--- Alberto said:
the chance
of two humans being genetically equal in a
population of 100 Giga people
would be 75% of a millionth! [namely: (1/6)^22 *
100e6 ]
I agree that there's almost no chance that GK would be
exactly duplicated.
On the other hand, with millions of descendants
JDG said:
What's interesting is that Buchanan does represent
traditional conservatism
- particularly the isolationist wing of the
Republican Party. I am
surprised to see you endorsing it, to put it mildly.
Will you really
stoop to agreement with anyone who will bash
President Bush and
.
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:51 PM 9/13/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Consider. JDG implies that to agree with anything
said by another person makes you in agreement with
EVERYTHING they say.
No Dr. Brin, I imply no such thing. For example, I
do not imply that by
quoting Pat
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dr. Brin, surely you can't be serious.
Are you on record in favor of conquering Iraq in
1991?
Then someone else said:
That was not obvious. What isn't always clearly
defined was the price Bush
I payed for the international cooperation with
Oh... before you get the feeling that I hate all
Bushes the same... well, you could not be more wrong.
I am balanced.
While Sr. was a devoted servant of 2,000 frat brothers
and 200 Saudi sheiks, he at least has saving graces.
Showing devolution in action, let's compare dad son.
(What a
Is there really any question as to what the results
would look like?
Is there another definition of what balance should
look like I should be
aware of?
It is the same one I have had to repeat to you
relentlessly.
I have proved that I am no one thing. Having RECENTLY
given a keynote to
JDG
O.k., so balance as accusing the Republicans of
haivng accomplished not
one meaningful thing during the 20th Century, and of
claiming that the
Democrats have been responsible for essentially
every positive American
development during the 20th Century?
No, it consists of CHALLENGING
I don't have time for this.
A balanced person is capable of recognizing that one
of our political parties stands for nothing but
aristocratic theft.
And now... for utter Manchurian Candidate treason in
obedience to an enemy kingdom.
Balance does not mean blindness.
In many places, e.g.
I linked y'all to the wrong page.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/2675
is certainly interesting and relevant.
But the balance page that has earned ire from
liberals is:
http://www.davidbrin.com/progressparadoxarticle.html
There is another explanation for how one can despise
the
John's struggle toward light requires that I continue
the tedium.
Yes, John. I consider the present gang to be as bad
as communists. Because they have the exact same
agenda. A very deeply human agenda, far older than
such superficial rationalizations as communism or
Islam.
The agenda to use
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Of all the e-mails my brief search turned up, this
seemed to be the most
well-written.)
If DB has anything to add to this, I would welcome
reading it, assuming he
has time to do so.
Julia, that was great. I din't kno I wrote so gud.
Musta
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the problems is that the conservatives have
co-opted the media for
the most part.
When even Limbaugh and Hannity publicly admit it's
true, and laugh, jeering that the Liberals can't get
their propaganda act together, you know the
But the inheritence tax flies in the face of one
our most powerful genetic
imperatives: to insure the success of our
off-spring.
Precisely. This is exactly the imperative (inherited
from kings who took other mens' wives) that the
Enlightenment was created in order (at last) to
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The South is part of the United States.
and went on to screech at me that I am a bigoted so
and so.
I made it very clear that my Confederacy statements
were metaphorical, but nevertheless the facts are as
they are.
A clear majority of the
Go to hell. You are a snob and a coward.
I regret that I was goaded BY name-calling into
performing name-calling.
I retract that.
Nevertheless, please note, while I defend policies
favoring the working poor, Gautam throws mud accusing
me of CULTURALLY hating the working poor.
He does not
More utter and completely tendentious bullshit. your
image of events certaily (i see) comforts you... tho
it bears no relationship in objective reality to my
behavior, beliefs, values... or the actual policies
that should guide our civilization.
I do know this. You could like southerners in
1) any attempt to call Gautam and me equal in the
personal attack department is positively insane. I
was goaded into the ONE AND ONLY personal remark that
I made toward him and I immediately retracted it.
As for service, while the US Navy ultimately canceled
my induction into Rickover's
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 03:36 PM 9/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Please notice, he still does not address issues
that
are related to policy. No, he resorts to
the chief GOP weapon for 12 years (with a brief
hiatus
during the Dole Campaign) of personal attack
Gautam also pointed out the vast litany of social
issues on which Democrats
are perceived as having moved left - abortion, gay
marriage, religion in
the public square, defense of pornography and
obscenity on television, etc.
