Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
- Original Message - From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 12:49 AM Subject: Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3] Jim Sharkey writes: Julia Thompson wrote: How much time do you spend reading articles? Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually What is plonking, anyway? Is this some bit of Internet lingo I just happened to miss? I seem to have missed it, too. Anyone care to clue us in? *PLONK* is the sound that is made when one puts another into a killfile. xponent *Plink* Is The Sound Of Files Being Deleted Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 10:47 PM Subject: Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:40 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually Boinking, on the other hand, is apparently a different matter . . . Talking about specific instances of plonking on-list is an indication of dislike for another individual. In most cases yes.maybe, but in this case Erik noted a S/N ratio that he disliked , not a person. And I think that is a respectable attitude. If Erik revealed that he had *PLONKED* me for those reasons I would have to find that agreeable. I know *my* interests are not for everyone, yet I also do not get a sense that anyone here dislikes me personally, and being treated respectfully under those conditions makes all the difference. But..we have been down that road on this list, haven't we? On the other hand, actual boinking has a lot diametrically opposed to that sort of mindset. :) Usually it is done in parallel. G Julia who appreciates a good boink (as if that weren't apparent already) Us guys...we aim to please!G xponent Watch Where You Point That Thing Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
- Original Message - From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:10 PM Subject: Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually Boinking, on the other hand, is apparently a different matter . . . We do seem to know a bit more about each others' sex lives than one might expect, don't we? :) That...is a sign of friendship. N'est pas? xponent Closeness Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Europe goes to Mars
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2947018.stm The race to find life on Mars is set to begin on Monday with the launch of Europe's first voyage to another planet. Three probes are leaving Earth this summer, starting with the European Space Agency's Mars Express mission. It carries the Beagle 2 lander, which, if all goes well, will become the first British-built craft to touch down on another world. The launch marks the start of a new golden age in Mars exploration. The US space agency (Nasa) is sending two missions to the fourth planet. The first of its Mars Exploration Rovers should leave Earth in a week or so. Another Mars traveller is destined to arrive early next year. Japan's Nozomi craft should reach the planet early in 2004 after a long journey beset by mishaps. Gold rush There has long been interest in exploring Mars because it is believed to be the planet most likely to harbour life. Clues that Mars once had oceans, lakes and possibly microbes have sparked a gold rush to send unmanned space craft to visit the planet. The United States and Russia have spent billions since the 1960s trying to land a dozen or so space craft on the Red Planet. Only three have been successful so far: Nasa's two Viking probes, which landed in 1976, and its Mars Pathfinder, which explored the surface in 1997. Mars Express is Europe's first solo mission to Mars and indeed any planet. Final launch preparations are underway at the Russian Cosmodrome in Baikonur, Kazakhstan. The first opportunity for the craft to be blasted into space comes on Monday at 1745 GMT (1845 BST). The orbiter with the lander on board will go up on the Russian rocket that has become the workhorse of the space industry, a Soyuz/Fregat launcher. Arid wilderness The space craft will cover a distance of about 400 million kilometres (250 million miles) on the six-month journey to Mars. Its main scientific goal is to detect vast reservoirs of water thought to be trapped under the Martian surface using a ground-penetrating radar. It will also take images of Mars and conduct a geological survey of the planet. Between them, Mars Express and Beagle 2 could answer one of the biggest questions in science: Is there, or was there, life on Mars? The chances depend much on what happened early in the planet's history when it was probably warm and wet like the Earth rather than the frozen, arid wilderness it is today. The question is: where is that water? Has it disappeared or is it still there below the surface? says Mars Express project scientist Agustin Chicarro. We hope to find that out. As Mars Express nears the planet, it will drop Beagle 2 into a basin that could once have contained water and life. The small robotic probe, about the size of a garden barbecue, will dig into Martian rocks and soil to search for the chemical signature of life. Hunting for life on Mars is a bold move for Beagle 2, a tiny space craft with a small budget. Life detection experiments on Mars have only been conducted once before - during the Viking missions of 1976. While the Viking landers did not find any conclusive signs of life, technology has advanced since then. The experiments being used on Beagle are about as good as you can get, says Dr Charles Cockell, a Mars biologist at the British Antarctic Survey. It is difficult to know what Beagle might find but if it did find evidence of life, that would be incredible. The fun thing is, what questions will it send back and what will it answer? xponent Jumping On The Bandwagon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An aircar in every garage
Erik Reuter wrote: So, how far do you have to drive to fill up the tank with natural gas, compared to the nearest gasoline station? and Matt Grimaldi responded; Well they're not on every other corner like gasoline stations, but there's about 50 or so refueling stations in the LA/Orange County area, so it's not that terrible an inconvenience. Normally this is not a problem, as there are several refilling stations ... I just have to be aware of the fuel situation and whether there are any stations where I'm going. This suggests that you do not have the option of running on regular gasoline? Is this the case? Back in the 1960s, while hitch-hiking in Italy, I got a ride with a salesman whose car ran on either gas or gasoline. He showed off the switch on his dashboard that he flicked to change from one to the other. Also, he showed me that the tank for gas took up some, but less than half, the space in his trunk. He liked the dual system because he could purchase gas more cheaply than gasoline, but could not buy it everywhere. How much more would you have had to pay to acquire a similar dual system? If your vehicle runs on either type of fuel, can you still get a sticker to drive in the restricted lanes? -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
International Flotilla Heading Out
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jun/06012003/nation_w/62146.asp Since 1960, humans have lobbed roughly 34 unmanned spacecraft at Mars, in part lured by the prospect that the Red Planet may harbor extraterrestrial life. Life has yet to be found by the spacecraft, most of which died a robot's death trying to reach the planet. Of all the U.S., Soviet, and later, Russian missions, two-thirds ended in failure. Getting to Mars is very, very hard, says Dave Lavery, who oversees the U.S. Mars exploration program. Despite the odds, the first of three more missions are to set out for Mars this week on two continents. The European Space Agency's Mars Express orbiter with its British-built Beagle 2 lander is scheduled for a liftoff Monday from Kazakhstan. The United States is set to launch the first of two Mars Exploration Rovers next Sunday at Cape Canaveral, Fla. A fourth space vehicle, sent up in 1998 by Japan, continues to attempt a Mars orbit but is having problems. If these missions succeed, the international parade of robotic spacecraft will undertake the most intensive exploration of another planetary body since the Apollo moon missions three decades ago. Beginning in December, the spacecraft from Europe, Japan and the United States should begin to arrive at the planet, joining two other U.S. satellites already in orbit. One can expect a glut of information about the planet, said Colin Pillinger, lead scientist on the British Beagle 2 lander. If past performance is any predictor of future results, two -- maybe even three -- of the missions will fail, said Lavery, program executive for NASA's $800 million mission to send twin rovers to the planet. Of the current $2 billion fleet, Japan's Nozomi will try again to get into a Mars orbit, but damaged electronics may prevent it. The satellite was designed to probe the Martian atmosphere and image the planet's surface. Last-minute glitches also cropped up on the European Space Agency's Mars Express and NASA's twin Mars Exploration Rovers. The missions have since been repaired and cleared for launch. We've had a lot of problems, and we caught a lot of problems because we did a lot of testing. Our confidence is high, said Richard Cook, flight systems manager for the rover missions at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The launching of so many spacecraft at once is no accident: Celestial mechanics are bringing Mars and Earth closer together than they have been in tens of thousands of years, scientists said. The clutch of missions broadly seeks to answer questions about the geology, climate and resources of Mars, as well as its potential -- past or present -- for life. If successful, NASA's identical twin rovers will mark the space agency's return to the surface of Mars. In 1999, its Polar Lander likely plunged to the surface and was smashed to pieces when its descent rockets were prematurely shut down. Two smaller probes it carried were never heard from again. The loss came just weeks after the destruction of the Climate Orbiter, a satellite that flew too close to the planet and burned up in a well-publicized mix-up between English and metric units. The two rovers are designed to operate as robotic field geologists hunting for evidence of past water activity on Mars. That should reveal whether the planet was ever hospitable enough to allow life to gain a toehold. The Europeans' instrument-laden Beagle 2 lander is bolder: It is designed to look directly for signs of life on Mars -- something that has not been done since the twin Viking landers' inconclusive results in 1976. The British lander should dig into Mars to hunt for organic materials and sniff the atmosphere for traces of methane produced by living organisms, Pillinger said. Project manager Rudolf Schmidt said the mission is the European Space Agency's first to any planet -- and the last to Mars for the foreseeable future. NASA, in contrast, plans to launch either a lander or orbiter to Mars every two years through 2009. By late January, scientists hope to have the four orbiters zipping around Mars, the two rovers rolling across its surface and the small Beagle 2 lander actively digging into the rusty soil that gives the Red Planet its distinctive tint. The missions include contributions from scientists and engineers from Europe, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. The view that I tend to put out personally was that Apollo was one nation trying to get to the moon first, NASA's Lavery said of the international effort. This is one planet going out together to investigate another. xponent Civilization Bandwagon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: one for Nick: networks, funding, agenda, Scaife
