Re: Question about Spoilers
Kevin Tarr wrote: I also don't like Stephen got my thesaurus right beside me Donaldson. I'm fairly well educated, but when I read for pleasure, I don't want to have to have a thesaurus right there. About three pages into the first book, I was reminded of Margaret Meade in her Growing Up in New Guinea saying that young boys would micturate into the water. For goodness sakes, if you can't bring yourself to say 'piss', at least say urinate. I know scholarly works must show an extensive vocabulary, but SF and/or Fantasy novels don't. George A Isn't this the same for Gene Wolfe? But he does it to show language evolving and the hardly used words become common? Sheesh, I hope not. I've never read his works, but I will soon read his Claw of the Conciliator which won a Nebula a few years back. I'm trying to read all the Hugo (actually, done that) and Nebula Award winners. Just a goal. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Book Suggestions: The Best of Current SciFi?
Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: If you're an Asimov fan, I ask: what did you (or anyone in our audience) think of Asimov's Magic: The Final Fantasy Collection? I liked it, but I recently gave it to a friend who wanted to read it, and she told me she found it disappointing. I don't know why. Big Asimov fan, but not much of a fantasy fan. I have the book you mention but it is in my to read stack and fairly far down. I'm not anti-fantasy. I like George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. Lois McMaster Bujold's The Curse of Chalion was excellent and she has a sequel coming out with Paladin in the title. Of course, there's always Tolkien. But a lot of the other stuff out there (at there is a LOT of it) seems to be 8 or 9 or 10 books of the same stuff. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thomas Covenant (was RE: Question about Spoilers)
- Original Message - From: Lalith Vipulananthan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 9:51 PM Subject: Thomas Covenant (was RE: Question about Spoilers) George wrote: Lalith Vipulananthan asked: Just out of interest, how old were you when you read these books? In my early 30s. Thus shooting a hole in one theory I'd developed with Ritu that age is a determining factor in one's enjoyment of the Covenant books. Most of the people I know who hated them read them before they were 18. I think I need to do some more rigourous research. So, language and the main character put you off. What about the story itself, the supporting characters, the description of the Land and its history and the fundamental question of ethics? The first criteria for a book from me is that I have to enjoy it. I have to like the characters (even the bad guys who have to be good bad guys). The science ( I know, this is fantasy, not SF) has to be fairly accurate and where liberties are taken and assumptions are made, those liberties and assumptions must remain consistent. And, usually, depending on the story, I have to want to be there. Finally, the book must be readable. Overall, the story has to click somewhere in my brain. however tiny it may seem. So, Thomas Covenant is not remotely likeable. And I surely wouldn't want to go anywhere near the Land. And it is quite possible that Mr. Donaldson's style isn't mine. None of the books clicked. There--not scientific, not academic, just like or dislike. George A There--not scientific ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 18:28 14-03-03 -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by all members, not a small subset of members (like the UNSC). Does one vote per country seem fair to you, when some countries, such as Brunei, with a total population about 70% of that of the *city* of Boston, would get the same representation and decisionmaking power as nations with populations hundreds of times larger? As you correctly pointed out, there will always be people who will be unhappy with the way things are broken down. However, I think the one country, one vote system is the second-best approach (I'll get to the best situation later). The problem with population-based voting is that it would give too much power to just a handful of countries (such US, Russia, PRC) The one country, one vote system also gives you the least amount of paperwork (all you really need is a list with the names of all countries) and prevents fraud. After all, either a country exists or it doesn't. If someone claims to represent the country of Jeroenistan (a country nobody has ever heard of), it can easily be established if it really exists: just let the esteemed representative show us where it is on the map. It's much easier to commit fraud with population figures. If country X claims to have 50 million inhabitants, we'll just have to take their word for it; nobody is going to send in an international team to count heads. How can you be sure that a country doesn't exaggerate its population figure, so that it can get *two* votes while its neighbours only get one vote? OTOH, I'm not sure a purely population-based voting power would be fair either. Perhaps some measure based on a combination of population, democratic representation, monetary dues paid I think that especially the payment of those monetary dues requires strict enforcement. A country that is behind on payments should have its voting right suspended; this is necessary to prevent countries from using payment of dues to blackmail the organisation (If you don't do what we want, we will not pay our dues). Now, onto the ideal situation. The ideal situation is in fact based on population. Ideally, all decisions concerning this planet should be made directly by the inhabitants of the planet -- everyone over a certain age (FREX, 18 years) votes electronically, and voting is mandatory. The problem here is in the cost of setting it up (the technology for it already exists): it would be extremely expensive to set up, especially in sparsely-populated regions. So, until we can afford to set up such a system, the one country, one vote system is the best one available. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to the irregulars!]