More bullshit. Obscenity pornography have not
worsened in 20
If this is the case - then I would recommend that
you restrict your use of
the self-description of balance to this context ,
and avoid stating that
you are balanced between Democrats and
Republicans, when you plainly are
not. I think a more accurate descriptor might be
to say that you
Actually, Russia and China both voiceferously
opposed the Serbia War.If
there was a Pax Americana consensus - it hardly
included Russia and China
who were making their concern about a unipolar world
quite plain all
throughout this time period.
Another good point. And my answer is it
And now I must say enough.
I am a busy person and I do not like getting
overwrought over frustrations that I cannot change.
It looks as if Prexy will get a few more years -
representing a serious repudiation of my vaunted
belief in the comman citizen (See:
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm... While what you say is true in a sense, I
think it's important to
recognize that the Internet has made it far more
available. Is it
moving to the left to stay still when the target
is moving? Not that
I think either party has anything
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That loyal and partisan Democrat, Rudy Giuliani, who
proudly spoke at the Democratic convention in Boston
about how the treasonous Republican party made his
job so much harderoh, wait a second,
something's
wrong with the previous statement.
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hammer all you like, you're not even in the
vicinity
of what I believe.
Nick
Well Nick, I'm a fairly literate guy, so if I have
no
idea what you're saying after several attempts at
trying to
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any indication that their treatment of
workers is unusual for
retail? We do know that without Wal-marts, K-marts,
Targets, etc., lower
income people would have a much lower effective
standard of living. I'm
willing to change my mind if
No sweat Nick. See you at
November 5-7: Accelerating Change 2004 Conference at
Tresidder Union, at Stanford University, California.
(SEE http://www.davidbrin.com/ events)
d
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Brin wrote:
NOW PLEASE REMOVE BRIN: FROM THE SUBJECT
LINE
Nick, don't panic. All's well if there are lingering
messages. I ain't mad.
Don't sweat it. Just thrive.
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a test to see if we can, indeed, moderate
all messages with
Brin: in the subject, so that we can easily shut
off the message flow
More arrant nonsense. Kerry is his own man and he can
express his own opinions. I do not have to agree with
all of them in order to see in him a homosapiens who
can be reasoned with, holding values that stand in the
same general universe as those which will help my
country.
I am writing an
Irrelevant.
1) Since no American died in the Balkans, it is
arguable that we toppled a dictator WITHOUT going to
war.
-
2) These liars NEVER expected to find WMD, any more
than real navy ships were attacked by real North
Vietnamese gunboats in the Tonkin Gulf.
Let's get it truly straight.
alliance of kleptocrats, apocalypts and neocon
Imperialists.
Any concerned American conservatives are welcome to
drop by
http://www.davidbrin.com/neocons.html
and argue pros and cons sensibly.
With cordial regards,
David Brin
www.davidbrin.com
--- Dan Minette answered:
So?Bush got a higher percentage than Clinton
did in 1992.
with:
The point is that he got less than Gore did in 2000.
More people wanted
Clinton than wanted either Bush or Perot. Fewer
people wanted Bush than
wanted Gore.
ALSO ! Perot's voters split
And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans
were happy with the
outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992
elections.
Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to
the truth.
I showed how in my last message. What utter sophistry.
___
Let's see the full list, John.
Giving the dems ME and NH bodes ill for this being
untendentious, given a scan of voting history.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
the
apocalypts call W one of us.
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
A low blow. The only word I quoted before was
officially. The point
of the quote was to draw attention to the fact
that
the sort of
millenialist movement you were describing
They aren't lies if you sincerely believe them to be
true.
Far, far, far worse. To be led into war by men who
believed such fantasies.
History shows they are following the Tonkin Gulf
script to the letter.
And now imaginary blueprints for brave South
Vietnamese... er... Iraqi local forces
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:46 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
And the point is,a higher percentage of Americans
were happy with the
outcome of the 2000 elections than the 1992
elections.
Typically and utterly and diametrically opposite to
the truth
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$101 million for NASCAR tracks.
Of course, we all know that this is The Good
Doctor's real problem with
this bill ;-).
Har! ;-)
People are not only sheep, they are very dim sheep.
Uh oh... now watch it, Dave. My biggest rant is
IAAMOAC. There
evidence
that these guys are monsters.
As for the groups you mention, I really don't mind
NASCAR. I'll be posting a Second Salvo (maybe
tonight) that detailed-dissects the Neoconservative
alliance.
db
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: David Brin
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least the Red States will control the nukes this
time around! ;-)
ducking
That was genuiely funny, don't duck.