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of The Fool Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 7:43 PM To: Brin-L Subject: one for Nick: networks, funding, agenda, Scaife Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors? http://hnn.us/articles/1244.html Medium-ish with links. These are the guys propagating the false 'liberal media bias' that you hear unendingly from right wing ideologues. Good heavens, it's a vast right-wing conspiracy... I'm more than a little startled by the reach of Scaife, etc., and I have to admit that I believe in the power of manipulating opinion leaders. There's some personal irony in this, too. I grew up around Scaife, Mellon, etc., geographically speaking; my mother taught Scaife children and my father taught at a college largely funded by robber-baron steel industry money. But they are quite liberal. And Pittsburgh is a union town, or at least it was when I was growing up. I'm not sure about its political mixture now that the steel business is mostly gone. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that the far right money nexus is at the heart of the labor movement -- that's who the unions were fighting, after all. As I let this article percolate, what seems to bother me the most is their ability to cause certain language to become commonplace without it being easily identified as coming from a single source, or even a single political party, giving it the appearance of a groundswell. On the other hand, maybe the only reason that they're successful is that the nation is ripe for the message. Cause and effect are rarely clear. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Historic Mars lander 'did find life'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2941826.stm Claims have re-emerged that the US space agency (Nasa) did find signs of life on Mars during the historic Viking landings of 1976. Dr Gil Levin, a former mission scientist, says he now has the evidence to prove it, just days before the US and Europe send new expeditions to the Red Planet. The United States and Russia have spent billions since the 1960s on a handful of space craft designed to land on Mars. Only three have succeeded so far: the two Viking probes in the 1970s and Mars Pathfinder in 1997. In 1976, the world was gripped by excitement when a robotic spacecraft touched down on Mars for the first time in history. Biology experiments detected strange signs of activity in the Martian soil - akin to microbes giving off gas. Before announcing the news that life had been found on another planet, Nasa carried out more tests to look for evidence of organic matter. However, the Viking experiments failed to find this essential stuff of life and it was concluded that Mars was a dead planet. New evidence Dr Levin, one of three scientists on the life detection experiments, has never given up on the idea that Viking did find living micro-organisms in the surface soil of Mars. He continued to experiment and study all new evidence from Mars and Earth, and, in 1997, reached the conclusion and published that the so-called LR (labelled release) work had detected life. He says new evidence is emerging that could settle the debate, once and for all. He told BBC News Online: The organic analysis instrument was shown to be very insensitive, requiring millions of micro-organisms to detect any organic matter versus the LR's demonstrated ability to detect as few as 50 micro-organisms. Dr Levin, now president and CEO of US biotechnology company Biospherix, has a new experiment that he says could unambiguously settle the argument. But it was rejected by both Nasa and the European Space Agency (Esa) to go on-board this summer's Mars missions. The British-built Beagle 2, which will be deposited on the Martian surface by Esa's Mars Express space craft, is going with the main purpose to hunt for life. This is a risky strategy, claims Dr Levin. Strangely, despite its billing, Beagle 2 carries no life detection experiment! he said. Neither its GCMS (organic detector) which is claimed to be more sensitive than Viking's, nor its isotopic analysis instrument can provide evidence for living organisms. Robot geologists Nasa's mission to Mars is taking a more circumspect approach to the big life question. Its two identical rovers will roam the ancient plains of Mars acting as robot geologists. Mark Adler, deputy mission manager, said the main science objective was to understand the water environment of Mars not to search for life. He told BBC News Online: What we learnt from Viking is that it is very difficult to come up with specific experiments to look for something you don't really know what to look for. Claims of life on Mars have always proved highly contentious. Twenty years after Viking, microbe-like structures discovered inside a Martian meteorite found in Antarctica led to more claims that were later rejected. As the astronomer Carl Sagan once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there is no reason to believe that anything found this time will be any different. It's going to take a number of missions if we want to know whether there is life on Mars or not, said Dr Charles Cockell, a Mars biologist at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridgeshire, UK. If we find no evidence of life on Mars it may just mean we have looked in the wrong place. xponent Retro-Bandwagon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An aircar in every garage
At 02:31 PM 6/1/2003 +, you wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: So, how far do you have to drive to fill up the tank with natural gas, compared to the nearest gasoline station? and Matt Grimaldi responded; Well they're not on every other corner like gasoline stations, but there's about 50 or so refueling stations in the LA/Orange County area, so it's not that terrible an inconvenience. Normally this is not a problem, as there are several refilling stations ... I just have to be aware of the fuel situation and whether there are any stations where I'm going. This suggests that you do not have the option of running on regular gasoline? Is this the case? Back in the 1960s, while hitch-hiking in Italy, I got a ride with a salesman whose car ran on either gas or gasoline. He showed off the switch on his dashboard that he flicked to change from one to the other. Also, he showed me that the tank for gas took up some, but less than half, the space in his trunk. He liked the dual system because he could purchase gas more cheaply than gasoline, but could not buy it everywhere. How much more would you have had to pay to acquire a similar dual system? If your vehicle runs on either type of fuel, can you still get a sticker to drive in the restricted lanes? Robert J. Chassell He said no, a vehicle that uses gasoline at all can not use the restricted lane. I'm sure his vehicle is cheaper being optimized to run on one fuel only. The true prices are up to Matt. Kevin T. = VRWC bleary eyed ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 09:33 PM 5/29/2003 -0700 d.brin wrote: He said the oversight was a lesson about unforeseen tools being used. No. The lesson is to let all passenger KEEP their pocket knives. thanks for showing this. db So, do you also agree that there was a recent lesson that teachers in school should not be able to keep their handguns? Of course not. Thae Campbellian 'an armed society is a polite society' has been disproved as overwhelmingly as the Myth of a Liberal Media, yet it is clung to just as maniacally. There is a big difference between pen knives - which can be overcome by a roused majority if brandished by an idiot... and guns which allow an idiot to cow a majority. Caneras are best of all ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Preface to _Earth_
The ability of the Right to rationalize their rants, without ever stepping back to notice the FACT of their emotional triumphalism, almost exactly cloning that of Britain in 1910, amazes me. Fact: we were lied to about Iraqi WMD by people holding up briefcases full of evidence I can't show you just like McCarthy in 1953. now suddenly our reason for going was not wmd but to rescue the Iraqi people. In fact, I have been urging war against Saddam for a decade, That was my reason all along... only I express it different. We were obligated to go in and fix the horribly evil and cynical and dastardly betrayal of the Iraqi people that these same guys perpetrated in 1991. I am immensely proud of the 3rd Infantry and 1st Marines, whose sheer professional guts overecame one of the stupidest war plans I ever saw. Now we are engaged in 'nation building'... a phrase that W Cheney poured oceans of ridicule upon before 9/11... on a larger scale than ever conceived of by Bill Clinton. I am not against doing it. I just wish someone would notice how often this crowd changes its minds. Please, I don't have time for this. db At 04:19 PM 5/28/2003 -0700 d.brin wrote: Instead now we see an immature, triumphalist Pax Americana, almost deliberately spitting in the eyes of everybody in sight, driving Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing and Teheran into each others' arms. Not subtle. Not far-seeing. Not wise. Uhhh except we are *not* seeing that. Moscow and Beijjing have shown no signs of cooperation, ever since Yeltsin and Zemin signed a largely toothless declaration in the mid-90's.Since then,cooperation has been hampered by the fact that Russia and China find it nearly impossible to trust each other, especially with China having a billion people bordering a vast, underpopulated, and resource-rich region of Siberia. Nothing in the past year, since this Iraq debate started, has really indicated a change in this dynamic whereby Russia and China are growing closer together.Indeed, Bush will be visiting St. Petersburg today precisely because Russia is making a concerted effort to repair US-Russian relations following the conclusion of the war. The same is true of Germany, which is currently campaigning hard to *maintain* America's military bases within its territory and is also trying to repair relations. As for Beijing, they actually just began cooperating with us on trying to reign in the DPRK. I don't know why you seem to think that even the most silver-tongued diplomat would have been able to succeed in persuading France, Russia, and China to cooperate in bringing the Pax Americana to the 38 million people of Iraq.Would you prefer that those 38 million people still live today under the iron-fisted rule of Saddam Hussein? Quite simply, it is not in China's interest, nor in Russia's or France's perceived interest to submit to American leadership of a Pax Americana, even if the Pax Americana was ruled by King Solomon himself. It will always be much safer for them to pursue a multipolar world where American power is limited. 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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Fasten, then zip or . . .
