Tell you what, I really haven't looked, just glanced at the first few
paras to get the drift, which didn't take long. But, if I were a
betting man, I'd bet that you cut the Disinfopedia reference on
Barnett, in your usual ostrich style. It's not much of a guess, after
seeing you cut the same inconvenient bit twice in succession over
your bizarre idea that the "TDI-SVO controversy" page (which you
haven't read) in the SVO section at our site should be updated to
reflect your concerns about not SVO but biodiesel. You think people
don't notice it when you snip stuff repeatedly and pretend it doesn't
exist anymore and never did? You think the archives doesn't notice?
I'll admit it's possible that you don't notice, it does seem to be a
bit compulsive.
Anyway, where's the Disinfopedia reference on Mr Barnett? Is it there or not?
Nope. No sign of it.
Funny that...
I'll leave you to it John.
Um... Re this:
I trashed the whole thing here:
http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040920/000423.html
[Biofuel] Fossil fuels fuel the politics
A lot of other people have trashed it previously, it's all in the
archives. But no response from you - and you keep on posting the
stuff.
It's dated 22 Sept. Today is 2 Oct.
The prior post, to which you thoughtfully responded, and which I
haven't had time to respond to yet, was on the economics of
globalization.
Yet? But you keep on posting the stuff. No - you deal with it FIRST.
The recent two were about the myth that the conflict between the
West and the Arab world was about Islam. It isn't. It's about Islam
being a convenient rallying cry and recruiting tool for regional
despots.
They aren't the same "stuff", as you put it. I think you are
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
They're the same stuff from the same guy (see Disinfodedia, eg).
Neo-liberal economics, neo-con geopolitics. Here he's arguing against
Huntingdon, Larry Abraham et al, but he does so from the same narrow
ground. Both sides of the argument are spurious, and rejected almost
everywhere else outside of this narrow circle.
As with Andrew Marshall.
You seem to forgotten that Andrew Marshall is the *same* guy that
commissioned the Pentagon report on global climate change. Seems to
me we liked Marshall then. So the DoD and its strategic thinkers are
inherently evil unless they publish things that agree with our
worldview?
I'm well aware that Marshall authored the Pentagon's climate change
piece (which the Pentagon then distanced itself from), and I've cited
it a couple of times along with other things in saying even Bush's
own people don't agree with him anymore, but why do you assume that
means I agreed with it? I didn't agree with it, I very strongly
disagreed with it. Have you read it? It's just what you'd expect from
Marshall and his proteges - hey, this climate change stuff means we
have to get ready to fight a whole new kind of war. Thus, while it
accepted, sort of, that climate change might be real, it dealt with
"sudden" climate change, ignoring most of the important issues to
find a militarist angle. Crap.
We can do without this neocon militarist crap, if you please.
What happened to no topic cops? The stuff I posted was neither
racially or religiously biased, nor hate mongering. It just happens
to present a different view on global security.
That's right, no topic cops. And there's no conflict, though you're
certainly going to do your best to create one. Open discussion, yes -
but when people have posted "Wise Use" and corporate and militarist
spin here it gets debunked and exposed, and is no longer welcome. The
rules also say that "discussions should be even-handed and honest",
and debunked spin doesn't qualify. Same with this stuff.
By the way, selective snipping does not accord with even-handed and
honest discussion.
As for this:
Hmm. Sorry about that. Thunderbird was set to forward messages as
attachments, not inline. Let me try that again.
Don't you know that? It's been said often enough. It's in the List
rules, which you were sent when the list moved.
Yes, Keith, I am quite aware of the no attachment rule and the
reasons behind it. As I said above, it was a software configuration
problem I didn't notice on my first attempt. But hey, why give up a
chance to condescend to the ugly American, right?
You can be quite a piece of work, eh? Well, if the cap fits, you can
wear it if you like. Look at it again, what you wrote: "Thunderbird
was set to forward messages as attachments, not inline. Let me try
that again." Which could be and was read as meaning that you set it
that way but it didn't work so you'll try again to get it to send it
as an attachment. Anyway, I don't have a clue what Thunderbird is,
thought it was a Ford, but your messages were a mess. They'll be a
mess for ever more in the archives. And what that could possibly have
to do with condescending to an ugly American is really quite beyond
me. Maybe you need a holiday or something.