Though in the category of I feel it but can't back it
up (the category that covered nearly ALL of the
right's venom toward Clinton), I
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Civil War is the logical consequence of a uni-polar
world.
Ah for Clinton's day, when we worried that, maybe,
China might start getting uppity by 2020.
Alberto is right and the neocons are insane to believe
that Pax Americana will last
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in this country are actually quite close together in
terms of their political and social views?
Yes, precisely! I write elsewhere about the fantastic
consensus to reject racism and sexism that has
transformed this country... and our progress in
--- Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah. Rich is right. Did some research. The Social War
was in the 90's. I was thinking of some of the
conflicts between the Plebes and the Patricians
(which
didn't amount to armed warfare, so it would seem, or
at least not in the same vein as the
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:27 AM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Though in the category of I feel it but can't back
it
up (the category that covered nearly ALL of the
right's venom toward Clinton), I seriously worry
about
what W might do if he saw power slipping
The Roman Empire lasted for what, 500 years minimum?
America just got
going really since 1945. Moreover, even the best
estimates for China
don't have them overtaking us for at least 50-100
years, minimum. It
looks to me like we have plenty of time to shape the
world of our future.
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is absurd. I can just imagine the Russians -
who
think the largest long-term threat to their security
is the Chinese
This is coldwar thinking. Not 21st Century thinking.
We do not have to face an equal number of nuclear
weapons in order
--- Gautam's rationalizations below are sad.
Since a security guard is likely a republican, his
rationalizations are similar to the Swift Boaters for
truth.
I prefer looking at Kerry's comrades in arms, EVERY
SINGLE ONE OF WHICH stepped forward to be with him,
expressing admiration and
exchanges, though.
I wish you all well and pray daily for Western
Civilization.
With cordial regards,
David Brin
www.davidbrin.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
will not look lower down. You and I are done
for now, John. Thrive. Enjoy the cult. If they win,
I may someday badly need friends who had supported
them, so I apologize for anything you found offensive.
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 02:10 PM 10/14/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Today, relations
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:12 PM 10/11/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
W ENTERED OFFICE WITH A CLEAR MAJORITY HAVING VOTED
AGAINST HIS PROGRAM. Yet, he proceeded NOT to reach
out, but to declare a MANDATE. Never ever meeting
with opponents.
This is a lie. Bush very famously had Ted Kennedy
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like you're afraid you'll be one of the first
up against the wall in that event.
I have lived my life as a contrarian, peoud to engage
everybody I meet, over any conceivable issue - exactly
opposite to W's proud isolation. I know that any
other
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if you're still interested in finding a
BASIC interpreter,
Dave helped me solve the immediate problem with the
delightful Chipmunk Basic which, on a Mac, simply and
charmingly works. It clearly will fall down when I
later get to more
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 14, 2004, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote:
At 05:07 PM 10/11/2004 -0500 Gary Denton wrote:
Typically meaningless - Clinton had by far the
highest percentage of
vote of the candidates. Clinton governed
centrist,
One thing I love about liberals
--- Gautam
In that case, I will simply cut my losses and stop
irritating you, Gautam. I hope it will make you feel
slightly better that here, in NON-battleground
California, I am thinking about voting Libertarian! I
will certainly do so for several lower offices.
Only the Gore Effect stops
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I think that's what you're asking others to
do, David, I find that
it works better for me to give myself those
reminders, rather than
others. And yet this posting itself could easily be
construed as such
advice... and it probably is,
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/14/2004 7:17:33 PM Eastern
Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
O.k. Bob, but if your interpretation of what Kerry
said is more accurate -
then what do you believe would be required to pass
this global test ...
SImple.
Start
And why is it that the first Gulf War, with a
gold-plated UN Security
Council endorsement and a vast coalition did not
pass this global test?
False distraction. If Kerry opposed the 91 campaign,
I have yet to see evidence for that. In any event, if
he did, that is but one strike against
--- Julia
Whatever else may have happened *since* Bush took
office as President,
he went in wanting to act without partisanship.
This is a subjective impression and I am glad you show
such optimistic interpretations. I saw nothing but
bellicosity from day one. Starting with appointing
years. I
have had enough talking about fanatical shrubs.
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
False distraction. If Kerry opposed the 91
campaign,
I have yet to see evidence for that. In any
event,
if
he did, that is but one strike against
:
--- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a valid and interesting criticism of
Kerry.
I appreciate your saying that, Dr. Brin. This is
actually helping me think through my own decision.