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of G. D. Akin Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 11:08 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Fasten, then zip or . . . I thought about titling this post I hate you . . ., but then I thought about the just-passing-time conversation between Garibaldi and Sinclair on their way to B4 in Babylon Squared. Garibaldi is asking about how one fastens pants, fasten then zip or zip then fasten. Turns out both are fasten first kind of guys; makes me feel good, so am I. The possible I hate you . . . post title comes from the realization that all of you on this list told me I would grow into B5 after watching the series mature. I just finished the last episode and . . . you were RIGHT! Now I hate you because I don't have season 2 in my hands, ready to watch. The Post Exchange doesn't have it. My friend has ordered it but he'll probably watch it first(that a..hole). (We agreed on this: he'll buy B5 and I'll get the SG-1 DVD sets and we'll share. I have SG-1 season 3 pre-ordered.) After watching Chrysalis, my appetite for B5 season 2 is quite acute. and so it begins *snicker* :-) Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
Kevin Tarr wrote: What I'm wondering, I hear JMS complaining about the direction the new shows he tried to make were forced to go, too much sex* or other reasons. I know he can't finance 22 episodes of a series, but couldn't he have gotten enough backers that would let him do whatever he wanted? Heck, if he'd had a stock sale, I'd have bought in. Let's see: 22 episodes, 5 mil an episode is 110 mil. 100 dollars per stock, well that's still 1.1 million shares, but I'd have bought one. Brokers prefer to work with bigger blocks. $5 per stock share, you'd still end up with a number of takers happy to buy 100 shares each, and $100 would get you 20 shares, which would probably make the broker happier than just 1 share. (That would bring it to 22 million shares total.) (I don't know that you can buy much stock without a broker getting involved, but there are fairly cheap discount brokers around these days that don't add much to the cost of buying selling stocks.) Julia who would have been happy to put $500 into a B5 spinoff ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 10:47 PM Subject: Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3] Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:40 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually Boinking, on the other hand, is apparently a different matter . . . Talking about specific instances of plonking on-list is an indication of dislike for another individual. In most cases yes.maybe, but in this case Erik noted a S/N ratio that he disliked , not a person. And I think that is a respectable attitude. Erik didn't say he'd plonked anyone. Someone else did, in the same thread. I was responding to *that*. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taxes anyone (L3?)
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 02:20:10AM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: already and I doubt you'd really stimulate the economy (more on this*). I *A lot of people engage in feel good economics and ignore reality. Of course it would be an instant good if the poor or middle class or parents had more money, but would it really do any good long term? Yes, it would do good long term. Some people engage in ivory tower pet theories to make them feel good intellectually but they ignore real data. 2/3 of the American economy is based on the consumer. And rich people tend to save a lot of their additional income, not consume. If you want to see what a higher savings rate does to an economy, look at Japan's 10+ year deflationary recession. Also, Dan started an analysis and I followed up showing that for the last 70 years GDP grows significantly more as a result of Democratic presidential policy compare to Republican. All the data supports the view that putting money into the hands of the middle- and low-income people will stimulate economic growth. If just the economically dis-advantage got more money, all it would fuel is short term inflation. Talk about people ignoring reality! There are two misunderstandings here. First is that a little inflation now would be a bad thing. Actually, inflation is below 2% now and is dangerously low. Debt levels are high. We would be safer and better off with inflation around 3% or perhaps even 4% to start eating into the debt (this will be particularly important for all the over-extended homeowners who bought more house than they should have; historically inflation has brought down the burden of the payments on those 30-year mortgages; now, it is going to be painful for them if inflation stays this low). Second misunderstanding is that increasing consumption now would be inflationary. I guess you didn't know that industrial capacity utilization is the lowest is has been in years? It fell to 74.4% in April, which is 7 points below its average from 1972-2002. Consumption will only tend to be inflationary if you are at or near full capacity utilization. In this case, industry can easily increase production without have a major effect on prices. Now the other side, like Bob Zim pointed out. Does Bob or his accountant having more money in his savings account or some other money storage vehicle..even stocks...really help? Even if it's just his savings account, he pays taxes on interest on that so some will go directly back to the government. Not the greatest return on investment to be sure, but it's a start. This is ridiculous. You are suggesting that the government distributing $350B to rich people's bank accounts, which pay, say, 2% interest at best, and then of that 2% interest the government gets 35%, so of the $350B, 0.7% of it comes back to the government as taxes, $2.5B, and this is significant? And besides, the idea is to get it into the economy, not into the governments hands. THE WHOLE POINT IS TO GET IT TO PEOPLE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. Banks have more liquidity with the extra money, maybe they make a few more loans. Maybe he does invest in some stocks and a company or two decides to hire a few more workers, or do more RD, or add an extra product line. I'm grasping at straws here (where I am tired) You sure are. Voodoo economics at its best. But voodoo economics has been discredited, and the analysis that Dan and I posted on GDP growth vs. Dem/Rep provided further evidence that Voodoo economics is baloney. We need to consume consume consume for our economy to stay strong Yes, we do. Consumer spending accounts for 2/3 of the GDP. As consumption grows, businesses invest in more capital to produce more goods to be consumed, in the process growing the economy. During 1900-2001, real per capita GDP in America increased at an annualized rate of 2.1% per year. In 1900, for every American citizen the 2001 equivalent of $4,468 worth of goods and services were produced. By 2001, this had increased to $36,292 worth of goods and services produced for every American. Ask yourself what is responsible for this remarkable 101-year exponential increase (2% per year) of real GDP per capita. The answer I come up with is a little bit of productivity growth but primarily an increase in the quantity and quality of productive capital. Right now, about 25% of that capital is sitting idle, not producing anything. Why would anyone invest in MORE capital, to maintain that 2% per year growth rate, when they have some much capacity sitting idle right now? The answer is that they wouldn't, and they haven't. If consumption went up, then businesses could bring more of that capital online, and in time they could start increasing capacity at the 2% rate again by investing in more capital. If we stop increasing consumption, then the real GDP per capita growth will decrease from its historical level to near 0, a fall of about 2 points. This would be a recession equivalent to the Great
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
At 11:42 AM 6/1/2003 -0500, you wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: What I'm wondering, I hear JMS complaining about the direction the new shows he tried to make were forced to go, too much sex* or other reasons. I know he can't finance 22 episodes of a series, but couldn't he have gotten enough backers that would let him do whatever he wanted? Heck, if he'd had a stock sale, I'd have bought in. Let's see: 22 episodes, 5 mil an episode is 110 mil. 100 dollars per stock, well that's still 1.1 million shares, but I'd have bought one. Brokers prefer to work with bigger blocks. $5 per stock share, you'd still end up with a number of takers happy to buy 100 shares each, and $100 would get you 20 shares, which would probably make the broker happier than just 1 share. (That would bring it to 22 million shares total.) (I don't know that you can buy much stock without a broker getting involved, but there are fairly cheap discount brokers around these days that don't add much to the cost of buying selling stocks.) Julia who would have been happy to put $500 into a B5 spinoff http://www.walkersmanual.com/inactive.htm Hershey Creamery, not to be confused with plain Hershey the chocolate company, trades at $2500 a share. Not saying that as a comeuppance, just some local history. Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong term. Would a bond be a more reasonable vehicle? I'm saying: I would want money back if the show sold well, but it would become an accounting nightmare if they had to cut a five cent check every time an episode was shown. (I know it can be added per year, a total value thing.) Kevin T. - VRWC Bleah, I'm going outside to enjoy the overcast, windy 60 degree weather. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:42:20AM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Brokers prefer to work with bigger blocks. I've seen little evidence of this in the past 5 years. What do brokers care about whether you buy 1 share or 100 or 1000? They've got their commission schedules set up to make money either way, and they've got their computers and their trading desks set up to handle small or large trades. Berkshire Hathaway trades at $71,000 per share, obviously not many people are going to be buying 100 shares or more of that. Even the B shares are $2,374 each. Most of the evidence that I've seen for share pricing is that there is a slight disklike for shares below $10 (some institutional investors are prohibited from buying them), and maybe a trade on my online broker executes a couple seconds faster if it is an even multiple of 100 shares (probably because if you are an institutional investor, you place and order for, say 60,000 shares instead of 63,738), but this is of little importance. Maybe it makes the specialist's job slightly easier, but it also reduces the number of transactions so I guess the specialist would be neutral on the matter. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 01:00:08PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong term. Would a bond be a more reasonable vehicle? No, bonds pay fixed interest. If you want to participate in the upside of the business, you need equity (or a convertible bond, which is essentially equity) I'm saying: I would want money back if the show sold well, but it would become an accounting nightmare if they had to cut a five cent check every time an episode was shown. (I know it can be added per year, a total value thing.) For example, it could be venture capital funded, funded by individual investors, or a limited parnership. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taxes anyone (L3?)
