.

So, in the e-gold scenario, there would need to be
similar third parties independent of the payment system
to provide the credit moving in the reverse direction to
the goods.  In the end it would be much like Enzo's
example, with a third party with the seller, a third
party with the buyer, and one or two third parties who
are dealing the physical goods.  There have been some
thoughts in the direction of credit creation in the
gold community, but nothing of any sustainability has
occurred as yet.

iang

Re: The Values-Vote Myth

[Eric Cordian]

J.A. Terranson wrote:

> The fact is that those who did not vote effectively voted for Shrub.  You
> are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.  Inaction
> is not good enough.

This would only be true if the President were elected by popular vote.

In states where one candidate had a huge majority, the results would not have 
been 
changed.

Also, voting is in some sense political manipulation to blame the population 
for the 
actions of their government.  Everyone who votes is a co-conspirator, and the 
argument is made that those who don't vote have no right to dissent.

Any government that requires that I vote, or the torture and war crimes are "my 
fault", is broken to start with.

The fundamental definition of Democracy is still "Your neighbors tell you what 
to 
do."  I don't tolerate my neighbors telling me what to do, particularly my 
neighbors 
in the Confederacy, which we should have let keep their Negro guest-workers and 
drop 
out of the union when the opportunity presented itself.

Now they outnumber us, and we are paying for it.

The only government I need is "Leave me alone, or face serious consequences."  
Similarly, I leave others alone.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

Re: In a Sky Dark With Arrows, Death Rained Down

[James A. Donald]

--
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> 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)
You have this garbled.
According to
http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=1025
by the fifteen hundreds, the very finest armor could deflect almost
all bodkin arrows - but very few could afford a complete set of the
very finest armor - and the battle of Agincourt occurred well before
the fifteen hundreds.
Presumably the armor improved (and became heavier and more expensive)
in response to the battle of Agincourt.
--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 wY4Gt1+GdEkqgNLQxKrMduPJSg/k6DEUpWEGeADc
 48Orz+xAb/+RsojnqG7H/GLzb+Ll5QWvCCvF9MkuG

Re: Your source code, for sale

[Enzo Michelangeli]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ian Grigg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 11:21 AM

[Hal:]
> > Interesting.  In the e-gold case, both parties have the same bank,
> > e-gold ltd.  The corresponding protocol would be for the buyer to
> > instruct e-gold to set aside some money which would go to the
> > seller once the seller supplied a certain receipt.  That receipt
> > would be an email return receipt showing that the seller had sent
> > the buyer the content with hash so-and-so, using a cryptographic
> > email return-receipt protocol.
>
> This is to mix up banking and payment systems.  Enzo's
> description shows banks doing banking - lending money
> on paper that eventually pays a rate of return.  In
> contrast, in the DGC or digital gold currency world,
> the issuers of gold like e-gold are payment systems and
> not banks.  The distinction is that a payment system
> does not issue credit.

Actually, seeing issuance and acceptance of L/C's only as a money-lending
activity is not 100% accurate. "Letter of credit" is a misnomer: an L/C
_may_ be used by the seller to obtain credit, but if the documents are
"sent for collection" rather than "negotiated", the payment to the seller
is delayed until the opening bank will have debited the buyer's account
and remitted the due amount to the negotiating bank. To be precise: when
the documents are submitted to the negotiating bank by the seller, the
latter also draws under the terms of the L/C a "bill of exchange" to be
accepted by the buyer; that instrument, just like any draft, may be either
sent for collection or negotiated immediately, subject, of course, to
final settlement. Also, depending on the agreements between the seller and
his bank, the received L/C may be considered as collateral to get further
allocation of credit, e.g. to open a "back-to-back L/C" to a seller of raw
materials.

However, if the documents and the draft are sent for collection, and no
other extension of credit are obtained by the buyer, the only advantage of
an L/C for the seller is the certainty of being paid by _his_
(negotiating) bank, which he trusts not to collude with the buyer to claim
fictitious discrepancies between the actual documents submitted and what
the L/C was requesting. (And even in case such discrepancies will turn out
to be real, the opening bank will not surrender the Bill of Lading, and
therefore the cargo, to the buyer until the latter will have accepted all
the discrepancies: so in the worst case the cargo will remain under the
seller's control, to be shipped back and/or sold to some other buyer.
If it acted differently, the opening bank would go against the standard
practice defined in the UCP ICC 500
(http://internet.ggu.edu/~emilian/PUBL500.htm) and its reputation would be
badly damaged). So, the L/C mechanism, independently from allocation of
credit, _does_ provide a way out of the dilemma "which one should come
first, payment or delivery?"; and this is achieved by leveraging on the
reputation of parties separately trusted by the endpoints of the
transaction.

Generally speaking, it is debatable whether "doing banking" only means
"accepting deposits and providing credit" or also "handling payments for a
fee": surely banks routinely do both, although they do not usually enjoy a
_regulatory franchise_ on payments because failures in that field are not
usually argued to be capable of snowballing into systemic failures.
(Austrian economists argue that that's also the case with provision of
credit, but it's a much more controversial issue). In the US, as we know,
Greenspan's FED decided several years ago against heavy regulation of the
payments business, and most industrialized countries chose to follow suit.

> So, in the e-gold scenario, there would need to be
> similar third parties independent of the payment system
> to provide the credit moving in the reverse direction to
> the goods.  In the end it would be much like Enzo's
> example, with a third party with the seller, a third
> party with the buyer, and one or two third parties who
> are dealing the physical goods.  There have been some
> thoughts in the direction of credit creation in the
> gold community, but nothing of any sustainability has
> occurred as yet.

That would probably end up attracting unwelcome attention by the
regulators. Besides, wouldn't that require some sort of fractional
banking, resulting in a money supply multiple of the monetary base by an
unstable multiplier, and ultimately bringing back the disadvantages of
fiat currencies?

Enzo