Here, perhaps is where we disagree (and please,
correct me if I'm misinterpreting you - I'm trying
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's interesting. The story I've heard from
people
I know in the Indian diplomatic service is exactly
the
opposite. They felt completely ignored under
Clinton,
Now this is just absurd. BC initiated a major
campaign aimed at India upon
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't you see Iran being the big winner if we pull
out? What kind of
threat to the stability of the region would an
Iraq/Iran alliance be?
What if they formed a close relationship to the EU
and/or Russia? Will
they be a threat to the
--- Damon, apologies. I see you were setting up the
imbecility in Iraq, not defending it. You do seem
aware of Vietnam.
From the TokinGulf Lying Pretext to hearts and minds
to never telling the truth about zones of control.
(Yesterday even the Green Zone became a killing
ground.
On my blog, I
October 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Block the Vote
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Earlier this week former employees of Sproul
Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach
of America), a firm hired by the Republican National
Committee to register voters, told a Nevada TV station
that their supervisors
as I can tell, every major act in Kerry's political
career can be explained by asking the question What
could he do that will best advance his short term
ambitions?
Like his leadership in pushing to find answers about
our Vietnam MIAs, back when the nation wanted to just
forget it all ever
Would you care to make a wager on it?
Absolutely! $100 right up top.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you that his tax policy is very wrong.
But, unlike you, I
think he is just a true believer in Reaganomics.
Yes, even though it has been decisively repudiated by
economists, has failed all experimental evidence in
the real world, and is
Oh I should not have bothered. You go for the most
absurdly dramatic interpretation instead of one that's
pragmatically measurable.
How about this. By 2008, several times as many
officials of the 4-year GWB admin will have copped
pleas or been sentenced for malfeasance or corruption
of some
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What nonsense! Every Evangelical leader should place
Muhammad
among the precursors of the Reform, a minor
reformism before
Luther did the right thing! :-)
Reform means many things. Muhammed was a reformer
from polytheism to structured
Weren't Henry Cisneros and Mike Espy indicted? Its
been a long time now,
but I seem to recall that they were.
AFAIK charges dismissed
Also, Bill Clinton was indicted - its called
impeachment
Indictment is a specific term... but I'll give you an
indictment... leading to aquittal
- and
I'm sure he wants to curry favor with a longtime
family business
partner.
Why? He's _President of the United States_ - in
Bill
Clinton's remarkably crass phrase, he has high
earning potential after he leaves office. Apart
from
which, the extent to which the Bushes and the Saudis
How many senior Bush people will
have to be indicted and/or flee the country to
avoid prosecution before I have to pay you? How few
before you have to pay me?
How few would it take for a one-term administration to
look more corrupt that a two term that had one
(totally politically stage
Coda: I've been trying to conjecture what would make
this bunch so absolutely reliably serve the interests
of a hostile foreign power. Past theories have
focused on money. But I don't think mere greed, as
insatiable as their greed is, can explain it.
Then I thought of a parallel... J Edgar
--- Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dr. Brin, good article. But you say that the
Fundamentalists are promised the Supreme Court, and
then say that all three groups have gotten their
reward, but demand more (their in-'satiability' as
you put it.). Now, I don't recall any Supreme
Court
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't believe in anonymous speech,
I agree. Such veils lull outspoken people into
imagining that elites could not (trivially) track them
down. We must all recognize that preventing tyranny
is vastly better than hiding from one when it does
Ah, more BS.
Of COURSE the widely circulated illustration was
tendentious and exaggerated to the point of lying.
Duh. You are right that the storm tracks are - even
at highest intensity - tens of miles wide. Poor St.
Lucie County got whacked bad. A Gore state. So?
I don't claim God is
--- Ronn! quoted on eof my least-favorite apostles.
But there are some good lines, especially the ones
likely actually spoken by Jesus. This one Ronn quoted
is a good un.
That ye may be the children of your Father which is
in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the
The above is a gross caricature of Christianity, and
instead reflects the
view of only a narrow sect.
Yes, that is completely true and it has nothing at all
to do with the Christianity practiced by Jimmy Carter
or Bill Clinton or Bob Dole.
What it DOES accurately reflect is the LEFT BEHIND
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 08:06 PM 10/2/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
It is ludicrous to call
it a, quote,
official viewpoint of Christianity
Your use of quotes here is dishonest to a degree
that
borders on despicable..
Despicable?
On what possible
So, Dr. Brin, would you say that John Kerry and Bill
Clinton also, quote,
NEVER expected to find WMD in Iraq?They're
both on the record as
being convinced that Iraq had such WMD's as well.
If I weren't sick of your sophistry I would ask to see
the proof.