At 02:20 AM 6/1/03 -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: Now a tangent. Along the same lines, I don't like people saying 'it takes two incomes to do X'. How about the argument that it takes two incomes because one of the couple's member's earnings is essentially going to pay taxes, i.e., when you add up their total Federal, state, and local income taxes, sales tax, property tax, FICA, etc., it amounts to about as much as one of them is earning, and while things like income taxes are based on the amount earned, things like sales taxes on necessities and property taxes would not be diminished if only one were working. And the problem is now that everyone thinks needs, when they mean wants. They need cable TV, a cell phone, two or more cars, a maid, a nanny, a day care center. How about a single parent who needs the latter in order to go to work and feed (usually) her kids if she doesn't want to be on welfare? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foamÂ… God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Europe goes to Mars
All of it? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
--- d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a big difference between pen knives - which can be overcome by a roused majority if brandished by an idiot... and guns which allow an idiot to cow a majority. Ture: ...however, the other side is Without firearms people still kill. Without firearms the violent power is in the hands of those with superior size and/or years of training. Firearms are the grate equalizer. For instance, the largest brute in the neighborhood cant just come and take your mate whenever he wants, because you (or your mate) will take out your Glock and end his life. And don't tell me this is far fetched because I have been placed in that situation. Unfortunately the equalizer also raises the stakes. Idiots with guns are much worse than idiots with knives. But they aren't really any worse than an idiot --who is physically larger and more powerful-- with knives. If there wern't many violent idiots then a gun free society would just make sense. But unfortunately that is just not the case. Since the UK has banned firearms violent crime (especially those involving a perps with firearms) has gone up. Since Texas Nevada have relaxed their concealed carry laws violent crime (especially those involving a perp with a gun) have gone down. Put Firearms in the hands of teachers, and train them how to properly use them, and violence in schools will go down. It seems counter intuitive, but that's the way it seems to work. Think of it this way, Terrorists, (and other idiots) go for soft targets, make everything a hard target and you reduced their ability, and more important their willingness to strike. Jan Cold-and-Hard Maru = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
I agree with Jan. I had tried to convey similar thoughts in http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20030526/021080.html He says, Without firearms the violent power is in the hands of those with superior size and/or years of training., and I would like to temper that statement. Power is always violent, it is whether you use it and how that makes the difference. My Sifu (I trained in Kung-Fu -- let's not get into the multiple spellings...) gave us a hierarchy of actions when faced with by a situation (this over 40 years old.) 1. Run whenever possible. 2. Block, block and the opponent will tire and give up after 3 minutes. 3. If agression continues, slap the face hard -- call his attention, he may stop. 4. When agression continues, you have a street fighter, so hurt him harder. 5. Still not wanting to end the confrontation?, pull a rib, break the collarbone. 6. Opponent keeps on coming, you have a problem on your hands. He is derranged and you will have to resort to terminal measures, otherwise, the opponent will come back at you on their terms. - Always protect the weak faced with agression but not necessarily with violence. - Never be an agressor. (it is this last point that I refer to in my tempering statement.) BTW, I've never needed to go past number 3. Cheers! -- Han Tacoma ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~ - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again --- d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a big difference between pen knives - which can be overcome by a roused majority if brandished by an idiot... and guns which allow an idiot to cow a majority. Ture: ...however, the other side is Without firearms people still kill. Without firearms the violent power is in the hands of those with superior size and/or years of training. Firearms are the grate equalizer. For instance, the largest brute in the neighborhood cant just come and take your mate whenever he wants, because you (or your mate) will take out your Glock and end his life. And don't tell me this is far fetched because I have been placed in that situation. Unfortunately the equalizer also raises the stakes. Idiots with guns are much worse than idiots with knives. But they aren't really any worse than an idiot --who is physically larger and more powerful-- with knives. If there wern't many violent idiots then a gun free society would just make sense. But unfortunately that is just not the case. Since the UK has banned firearms violent crime (especially those involving a perps with firearms) has gone up. Since Texas Nevada have relaxed their concealed carry laws violent crime (especially those involving a perp with a gun) have gone down. Put Firearms in the hands of teachers, and train them how to properly use them, and violence in schools will go down. It seems counter intuitive, but that's the way it seems to work. Think of it this way, Terrorists, (and other idiots) go for soft targets, make everything a hard target and you reduced their ability, and more important their willingness to strike. Jan Cold-and-Hard Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 1 Jun 2003 at 12:00, Jan Coffey wrote: Since the UK has banned firearms violent crime (especially those involving a perps with firearms) has gone up. Since Texas Nevada have relaxed their concealed carry laws violent crime (especially those involving a perp with a gun) have gone down. Once more, this is a BAD example. It is not because guns were banned, it wad the UTTERLY boneheaded way the UK government DID it. If someone facing me pulls out a knife, unless they're trained with it, it's more dangerous to them than to me. A gun is a different story - any idiot can be dangerous with a gun. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 1 Jun 2003 at 16:29, Han Tacoma wrote: My Sifu (I trained in Kung-Fu -- let's not get into the multiple spellings...) gave us a hierarchy of actions when faced with by a situation (this over 40 years old.) 1. Run whenever possible. 2. Interesting. How I was taught- When conflict is inevitable - and if you can avoid it do - let them try and land the first blow. Then take them down, then and there. FAST. Don't muck arround, that only gets YOU hurt. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Andrew Crystall (Sun, 01 Jun 2003 21:53:01 +0100) writes: On 1 Jun 2003 at 16:29, Han Tacoma wrote: My Sifu (I trained in Kung-Fu -- let's not get into the multiple spellings...) gave us a hierarchy of actions when faced with by a situation (this over 40 years old.) 1. Run whenever possible. 2. Interesting. How I was taught- When conflict is inevitable - and if you can avoid it do - let them try and land the first blow. Then take them down, then and there. FAST. Don't muck arround, that only gets YOU hurt. That depends on how well you have been taught, the whole point being to show them they cannot hurt you. The amount of adrenalin in your attacker will bring him down in three minutes if he is not a regular fighter and that is why you slap after that period, tell him you've been at it for a while, please reconsider. Cheers! -- Han Tacoma ~ Artificial Intelligence is better than none! ~ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 1 Jun 2003 at 17:09, Han Tacoma wrote: Andrew Crystall (Sun, 01 Jun 2003 21:53:01 +0100) writes: On 1 Jun 2003 at 16:29, Han Tacoma wrote: My Sifu (I trained in Kung-Fu -- let's not get into the multiple spellings...) gave us a hierarchy of actions when faced with by a situation (this over 40 years old.) 1. Run whenever possible. 2. Interesting. How I was taught- When conflict is inevitable - and if you can avoid it do - let them try and land the first blow. Then take them down, then and there. FAST. Don't muck arround, that only gets YOU hurt. That depends on how well you have been taught, the whole point being to show them they cannot hurt you. The amount of adrenalin in your attacker will bring him down in three minutes if he is not a regular fighter and that is why you slap after that period, tell him you've been at it for a while, please reconsider. That's fine if you care about whoever's trying to hurt you. Empathy for your enemy is best saved for AFTER you've dealt with the problem. (I'm talking about clear and present personal physical danger) Andrew Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
--- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone facing me pulls out a knife, unless they're trained with it, it's more dangerous to them than to me. A gun is a different story - any idiot can be dangerous with a gun. That isn't the same for all. A 100 pound woman when confronted by a 150 pound man with a knife is in quite a lot of danger...unless she is packing. As to the way the UK did it, It doesn't matter how you ban firearms, the criminals will get them, (they don't follow the law remember). It is impossible to get rid of contraband, if it were, then there wouldn't be drugs or any number of other things available. If you make guns illegal, then you have a real problem, the criminals have the upper hand, and the law abiding citizens are sitting ducks. The idiots can still get knives unless you want to take those away as well, and some big lug of an idiot (not making any association between large stature people and idiots) will rape and murder with nail clippers, or bare hands. Look at the prisons, drugs still get in there, weapons are still made, and, rape and murder still happens. I would prefer to know that every citizen had a gun than to be certain that the criminals were the only ones with them. Jan Firearms! The Devictimizer. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Br!n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 1 Jun 2003 at 14:40, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone facing me pulls out a knife, unless they're trained with it, it's more dangerous to them than to me. A gun is a different story - any idiot can be dangerous with a gun. That isn't the same for all. A 100 pound woman when confronted by a 150 pound man with a knife is in quite a lot of danger...unless she is packing. I didn't say that. I said ME. I've been trained to use a knife against an incompetent wielder. I'm all in favour of compulsory self- defence training. The idiots can still get knives unless you want to take those away as well, and some big lug of an idiot (not making any association between large stature people and idiots) will rape and murder with nail clippers, or bare hands. Yep. Having a gun just makes it a LOT easier. I would prefer to know that every citizen had a gun than to be certain that the criminals were the only ones with them. I'd prefer that my life not be on the line all the time. If UK guns laws were the same as US, I'd be dead now. In 1997. NO question at all about it. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An aircar in every garage
Kevin Tarr wrote: At 02:31 PM 6/1/2003 +, you wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: So, how far do you have to drive to fill up the tank with natural gas, compared to the nearest gasoline station? and Matt Grimaldi responded; Well they're not on every other corner like gasoline stations, but there's about 50 or so refueling stations in the LA/Orange County area, so it's not that terrible an inconvenience. Normally this is not a problem, as there are several refilling stations ... I just have to be aware of the fuel situation and whether there are any stations where I'm going. This suggests that you do not have the option of running on regular gasoline? Is this the case? Back in the 1960s, while hitch-hiking in Italy, I got a ride with a salesman whose car ran on either gas or gasoline. He showed off the switch on his dashboard that he flicked to change from one to the other. Also, he showed me that the tank for gas took up some, but less than half, the space in his trunk. He liked the dual system because he could purchase gas more cheaply than gasoline, but could not buy it everywhere. How much more would you have had to pay to acquire a similar dual system? If your vehicle runs on either type of fuel, can you still get a sticker to drive in the restricted lanes? Robert J. Chassell He said no, a vehicle that uses gasoline at all can not use the restricted lane. I'm sure his vehicle is cheaper being optimized to run on one fuel only. The true prices are up to Matt. Kevin T. = VRWC bleary eyed In order to qualify for the sticker in California, a vehicle has to meet 2 standards: The Federal Inherently Low Emissions Vehicle standard (ILEV) and the California Ultra Low Emission Vehicle standard (ULEV), and at the end of the year the second requirement changes into the Super Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) standard. Vehicles which can run on gasoline do not qualify for the ILEV standard, and cannot get the sticker. This is why the hybrid vehicles (such as the Insight and Prius) do not qualify for the sticker. As for prices, I've seen prices range from as low as $1.38 per gasoline gallon equivalent (gge) up to $1.75 / gge. Also I'm sure I was able to find the vehicle I did for the price I did because it was a dedicated CNG, and the market who understands what that means and still wants one is rather small. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