At 03:01 15-03-03 +, Jose Ortiz wrote: First of all, let me state for the record that our national pastime is just that: politics. We eat/breathe politics 24/7. Sounds like a wonderful place for Gautam to live... :-) We have under the umbrella of both our constitution and the US constitution. We have our local government, but we respond to the Feds 100%. We have no Free Trade Agreement, and all trade has to be done through US Customs. We pay taxes but we have no Senate representation; just a Resident Commissioner in Washington who in the case of the current appointed political sweet-potato, acts more like a paperweight or a doormat. We have US currency, as well. We have US citizenship, which for us is a blessing, as controversial as that sounds. However, we still can't vote for the Presidency. So, you pay taxes to the US government, but you don't get a say in who will be in that government, and you don't get a say in how your tax dollars are spent. No insult intended, but this sounds like Puerto Rico's primary function is that of a milk cow for the US government -- something like pay up and shut up. :-( This calls for revolution! Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 21:26 14-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: I do however think that keeping the pressure on high, while conducting further peacefull inspections is probably the best bet for improvement in the region. Then again I don't see how the US will be prevented from going for the price... oops I mean ... peace. :o) First off, thank you for recognizing the role of US troops in producing inspections in the first place. Unfortunately, it is pretty insulting for you to mock the price of your proposed solution here, as if it were pocket change. I think she wasn't referring to the cost, but to what awaits the US after the invasion (the *prize* of the invasion, rather then the *price* of the invasion). You know, a powerbase in the Middle East, big profits from building contracts, huge profits from oil exploitation contracts... Stuff like that. Indeed, right now, one out of every one thousand Americans is in the Persian Gulf. That is a lot of separate families, a lot of kids that don't have moms and dads around, a lot of lonely wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Heck, some sailors ahve actually already missed their own weddings, after their length of deployment was repeatedly extended. Occupational hazard. Everyone in the US military is there because s/he choose to be there. When you join the military, you can expect to be away from home for a long time. While it definitely sucks to be away from loved ones for such a long time, and while I sympathise with those sailors who had to miss their own wedding, you can't put a military operation on hold just because someone wants to get married. Meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding the war is keeping oil prices sky high, with devastating effects on the US economy. Inflation was 1.6% this *month*, after rising 1.1% last month. If it is any consolation to you, the US is not the only one feeling the effects. Just to pick one, fuel prices over here are also going in one direction only: UP! Less than a year ago I paid only a little over EUR 0,30 per litre for LPG; now it's over EUR 0,50 per litre. And none of this even counts the hundreds of billions of dollars of direct costs of maintaining this military force in the desert. Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. And likewise, if the US goes to war it shouldn't complain later on when somebody hits back. Thus, while Saddam Hussein will clearly only permit inspections so long as he is within days of being wiped out - it is the simple truth that the US can't pay this price forever... and I think that the US would greatly appreciate it if France, Germany, and like-minded Europeans, who are bearing none of these costs, but are reaping the benefits of the first Iraqi weapons inspections in FIVE YEARS, could at least recognize that this stuff isn't cheap for us. Oh, we recognise that this isn't cheap for you -- just don't expect sympathy from us for the fact that America's foolish unilateralism is costing them a lot of money. BTW, this *is* costing us money -- or do you think that the stuff and people we've promised (SAM batteries with support troops for Turkey, to name just one) don't cost us any money? But er, exactly what benefits *are* we reaping from the current weapons inspections? I see higher prices, I see increased security measures (we're still on Alert State Alpha), but I can hardly call those things benefits. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Commentary on French-bashing
At 21:44 14-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: If France can prevent the war from happening, than it *has* effectively protected American soldiers. After all, when there is no war, the risk to a soldier's life is significantly less than when that soldier goes into combat. Tell that to the families of all those soldiers who died at the Pentagon. The soldiers that France (and I) are referring to are the US troops in the Middle East, not the soldiers at the Pentagon. BTW, according to the Bush regime, the strike against the Pentagon *was* an act of war... Unfortuantely, your policy calls for the US to absorb the attack from a future Iraq's nuclear arsenal, or its stores of anthrax and nerve gas before attacking I never said that. How could I even have said that? I don't even know for sure that Iraq *has* NBC weapons and the capability to deliver them to the US. The US keeps claiming that Iraq has NBC weapons, but so far has consistently failed to prove it. As for the delivery, others have already posted about the problems inherent in delivering NBC weapons from Iraq to the US. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN
Bryon Daly wrote: OTOH, I'm not sure a purely population-based voting power would be fair either. Perhaps some measure based on a combination of population, democratic representation, monetary dues paid, economic power and perhaps even land size and/or resources might be more fair, but maybe not. I think someone (many people) would be unhappy, no matter how things are broken down. I think the most fair split would be that each country would have representatives proportional to its biological diversity O:-) In _Foundation's Triumph_, there's a discussion of a galaxy-wide democracy, and how easy it is to tail. One of the solutions was an _eight_-chamber parliament, with houses by population, planets (== area), social classes, etc. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 06:05 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs. Basically, the principle at work here is the same as the one behind you do the crime, you do the time. Eh the UN authorized preparations for war under Resolution 1441. That is, it explicitly declared that failure to comply with Resolution 1441 would produce serious consequences. The US complied with resolution 1441 (which France ignored) by preparing to carry out these serious consequences 1441 was clearly authorizing. The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. So, if the US chooses to interpret serious consequences as meaning war, and subsequently starts sending troops to the Middle East to fight that war, they shouldn't complain about the costs. The huge costs of preparing for war are a consequence of America's decision to prepare for war. Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Double postings (was Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?)