In any event, it's ridiculous.
I did not intend to question your faith or otherwise
pass judgment on
you. I meant to offer my opinion on the way you
paraphrased David,
which I think was unfair.
Unfair paraphrasing is bad enough. Outright use of
quotation marks plus cramming words into my mouth that
I never used,
Final note as I ask once again that Brin: be removed
from the subject header (as I have done here.)
I will be back in a week with a major political salvo
I've been preparing. At that time I'll be happy to
slog it out.
Till then, consider this. Gregory Benford is thinking
this year not only
--- Julia Thompson wrote:
Dan has a blog at his own domain, using Moveable
Type as the blogging
software.
This looks like an ideal approach to host discussions
at http://www.davidbrin.com/ Thanks. I'll bring it
up with my webmaster.
But it looks a bit complicated to set up and right
--- Warren Ockrassa wrote:Or were you thinking it'd
have a different visual style,
or what? (The dashboard can handle a lot of the
visual settings...)
On a Mac I am now looking at it using Netscape and
MS/internet Explorer. Netscape cuts off the upper
part including the blog title. Explorer
Thanks Warren. I've changed the settings at
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/ and edited. It's a bit
better. People are welcome to test the blog.
I hope to check in with my Big Salvo withing the
week.
All best
db
___
:
From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
True enough. A better example of their obsession
with
form over substance would be abortion. Abortion
RATES
went down under Clinton and climbed under both
Bushes.
Pragmatically speaking, lessening the number
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a
ten %
drop in the rate would not stop you from being
boiling
mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but
philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup
must
Finally, the belief in absolutes is not a Romantic notion. Faith in
thetrancendental is definatly a part of the enlightenment. Kant, the
quintessential Enlightenment philosopher, speaks very clearly towards
that.Jefferson penned such a faith statement in the Declaration of
Independance.
Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMOO, I think the Left is slowly moving, as fast as is
acceptable, to a sentience definition of humanity, which is to
say, the more counsciousness one possesses, the more 'human'.
yes and this angers those who want prim dividing lines.
But That's not what
Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends on when in Jefferson's career you're talking
about.
Quite right. I consider him incredibly complex.
Back to the election. The ENTIRE issue of American Conservative is devoted to hand
wringing over an agonizing choice in the
Let me add this. The only place where I have spoken in the last 3 months with any
people who both have a postgraduate degree and are still supporting Bush is...
... here on Brin-l...
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html#
Kerrys the One
By Scott McConnell
There is little
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
**To make sure someone doesn't misunderstand me, I'm not accusing David of
bad technique...I'm stating the opinion that the folks he knows are not a
random sample of those with graduate degrees.
Fair enough. You are certainly right. E.G. today I spoke
I spoke to MBAs and engineers at Imation in Minnesota last week. And while the
polling was not as thorough, those expressing opinions during cocktail party were
similarly universal.
Just look at American Conservative magazine. Look at it.
Imagine a group of MBA's
--
Erik Reuter
Here's a question for you. Name one example of Bill Clinton taking a
policy position directly contrary to the Saudis.
Anything intended to balance budgets, keep our readiness up and make friends in the
Muslim world. All three destroyed by Bush , helping Al Jazeera stir up pan Islam
Today, giving a speech at Microsoft and touring labs, I found not one open Bush
supporter. Tons of conservatives admitting it was their turn to clean house.
And today, of all people, Pat ROBERTSON joined Pat Buchanan talking about holding his
nose in order to support Bush... if possible.
This one's less surprising.
William Gibson appears to be among those of us obsessed with getting rid of Dubya:
http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/blog.asp
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
I am sure that even you would agree, Dr. Brin, that there are some
situations that do not call for pragmatic compromise.
I agree with that leading statements, though it all depends on the pragmatic
tradeoffs. Read LeGuin's Those who walk away from Omelas.
Indeed, there are many times to
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:54 PM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote:
Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you
then stick
poor moms with)
This is just plain false. Pro-Life activists donate extensively to Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, and charities
Squirming stats to deny Clinton credit for declining
abortion is legitimate politics so go ahead, John,
even though GHWBush pursued no policies that he even
CLAIMED could take credit for the decline and it was a
major decline and despite a blip it spanned all of
Clinton's presidency.
(What had
--- Dan M offered interesting statistics. But the
core thing is this. Clinton asked THIS generation to
pay for our own expenses. W is demanding that our
children pay for a trillion dollar gift to his
friends...
...on the excuse that his frat brothers will tthen
invest in jobs at home (they
1 - 100 of 330 matches
Mail list logo