A PNAC Primer [L3]
http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner05282003.html A PNAC Primer How We Got Into This Mess By BERNARD WEINER Recently, I was the guest on a radio talk-show hosted by a thoroughly decent far-right Republician. I got verbally battered, but returned fire and, I think, held my own. Toward the end of the hour, I mentioned that the National Security Strategy -- promulgated by the Bush Administration in September 2002 -- now included attacking possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources around the globe, maintaining a permanent-war strategy, etc. I'm not making up this stuff, I said. It's all talked about openly by the neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century -- who now are in charge of America's military and foreign policy -- and published as official U.S. doctrine in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The talk-show host seemed to gulp, and then replied: If you really can demonstrate all that, you probably can deny George Bush a second term in 2004. Two things became apparent in that exchange: 1) Even a well-educated, intelligent radio commentator was unaware of some of this information; and, 2) Once presented with it, this conservative icon understood immediately the implications of what would happen if the American voting public found out about these policies. So, a large part of our job in the run-up to 2004 is to get this information out to those able to hear it and understand the implications of an imperial foreign/military policy on our economy, on our young people in uniform, on our moral sense of ourselves as a nation, on our constitutional freedoms, on our constitutional freedoms, and on our treaty obligations -- which is to say, our respect for the rule of law. Nearly 40% of Bush's support is fairly solid, but there is a block of about 20% inbetween that 40% and the 40% who can be counted upon to vote for a reasonable Democratic candidate -- and that 20% is where the election will be decided. We need to reach a goodly number of those moderate (and even some traditionally conservative) Republicans and independents with the facts inherent in the dangerous, reckless, and expensive policies carried out by the Bush Administration. When these voters become aware of how various, decades-old, popular programs are being rolled back or eliminated (because there's no money available for them, because that money is being used to fight more and more wars, and because income to the federal coffers is being siphoned-off in costly tax-cuts to the wealthiest sectors of society), that 20% may be a bit more open to hearing what we have to say. When it's your kids' schools being short-changed, and your state's and city's services to citizens being chopped, your bridges and parks and roadways and libraries and public hospitals being neglected, your IRAs and pensions losing their value, and your job not being as secure as in years past -- in short, when you can see the connection between BushCo.'s expensive military policies and your thinner wallet and reduced social amenities, true voter-education becomes possible. It's still the economy, stupid. ORIGINS OF THE CRISIS Most of us Americans saw the end of the Cold War as a harbinger of a more peaceful globe, and we relaxed knowing that the communist world was no longer a threat to the U.S. The Soviet Union, our partner in MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and Cold War rivalry around the globe, was no more. This meant a partial vacuum in international affairs. Nature abhors a vacuum. The only major vacuum-filler still standing after the Cold War was the United States. One could continue traditional diplomacy on behalf of American ends -- the kind of polite, well-disguised defense of U.S. interests (largely corporate) and imperial ambition carried out under Bush#1, Reagan, Clinton, et al. -- knowing that we'd mostly get our way eventually given our status as the globe's only Superpower. Or one could try to speed up the process and accomplish those same ends overtly -- with an attitude of arrogance and in-your-face bullying -- within maybe one or two Republican administrations. Some of the ideological roots of today's Bush Administration power-wielders could be traced back to political philosophers Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter or to GOP rightist Barry Goldwater and his rabid anti-communist followers in the early-1960s. But, for simplicity's sake let's stick closer to our own time. In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House -- and, it was hoped, the other two branches of government as well -- so that their vision of how the U.S. should move in the world would be in place and
Re: A PNAC Primer [L3]
At 07:06 PM 6/1/03 -0500, The Fool wrote: http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner05282003.html A PNAC Primer How We Got Into This Mess By BERNARD WEINER [snip] So, a large part of our job in the run-up to 2004 is to get this information out to those able to hear it and understand the implications of an imperial foreign/military policy on our economy, on our young people in uniform, on our moral sense of ourselves as a nation, on our constitutional freedoms, on our constitutional freedoms, and on our treaty obligations -- which is to say, our respect for the rule of law. Nearly 40% of Bush's support is fairly solid, but there is a block of about 20% inbetween that 40% and the 40% who can be counted upon to vote for a reasonable Democratic candidate -- and that 20% is where the election will be decided. We need to reach a goodly number of those moderate (and even some traditionally conservative) Republicans and independents with the facts inherent in the dangerous, reckless, and expensive policies carried out by the Bush Administration. [snip] We don't need an emperor, we don't need huge tax cuts for the wealthy when the economy is tanking, we don't need more pre-emptive wars, we don't need more shredding of constitutional due process. Instead, we need leaders with big ideas who are capable of creative thinking. We need peace and justice in the Middle East (to help alter the chemistry of the soil in which terrorism grows), we need jobs and economic growth at home, and we need authentic and effective homeland security consistent with our civil liberties. In short, we need a new Administration, which means that we need to get to serious work to make all this change happen. Organize!, organize!, organize!# So, bottom line: If 40% of the electorate is going to vote no matter what for the Republicans and their new brand of evil (PNAC), and 40% of the electorate is going to vote no matter what for the Democrats and their same old brand of evil, then according to him (the writer) or you (the poster), what recourse does that leave? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foamÂ… God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A PNAC Primer [L3]
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 07:06 PM 6/1/03 -0500, The Fool wrote: http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner05282003.html A PNAC Primer How We Got Into This Mess By BERNARD WEINER [snip] So, a large part of our job in the run-up to 2004 is to get this information out to those able to hear it and understand the implications of an imperial foreign/military policy on our economy, on our young people in uniform, on our moral sense of ourselves as a nation, on our constitutional freedoms, on our constitutional freedoms, and on our treaty obligations -- which is to say, our respect for the rule of law. Nearly 40% of Bush's support is fairly solid, but there is a block of about 20% inbetween that 40% and the 40% who can be counted upon to vote for a reasonable Democratic candidate -- and that 20% is where the election will be decided. We need to reach a goodly number of those moderate (and even some traditionally conservative) Republicans and independents with the facts inherent in the dangerous, reckless, and expensive policies carried out by the Bush Administration. [snip] We don't need an emperor, we don't need huge tax cuts for the wealthy when the economy is tanking, we don't need more pre-emptive wars, we don't need more shredding of constitutional due process. Instead, we need leaders with big ideas who are capable of creative thinking. We need peace and justice in the Middle East (to help alter the chemistry of the soil in which terrorism grows), we need jobs and economic growth at home, and we need authentic and effective homeland security consistent with our civil liberties. In short, we need a new Administration, which means that we need to get to serious work to make all this change happen. Organize!, organize!, organize!# So, bottom line: If 40% of the electorate is going to vote no matter what for the Republicans and their new brand of evil (PNAC), and 40% of the electorate is going to vote no matter what for the Democrats and their same old brand of evil, then according to him (the writer) or you (the poster), what recourse does that leave? --- Viva La Revolution! The optimal solition is to minimize the amount of evil (PNAC, Palladium), and Maximize the amount of non-evil. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A PNAC Primer [L3]
From: Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: Instead, we need leaders with big ideas who are capable of creative thinking. We need peace and justice in the Middle East (to help alter the chemistry of the soil in which terrorism grows), we need jobs and economic growth at home, and we need authentic and effective homeland security consistent with our civil liberties. In short, we need a new Administration, which means that we need to get to serious work to make all this change happen. Organize!, organize!, organize!# Do the Democrats even have a candidate for 2004? I've never heard of one (though I suppose there's no real reason why I should). Deen, Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