Now I really will leave you to it. But not if you go on posting stuff
from the likes of Barnett before dealing with that 22 Sept message.
Keith Addison
Keith Addison wrote:
This is junk, John, and noxious with it.
<snip>
It's not true comment, he just pontificates, it's a
reinterpretation, a reshaping of what's otherwise quite clear
enough so that it might manage to balance itself somehow contrary
to the laws of nature on the steeply skewed angle he'd call a
"level playing field", like the corporate "globalists" he supports.
I'd agree that he pontificates at times in his blog. But you are
painting with a pretty broad brush here. From the interviews and
blogs I've read, there is some novel thinking and scholarship going
on here. Haven't noticed a lot of pro-corporate globalization talk
yet; just some talk on the importance of direct foreign investment
over foreign aid. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet,
but when I do, I'll be on the lookout.
That's not globalisation, it's corporate globalisation, an entirely
different matter - neo-liberal dinosaurs, is all. I trashed the
whole thing here:
http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040920/000423.html
[Biofuel] Fossil fuels fuel the politics
A lot of other people have trashed it previously, it's all in the
archives. But no response from you - and you keep on posting the
stuff.
The prior post, to which you thoughtfully responded, and which I
haven't had time to respond to yet, was on the economics of
globalization.
The recent two were about the myth that the conflict between the
West and the Arab world was about Islam. It isn't. It's about Islam
being a convenient rallying cry and recruiting tool for regional
despots.
They aren't the same "stuff", as you put it. I think you are
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Barnett's just one of Andrew Marshall's much derided "Jedi
knights", along with Marhall's other protˇgˇs, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, all the usual suspects.
You seem to forgotten that Andrew Marshall is the *same* guy that
commissioned the Pentagon report on global climate change. Seems to
me we liked Marshall then. So the DoD and its strategic thinkers are
inherently evil unless they publish things that agree with our
worldview?
As far as lumping Barnett in with Cheney et al, I guess that's why Barnett:
*thinks Bush is the wrong leader for the next 4 years.
*wants to develop a systematic set of policies for rebuilding stable
democracies postconflict
*thinks multinational and NGO support are key to sucessful
transition to democracy
Barnett's a militarist, thick as treacle with the
Pentagon, the RAND Corporation and so on... Just another apologist
for pre-emptive war. He has no credibility whatsoever commenting on
these affairs, it's hopelessly slanted, spin and worse.
Talk about viewing the world through a keyhole. Let me put a finer
point on it: merely working at the Naval War College as an
academician does not invalidate one's credibility to discuss global
security. If anything, it enhances it by virtue of being able to
interact with both the people that make US foreign policy and the
people that have to implement said policy.
Since before the Marshall plan, the US has been involved on the
world stage both economically and politically. Whether or not people
would like the US to pack up its toys and go home, it just isn't
gonna happen. So given that reality, would you rather have Cold War
Hawks gearing up for a 'near-peer competitor' that is never going to
arrive while neglecting appropriate planning for operations other
than war, or would you prefer to see the US work *with* the world to
develop new policies, proceedures and organizations so we never have
another debacle like Iraq?
Personally, I'll take the latter.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Thomas_P.M._Barnett
Thomas P.M. Barnett - Disinfopedia
"Outside of his War College duties, he also provides
policy/management consulting as an independent contractor to
various private corporations and research organizations." See
Barnett's full resume and web site for details. Also see Barnett's
consultant listing.
I don't see how consulting for Cantor Fitzgerald and others on
global security issues invalidates one's ability to comment on
global security. Or does consulting for Wall St automatically taint
ones ability to be a security analyst?
We can do without this neocon militarist crap, if you please.
What happened to no topic cops? The stuff I posted was neither
racially or religiously biased, nor hate mongering. It just happens
to present a different view on global security.
Also, is Bartnett a Neo-con or Neo-liberal? You've implied both and
I need to know which label to apply so I can summarily dismiss him
without further thought.
By the way...
Hmm. Sorry about that. Thunderbird was set to forward messages as
attachments, not inline. Let me try that again.
Don't you know that? It's been said often enough. It's in the List
rules, which you were sent when the list moved.
Yes, Keith, I am quite aware of the no attachment rule and the
reasons behind it. As I said above, it was a software configuration
problem I didn't notice on my first attempt. But hey, why give up a
chance to condescend to the ugly American, right?
jh
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
