Well now John...
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.
No such luck. See below.
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.
I admit I trim messages in an attempt to keep message length down, and
improve readability. This is proforma on the other web fora and mail
lists in which I participate. I'm sorry if my response style seems
manipulative to you; that is not my intent. I will endeavor to break
this habit in the future.
Anyway, where's the Disinfopedia reference on Mr Barnett? Is it there or
not?
Nope. No sign of it.
Umm, the link to the Disinfopedia material is clearly in my response,
along with the paragraph on Barnett's outside activity. Scroll down a
bit and you'll find it.
http://www.wwia.org/sgroup/BIOFUEL/39026/
I trimmed the paragraph on his job at the Naval War College for brevity.
I know he's on faculty, you know he's on faculty. As you mentioned, it's
in the archives for people to read.
http://www.wwia.org/sgroup/BIOFUEL/38999/
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.
I don't agree it was the same stuff. One was about globalization while
the second mentioned globalization tangentially when discussing whether
Radical Islam was locked in an ideological war with the West. I consider
those distinct issues.
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.
But if this narrow circle is the one driving the foreign policy agenda
of the world's sole superpower, isn't it worth discussing?
Moreover, for a discredited spurious argument, his book certainly was
doing well last month. It was a top 5 best seller at both amazon and
bn.com in early Sept. As of today, it is the 314th best seller at
amazon. People outside the narrow circle of the beltway think tanks are
clearly being exposed to his ideas; I think that merits new discussion,
even if you think the arguments have been discredited before.
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.
Addressed above. Typical ettiquette in all other places I participate
(usenet, web fora) dictates trimming messages to keep them from becoming
cumbersome. I've left this message complete unsnipped as per your wishes.
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."
Yes, or as I intended, it could mean "oops, I screwed up and didn't
notice that my new mail client was set to attachment rather than inline
quoted" had you given me the benefit of the doubt.
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
Given that the second attempt that *was* quoted inline and not an
attachment, I think it was clear I wasn't attempting to send an
attachment the second time.
Thunderbird is the open source mail client from the same people that
brought you firefox and mozilla.
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/
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.
Okay, I admit that was probably inappropriate of me. I felt you were a
little quick to call me to task on what was clearly a mistake and I
overreacted.
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.
I read this list in bits and spurts as my job allows, like many others
on the list I suspect. I may get to the 22 Sept post tomorrow, I may
not; time .
Just so I'm clear, are you saying I am not welcome to post anything on
global security or geopolitics until I address the 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
Today's blog has a nice summary of where we go from here, for what it is
worth.
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.
Here it is. The disinfopedia reference.
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.
Global security cannot be considered without discussing military
options. Petro-politics, biofuels and security are intimately
intertwined. Thus I think it is relevent.
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/
Cheers.
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/