- Original Message - From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again Sorry guys. This is unadulterated BS. I swear, we'll all be doomed if you smart guys don't stop theorizing and look at facts. I don't think it is so much theorizing as it is speaking from the experiance of their lives, what they see and what they read. Fact, the South has the hugest murder rate and rate of violence. It is also Gun Central. THE EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN TRIED and utterly failed. accept falsification. I think it is usefull to look at exactly *who* is committing these murders and acts of violence. Aim solutions at the problem, not at the whole of society. Saying that people are equal in the eyes of the law is not the same thing as treating them as if they were identical clones, yet your take on the facts requires that one view the responsible, the irresponsible, and the criminal as being the same. You would make them all criminals, fully knowing ahead of time the great degree of dissent that such laws would entail. Having read some of your speeches, I find it hard to credit that you would support such a stance. (I suppose I'm mostly refering to some of your comments at the Libertarian convention. Was that the keynote speech?) I would conter your argument with one that considers Washington DC. Criminals are manufacturing their own weapons there and using them to kill. DC is a gun control parable gone bad, with an unconcionable murder rate. It failed because young men are not rational players operating according to self-interest game theory. They are using reaction sets inherited from when an angry fit would throw you into a fight with fists. In a fistfight, even if you lose, you may win the other guy's respect. I think this typifies the murder problem in the south. Violence is normally commited by the ignorant and those with loose control of their emotions. In a gun fight, the loser dies and the winner goes to prison. I think that if you give it some consideration, you will agree that this is a broad and prejudical statement. It ignores that guns are not the only way to murder and that survivors do not always go to prison, sometimes killing is just and sometimes killers escape forever. IF we were all armed to the teeth for a thousand years, I agree, evolution would be very rapid. In 1,000 years all young humans would be calmer and operate with better game theory. I do not intend to wait that long. Nearly all of the advantages of Campbellian doctrine an armed society is polite - in other words accountability - can be achieved using cameras instead of firearms. Are you advocating not just a camera on every street, but a camera in every living room and bedroom? With cameras, the first shooter doesn't win, but the one who's right will. And if you shoot impulsively with a camera, you can say I'm sorry. That presupposes a camera in the right location at the right time and most importantly, that no countermeasures exist that would make a camera useless. I suspect dozens of ways to commit murder with a handgun that evade the view of cameras. Cameras would be fairly workable in an urban setting, yet one must consider how much of the world is extra-urban and where most of the handguns actually are. Hey, I am Mr. Accountability. I'm no sweetness goody liberal. Humans are often maniacs and I want everybody armed to defend themselves. My opinion of you is exceedingly favorable, I just believe your points on this subject are quite one sided and not explored in enough depth. I have no doubt that you have read essays and arguments beyond count, but the experience of the average Joe and Jane Handgunowner count for much more than all the sophistry that can be mustered. 83 million gun owners behaved themselves today, yet that factoid tends to be ignored. But I am also a father, and I do NOT want schoolteachers armed to the teeth. I wouldn't propose such a measure. But on the other hand, what exactly is so bad about that? I want only rifles in peoples, home, stored high with the bolts removed and locked elsewhere. We'll have our second amendment guns... and home defense or sport or hunting. In sentence 1 you want weapons to not be immediately useable, but in sentence 2 you support having them for home defense, a situation that is usually immediate. The two sentences taken together are not workable. All other types - including Assault rifles and handguns, are simply substitute penises for really sad obsessive fellows. What an awful way to insult millions of people! Doc, you are taking the worst examples in a category and casting them as typical. It reads as if you have never actually known anyone who owned a handgun. I know hundreds, and cant think of anyone who fits that description. Where in the world would you get such an idea? xponent
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 08:58 PM 6/1/03 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again [snip] All other types - including Assault rifles and handguns, are simply substitute penises for really sad obsessive fellows. Does that include police officers, women who are afraid of being raped by a larger, stronger man, the disabled who would be physically unable to defend themselves against an attacker? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foamÂ… God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 1 Jun 2003 at 20:58, Robert Seeberger wrote: I think this typifies the murder problem in the south. Violence is normally commited by the ignorant and those with loose control of their emotions. So what training with guns would you consider sufficient? My argument would be that a military/police course which covers a LOT more than simple gun safety... Of course, don't overlook social factors. Violent crimes INSIDE Israel are relatively rare, but that is very much a social factor, also the fact the vast majorty of the population have military training. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: H.I.P.A.A.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not sure what John has in mind for future benefits, but one of the impacts the legislation has had to date is on healthcare portability. If you move from one employer to another you can no longer be denied care or have preexisting conditions that can lead to denial of care for a year (or more). The portability part of HIPAA has been in place for a long time. What is being put in place now is part of the act called Administration Simplification. This was originally designed to force the healthcare community to use standard formats when trading EDI (claims, enrollment, payment, etc). The privacy piece was added when folks started to get scared about having all this information floating around in an electronic format. Then a security piece was added on as well. Generally, I think the security piece (which won't be enforced until 2004, I believe), is a very good set of rules. I think many healthcare organizations didn't realize how open to attack they were/are. For example, I'm on a HIPAA mailing list where people regularly ask if putting a password on a ZIP file they are sending over the Internet is good enough encryption. (It's not.) The privacy piece I am more neutral about. I truly believe our medical information is now more secure from prying eyes than before. This does come at a cost. Added complexity and procedures both for doctors and for health plans. The big (potential) return is on the EDI transactions side. (This takes effect October 16th.) We, as a health plan, currently receive electronic claims in several different formats all with slightly different twists. We also require providers to bill in a certain way. HIPAA says that we have to use the ANSI standard 837 format for electronic claims and there is a 750 page guide that explains how to implement it. We won't be able to force providers to use certain codes anymore. Which simplifies things for them. We won't have to maintain multiple formats for different trading partners, which simplifies things for us. Once the standard health plan and national provider numbers are in place, matching an electronic claim to our provider database will be greatly simplified and improved, decreasing our costs. Health Plans will return payment information to the doctors using a standard format which should allow them to auto-post the payment information into their billing systems, which is completely a manual process right now. And doctors can receive payment via EFT which decreases the payment cycle. We're still probably a few years away from really seeing a return. The kinks in the system need to be worked out. The various billing systems doctor's use need to be updated to be more fully automated. The wiggle room in the various formats need to be worked out amongst trading partners. But there will be increased efficiencies all around. I've spent the last few years hip deep in HIPAA at my company. I curse it regularly, believe me. But it certainly isn't as bad for the end healthcare consumer as that article would lead you to believe! - jmh Off the Soapbox Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: H.I.P.A.A.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me way in from the provider side of this debate. HIPA is going to make the practice of medicine much more difficult and more expensive. All of those forms patients are being required to sign are forced on all of us by the government. We have no choice. for the past two years medical organizations have been struggling to figure out how to comply with this legislation. You cannot imagine the amount of time energy and money spent on this stuff. Oh, I can imagine! ;-) There is also a lot of misinformation out there on what medical organizations can and cannot do. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
- Original Message - From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again On 1 Jun 2003 at 20:58, Robert Seeberger wrote: I think this typifies the murder problem in the south. Violence is normally commited by the ignorant and those with loose control of their emotions. So what training with guns would you consider sufficient? My argument would be that a military/police course which covers a LOT more than simple gun safety... I think its more a question of anger management and ethics than it is firearm safety. xponent Wrong Question Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 09:13 PM 6/1/2003 -0500, you wrote: At 08:58 PM 6/1/03 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again [snip] All other types - including Assault rifles and handguns, are simply substitute penises for really sad obsessive fellows. Does that include police officers, women who are afraid of being raped by a larger, stronger man, the disabled who would be physically unable to defend themselves against an attacker? -- Ronn! :) Of course it does. It also includes me. I've hunted with a handgun. I've carried one while fishing and hiking in case of snakes or rabid animals. A friend killed two dogs that attacked him while fishing. They weren't rabid but were feral. I guess I have a small penis and need to show off my manhood in other ways. Kevin t. - VRWC also explains my convertible ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:42:20AM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Brokers prefer to work with bigger blocks. I've seen little evidence of this in the past 5 years. What do brokers care about whether you buy 1 share or 100 or 1000? They've got their commission schedules set up to make money either way, and they've got their computers and their trading desks set up to handle small or large trades. Berkshire Hathaway trades at $71,000 per share, obviously not many people are going to be buying 100 shares or more of that. Even the B shares are $2,374 each. Most of the evidence that I've seen for share pricing is that there is a slight disklike for shares below $10 (some institutional investors are prohibited from buying them), and maybe a trade on my online broker executes a couple seconds faster if it is an even multiple of 100 shares (probably because if you are an institutional investor, you place and order for, say 60,000 shares instead of 63,738), but this is of little importance. Maybe it makes the specialist's job slightly easier, but it also reduces the number of transactions so I guess the specialist would be neutral on the matter. There seems to be some thought that a certain price range can make a stock more attractive and liquid. I believe that's why you frequently see stock splits when a stock price creeps up into the 100's. As I've heard it, stocks in the $30-80 range are thought to have more upward pressure than pricier stocks. (Obviously, any truth to this is mostly due to the perceptions of individual stock buyers that pricer stocks are too expensive). I heard that Microsoft tends to split its stock to keep near that range is to make it more attractive for individual buyers. On the other end, I've also heard that Warren Buffet's refusal to split the Berkshire Hathaway stock is snobbery intended to keep the riffraff out, by making the stock unaffordable for all but the richest investors. _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 11:04 PM 6/1/2003 -0500, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again On 1 Jun 2003 at 20:58, Robert Seeberger wrote: I think this typifies the murder problem in the south. Violence is normally commited by the ignorant and those with loose control of their emotions. So what training with guns would you consider sufficient? My argument would be that a military/police course which covers a LOT more than simple gun safety... I think its more a question of anger management and ethics than it is firearm safety. rob I know we have no one from Iceland on the list, but I've heard some remarkable things lately. Basically three items: they don't liter, they don't drive faster than the speed limit, and they don't drive drunk. Heck even if only half true, it'd be nice if this country had those traits. Kevin T. - VRWC Why am I still up? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Naturally, I was in rant mode and I am glad you all took it with a grain - or several - of gunpowder. Still, some of you have read my essay on gun control. It's the 21st century and time to stop hewing to inane left-right positions. I want win-win scenarios. Home rifles may have a role in such. Asault guns have none. I am willing to consider letting fishermen carry really loud flare guns in case of dog attacks and the same for women in dark alleys. What's stupid is the notion that cowboy six shooters are a good model for the coming century. That's just plain dopey. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Taxes anyone (L3?)
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:20 AM 6/1/03 -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: And the problem is now that everyone thinks needs, when they mean wants. They need cable TV, a cell phone, two or more cars, a maid, a nanny, a day care center. How about a single parent who needs the latter in order to go to work and feed (usually) her kids if she doesn't want to be on welfare? I doubt that many couples would consider a day care center a want rather than a need, either. I don't know anyone that did it for any reason other than that they couldn't afford to have one parent quit work to watch the kids. For one thing, it's fantastically expensive: the decent, not unreasonably priced one we used for a while cost nearly $14k/year (which means that after a kid or two it's very often less costly for one parent to quit work). Also, for many parents, using day care find it heart-wrenching to leave your child with strangers while you go to work. My wife made me do it because she couldn't bear to do it, and even I got teary-eyed every time I dropped James off for the first 1-2 months. Then there's all the colds your kid gets from the other kids, and the times your child gets bitten by another child (true story), etc. In other words, I'd say very few people would consider using day care except as a necessity. _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A PNAC Primer [L3]
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner05282003.html A PNAC Primer How We Got Into This Mess By BERNARD WEINER ... The talk-show host seemed to gulp, and then replied: If you really can demonstrate all that, you probably can deny George Bush a second term in 2004. Two things became apparent in that exchange: 1) Even a well-educated, intelligent radio commentator was unaware of some of this information; and, 2) Once presented with it, this conservative icon understood immediately the implications of what would happen if the American voting public found out about these policies. ... Bernard Bernard Bernard, don't you know, the PNAC agenda is WHY we are re-electing GWB. Bernard's spin on what the PNAC is all about, sounds scary. But what if Bernard is right? Now consider what if the PNAC is right given Bernard's spin... I still come down on the side of the PNAC. (Never the less I'm not that much of a pessimist, and I don't really want to live in a world like that either.) I am grateful that Bernard is just twisting words. I don't necessarily agree with all of what the PNAC has to say, and I most certainly do not agree with everything those involved with the PNAC believe. But I do agree with their platform and their proposed methodology (not with Bernard's spin on that mind you). The US is the top dog, we need to stay the top dog because no one else is willing to stand up for human rights, democracy, social freedom, religious freedom, etc. Before we should even think about letting down our guard, even just a little, we should make sure that every other government in the world is like ours in those respects. The world needs to be a more sane and safe place for all. If that means we have to go fight a war so that we can get our troops out of Saudi Arabia and end a dictators tyranny, so there can be a viable peace plan between Palestine and Israel, and so that Arabs will (given a few years) see that we made things better for them, and in exactly the way most wanted, so that most of them will not hate us, so there will not be as many terrorists. How is that wrong? Do you really think it could be done in less than 50 years if there was no war? What would things have escalated to if there had been no war? Who thinks we should have sat around and done nothing in Sumalia? Who thinks what we did do was appropriate? Shouldn't't we have sent in an overwhelming force and ended it? Why didn't we? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 5:05 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again [snip] I think this typifies the murder problem in the south. Violence is normally commited by the ignorant and those with loose control of their emotions. I strongly disagree. Are you advocating not just a camera on every street, but a camera in every living room and bedroom? Did anyone see Minority Report? With cameras, the first shooter doesn't win, but the one who's right will. And if you shoot impulsively with a camera, you can say I'm sorry. Not if your dead you can't. Cameras would be fairly workable in an urban setting, yet one must consider how much of the world is extra-urban and where most of the handguns actually are. Hey, I am Mr. Accountability. I'm no sweetness goody liberal. Humans are often maniacs and I want everybody armed to defend themselves. My opinion of you is exceedingly favorable, I just believe your points on this subject are quite one sided and not explored in enough depth. I have no doubt that you have read essays and arguments beyond count, but the experience of the average Joe and Jane Handgunowner count for much more than all the sophistry that can be mustered. 83 million gun owners behaved themselves today, yet that factoid tends to be ignored. I want only rifles in peoples, home, stored high with the bolts removed and locked elsewhere. We'll have our second amendment guns... and home defense or sport or hunting. In sentence 1 you want weapons to not be immediately useable, but in sentence 2 you support having them for home defense, a situation that is usually immediate. The two sentences taken together are not workable. All other types - including Assault rifles and handguns, are simply substitute penises for really sad obsessive fellows. What an awful way to insult millions of people! Doc, you are taking the worst examples in a category and casting them as typical. It reads as if you have never actually known anyone who owned a handgun. I know hundreds, and cant think of anyone who fits that description. Where in the world would you get such an idea? What about those who are right handed but left eyed? (like myself)It is very hard to accurately shoot a rifle that must be rested on the shoulder. My aim with that sort of rifle is very very bad. My aim and skill with a handgun is superb. Everyone here is imaginative enough to write fiction I assume. So Imagine a situation where someone brakes into your home and quietly sneaks into your room while you are asleep. Then you wake, and see a large man standing in your room. Quickly you run to the gun closet and extract the rifle, then you run to the elsewhere you have the bolt locked in. Now to the ammunition. Then you load the weapon (yea like you could do all that with a 220 pound man attacking you, but let's pretend you could). Now the home invader is 2 feet from you too close for you to pint the business end of the rifle at him and still be able to pull the trigger in such a way that you are sure you won't be blowing your own head off. He is bigger and stronger than you and so he takes the gun from you and pummels you to death with it. If only you had a loaded handgun within arms reach... Back to reality, what do you do? Don't think it can't happen to you, it's happened to me twice. How about this one: A young thug runs into your child's classroom and points a gun at him or her, his finger is on the trigger. You would prefer your child's teacher to: A) fullishly believing that the gun must be fake becouse they are illegal. B) be running from the room screaming. C) be ducking under his desk trying to reason with the boy. D) have a large cumbersome rifle he is trying desperately to unlock from the closet across the room. E) be brandishing a 40 caliber automatic pistol pointed at the thug in the manner he was trained. F) be dead on the floor becouse the thug clobered him from behind just 45 seconds ago and took his gun. Jan Not having all the answers Maru = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Use of cameras
We have often discussed the use of cameras for law enforcement on the list over the years, but I have some new questions. I recently read that some US states DC in particular are still toying with photo radars, which we call speed cameras, and that red light cameras (which we funnily enough call red light cameras) are fairly wide spread. I also recently read the following from a US Newspaper site (but I've forgotten which one - none of the majors) Begin quote: The Federal Highway Administration conducted a scientific experiment over a five-year period, and found that the 85th percentile speed--or the speed under which 85 percent of drivers travel--changed no more than 1 to 2 mph even when the speed limit changed 15 mph. In another study, the same engineers--one of whom was Dr. Samuel Tignor, who just retired as the FHWA's technical director for safety and research development--found that current speed limits are set too low to be accepted as reasonable by the vast majority of drivers. Only about 1 in 10 speed zones has better than 50 percent compliance. The posted speeds make technical violators out of motorists driving at reasonable and safe speeds. End quote. My questions are: 1. Does your state/province have photo radar? 2. Has it ever? (I'm pretty sure Colorado stopped using them, and Ontario as well) 3. What stops them parking one on the side of an interstate and generating HUGE amounts of cash based on the FHWA's comments above... 4. Is the reason for not having them the presumed guilty until proven innocent method of infringement ticketing? Thanks Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jan Coffey ... Everyone here is imaginative enough to write fiction I assume. So Imagine a situation where someone brakes into your home and quietly sneaks into your room while you are asleep. Then you wake, and see a large man standing in your room. Quickly you run to the gun closet and extract the rifle, then you run to the elsewhere you have the bolt locked in. Now to the ammunition. Then you load the weapon (yea like you could do all that with a 220 pound man attacking you, but let's pretend you could). Now the home invader is 2 feet from you too close for you to pint the business end of the rifle at him and still be able to pull the trigger in such a way that you are sure you won't be blowing your own head off. He is bigger and stronger than you and so he takes the gun from you and pummels you to death with it. If only you had a loaded handgun within arms reach... Back to reality, what do you do? Don't think it can't happen to you, it's happened to me twice. I'd hate to be the firefighter who comes into your house to rescue you, after you've been breathing enough smoke to have trouble making sense of things. Sounds like he or she would stand a good chance of taking a round or two. You'd be astounded at the crazy things people do, mostly involving hiding from the scary firefighters, when they're woken up abruptly in the middle of the night, partially poisoned by smoke. Sesame Street found that preschoolers hide from firefighters; other studies found that adults often do, too. Even without smoke, strange lights and noises, plenty of us wake up less than alert, especially in the dead of night. Lock your doors. Get an alarm. Have a webcam that sends photos of intruders off-site continuously, so they'll know they'll be recognized eventually (yeah, doesn't work so well for banks and 7-11s, but it helps). I think it's a bad idea to suggest that most people can wake up in a very, very frightening situation and immediately be aware enough of what's going on to handle a firearm. Trained professionals make serious mistakes when they're wide awake! There are some institutions, such as the Coast Guard (I'm told) where one is considered legally insane for the first 30 seconds or so after being woken up. Dial 911, for heaven's sake. I've been utterly terrified by the sound of fighting cats (in the next room) in the dead of night, leaving me confused for minutes, a sound that by day wouldn't surprise me at all. I mean cats in a serious fight, not the play-fighting they do when they like each other. And a couple of strong earthquakes that woke me out of a deep sleep also left me less than rational for a little while. This is not to say that I can't wake up and function quickly -- had to do that plenty as a paramedic. But this idea of going from sleep to handling a firearm in moments strikes me as asking for trouble. Spend the money on keeping the bad guys out, with all the ways that can be done, from stronger homes to better social programs. How about this one: A young thug runs into your child's classroom and points a gun at him or her, his finger is on the trigger. And this happens how often? *Crazy* people shoot up schools, not young thugs. You would prefer your child's teacher to: A) fullishly believing that the gun must be fake becouse they are illegal. B) be running from the room screaming. C) be ducking under his desk trying to reason with the boy. D) have a large cumbersome rifle he is trying desperately to unlock from the closet across the room. E) be brandishing a 40 caliber automatic pistol pointed at the thug in the manner he was trained. F) be dead on the floor becouse the thug clobered him from behind just 45 seconds ago and took his gun. How about just what the cops say to do in any such situation -- cooperate? Add hope and prayer as you wish. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A PNAC Primer [L3]
Jan Coffey wrote: The US is the top dog, we need to stay the top dog because no one else is willing to stand up for human rights, democracy, social freedom, religious freedom, etc. The present administration has eroded these rights and freedoms to a greater extent than any administration in my ~45 year memory and in such a manner that makes me believe that they don't really give a rats ass about freedom or rights at all. They want to be top dog all right, but there is very little principal in their desire for domination. They are corporate elitists that believe that a select few should decide how the world is run. People that really believe in human rights, democracy, social freedom and religious freedom, are in deep trouble - including yourself if you believe that is what BushCo is about. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
Nick Arnett wrote: be blowing your own head off. He is bigger and stronger than you and so he takes the gun from you and pummels you to death with it. If only you had a loaded handgun within arms reach... Back to reality, what do you do? Don't think it can't happen to you, it's happened to me twice. I'd hate to be the firefighter who comes into your house to rescue you, middle of the night, partially poisoned by smoke. Hell, the person you shoot could be your wife returning from the bathroom or a teenage son walking in his sleep. And what about the small child that finds the gun in a moment of carelessness by the gun owner? For every scenario that involves a good guy shooting a bad guy in self defense there are several that involve innocents getting maimed and killed. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Guns was: RE: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
I'm sitting on this one I guess, but up and on another list so... --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- [Snip] Back to reality, what do you do? Don't think it can't happen to you, it's happened to me twice. I'd hate to be the firefighter who comes into your house to rescue you, after you've been breathing enough smoke to have trouble making sense of things. Sounds like he or she would stand a good chance of taking a round or two. Good point. And yes they do. But of course my fire allarm and sprinkler system would have to have malfunctioned at the same time. Of course, not everyone has these. You'd be astounded at the crazy things people do, mostly involving hiding from the scary firefighters, when they're woken up abruptly in the middle of the night, partially poisoned by smoke. Sesame Street found that preschoolers hide from firefighters; other studies found that adults often do, too. Even without smoke, strange lights and noises, plenty of us wake up less than alert, especially in the dead of night. Have people come in your home to do you harm once and I garuntee from then on you wake up very alert. But also another good point. Lock your doors. Get an alarm. Everyone locks their doors. Nearly everyone has an alarm. These only stop dumb home invades. I think it's a bad idea to suggest that most people can wake up in a very, very frightening situation and immediately be aware enough of what's going on to handle a firearm. Takes training, or necesity. Dial 911, for heaven's sake. Help! ther's a man standing here in my bedroom! ~what is your name and location please? I'm at * thump! Wack! BAMB! ...he's hitting me! ~Sir, I can't help you unless you calm down and tell me your name..Sir?...Sir? ARGG or what the, click click BANG! BANG! BANG! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hunny, stay hear, call 911 I'll clear the rest of the house I've been utterly terrified by the sound of fighting cats (in the next room) in the dead of night, leaving me confused for minutes, a sound that by day wouldn't surprise me at all. And I have drawn my weapon when the house creeked. How about this one: A young thug runs into your child's classroom and points a gun at him or her, his finger is on the trigger. And this happens how often? *Crazy* people shoot up schools, not young thugs. So ::qr -a thug crazy:: Now what differnece does that make? You would prefer your child's teacher to: A) fullishly believing that the gun must be fake becouse they are illegal. B) be running from the room screaming. C) be ducking under his desk trying to reason with the boy. D) have a large cumbersome rifle he is trying desperately to unlock from the closet across the room. E) be brandishing a 40 caliber automatic pistol pointed at the thug in the manner he was trained. F) be dead on the floor becouse the thug clobered him from behind just 45 seconds ago and took his gun. How about just what the cops say to do in any such situation -- cooperate? Add hope and prayer as you wish. How do you cooperate with a *Crazy*? Jan Still not having all the answers Maru = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A PNAC Primer [L3]
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Fool wrote: http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner05282003.html A PNAC Primer How We Got Into This Mess By BERNARD WEINER The US is the top dog, we need to stay the top dog because no one else is willing to stand up for human rights, democracy, ^^^Sic Plutocracy social freedom, religious freedom, etc. Before we should even think about letting down our guard, even just a little, we should make sure that every other government in the world is like ours in those respects. Which is funny, because shrubCo has done everything in it's power to eviscerate and limit human rights, democracy, social freedom, and religious freedom. Dictator W. is a corporate shill, who has started to turn the united states into the united police states. If you want to export W's authoritarian dictatorship to other countries, that really says a lot about you. Lets take a second to examine Iraq. Under the rule the PNAC the army rushed in, under false pretenses (every single Iraq WMD site Colin Powell spoke of before the U.N. has been disproven), they rushed to bagdad and they secured the oil fields and the oil ministry. Every single other important Iraqi building was not secured, from hospitals, to large expensive government building, to museums. All looted. And then their is the four Iraqi nuclear sites the army let looters loot from for over a month without stopping anyone. Yup we sure kept terrorists, black marketers, and innocent people from stealing nuclear waste. Then there are the 900+ WMD sites we didn't secure. All of the ones we have looked at (200+) have been looted. We allowed terrorists, black marketers, thugs, regime supporters and innocent people loot as much equipment and possible WMD as they wanted from all of these sites. Wonderful job they are doing in Iraq. But hey what does all that WMD stuff matter, so long as W's corporate backers get their $500 million contracts, and oil. W secured the oil, but left the WMD (The supposed whole basis for the war in the first place), free for any and all potential terrorists and black marketers (who sell to terrorist and rogue regimes) to plunder. This is the policy you want to export by military force to other nations? Corporate cronyism? Fascism? shrubCo's never ending battle against science and critical thinking? -- Mt 25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brjn: Brjn 9/11 statement shown accurate again
What about those who are right handed but left eyed? (like myself)It is very hard to accurately shoot a rifle that must be rested on the shoulder. My aim with that sort of rifle is very very bad. My aim and skill with a handgun is superb. Jan Not for nothing, but a friend of mine shoots his rifle that way. His dad never noticed it but a real gun person saw it right away, but since he was 18 he doubted it could be fixed. This was during Vietnam and the unspoken message was, if you get drafted, it will be fixed. But he wasn't drafted. Kevin T. - VRWC awake again, almost ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:05:20PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: Back to reality, what do you do? Don't think it can't happen to you, it's happened to me twice. For those of us who thought it couldn't happen to us, could you describe in more detail the two times that it has happened to you? (each one separately) What type of building were you in? What type of defenses (locks, alarms, etc.) were there? How did the intruder get in? How and when did you become aware of the intruder? What did the intruder want? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
On 1 Jun 2003 at 23:05, Jan Coffey wrote: What about those who are right handed but left eyed? (like myself)It is very hard to accurately shoot a rifle that must be rested on the shoulder. My aim with that sort of rifle is very very bad. My aim and skill with a handgun is superb. Me. I have (in Israel) fired a rifle and my aim was fine. Everyone here is imaginative enough to write fiction I assume. So Imagine a situation where someone brakes into your home and quietly sneaks into your room while you are asleep. Then you wake, and see a large man standing in your room. Quickly you run to the gun closet and extract the rifle, then you run to the elsewhere you have the bolt locked in. Now to the ammunition. Then you load the weapon (yea like you could do all that with a 220 pound man attacking you, but let's pretend you could). Now the home invader is 2 feet from you too close for you to pint the business end of the rifle at him and still be able to pull the trigger in such a way that you are sure you won't be blowing your own head off. He is bigger and stronger than you and so he takes the gun from you and pummels you to death with it. If only you had a loaded handgun within arms reach... Back to reality, what do you do? Don't think it can't happen to you, it's happened to me twice. A gun is the wrong weapon in any case then. If you shoot someone with a handgun, you are VERY unlikely to take them down before then can fire back if THEY have a gun pointed at you. The RIGHT weapon to have handy, and I do, is a blade. You'll cause much greater immediate trauma and thus are far LESS likely to be shot when they have a blade rather than a bullet through their gun arm. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bran: Bran 7/11 statement shown accurate again
Oh I have to strongly disagree. Most breakfast cereals sold at convenience markets are high sugar content because it's very inconvenient when the kids start complaining. Bran flakes just don't sell that well. William Taylor --- When our good Dr. says that he does not have the time, it usually means it is time for us to change the i in the subject line. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
media consolidation
http://www.sarahstirland.com/archives/mediacon.htm It's a picture. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