At 06:11 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: snip content Er, John, is there a reason why you are sending each (or at least: most) of your messages to the list *twice*? Jeroen Casual Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:41:26PM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: That sounds good, but I think it's very hard to do. How would one start, since buidling such a thing would appear to involve scuttling or restructuring NATO and possibly the UN as well? I can't think of a way for anyone to begin such a process unless the US itself were to place such a plan before the UN, or maybe just NATO, as the overall framework for fighting tyrrany and terrorism around the world. (Which perhaps is what the US should have done before leaping towards Iraq, but I'm not sure how doing so would benefit the US - or more specifically, any given US administration - in its immediate goals. If the US can attract a group of allied states that have no votes or veto powers, why create a structure that must limit the US just by existing?) Any ideas, beyond just not blowing the list of blown diplomatic opportunities you gave to John G.? It does seem unlikely that the US would lead the way for the creation of a LoDN. But I do think that the kind of determination that many European countries have shown in opposition to the war would be enough to start such an organization if it were redirected in that way and fueled by the same emotions that are fueling the war protests. The trick would be to get it going without the US, but leave an opening for the US to join later. Since the US would not be a highly privileged member unless it paid a lot of dues (I favor the ideas others have mentioned about democratic population and dues paid forming the basis for LoDN voting power), America would not join at first. But if such an organization made the member states feel empowered, maybe they would be inspired to develop the capability to project military power, and regardless the organization would probably have economic power. The choices made by the organization could have serious impact on the US, so if the US wanted to have a vote it could be enticed to join eventually. The EU probably works against the chances of forming a LoDN, since some will say it isn't necessary because of the EU, but to me the EU seems incapable of forming an effective world government. (Which, in turn, supports the idea the European nations need to spend a hell of a lot more on the ability to project force around the world if they want their views to be taken seriously.) Yes. It is easier, and perhaps more satisfying, to complain about the way somebody else is doing something than to do it better yourself. Which is maybe the biggest hurdle to overcome in trying to start a LoDN. say) to listen more than talk. And I think it does me good to just listen to what you and Gautam and John G., for instance, have to say. Not that you meant it that way, but it struck me as funny that you grouped me in with JDG politically. I don't think he would agree with that! :-) And alas, I have no quick answers to the questions you pose above. I see more obstacles than opportunities...and in any event, these issues deserve their own threads. I'll try to think of something. Oh, plenty of obstacles. Nothing worth doing is easy! But if enough people think about it and work together, perhaps a path can be found. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RE: Deadlier Than War
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... In the Catholic Church, we ask forgiveness for both what we have done, and what we have failed to do. Same for Lutherans, exactly. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an ethical difference, does it? If we are now killing babies by failing to make war on Iraq, then we were also killing babies by supporting sanctions. Unless the we in those sentences is the whole human race, I don't think it makes any sense to think this way. And if it is the whole human race, then the question of whom to blame goes right out the door. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:53 AM Subject: Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to the irregulars!] So, you pay taxes to the US government, but you don't get a say in who will be in that government, and you don't get a say in how your tax dollars are spent. No insult intended, but this sounds like Puerto Rico's primary function is that of a milk cow for the US government -- something like pay up and shut up. :-( This calls for revolution! Well, let me quote from http://click.hotbot.com/director.asp?id=2query=puerto+rico+taxes+rsource= INKtarget=http%3A%2F%2Fwelcome%2Etopuertorico%2Eorg%2Fgovernment%2Eshtml quote The major differences between Puerto Rico and the 50 states are its local taxation system and exemption from Internal Revenue Code, its lack of voting representation in either house of the U.S. Congress, the ineligibility of Puerto Ricans to vote in presidential elections, and its lack of assignation of some revenues reserved for the states. end quote Puerto Rico voted down (narrowly) becoming a state (at least twice IIRC) in the last few decades. They also voted down independence by a wide margin. The fact that they get many of the benefits of US citizenship (including Medicaid IIRC) without paying income tax is considered a key reason that statehood was voted down. Many people calculate that Puerto Rico is in a better financial position than it would be as a state as a result of this. But, there are indeed benefits in becoming a state, and statehood may pass the next election. It doesn't take a revolution; it just takes voting yes. Congress has to approve statehood, but it has indicated a willingness to do this after a yes vote in the past, and I don't see this as a big hurdle. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:33 AM Subject: RE: RE: Deadlier Than War -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... In the Catholic Church, we ask forgiveness for both what we have done, and what we have failed to do. Same for Lutherans, exactly. But that doesn't mean that there isn't an ethical difference, does it? There is. The priest and the levite who walked past the man beaten by robbers were not as immoral as the robbers; they were just immoral. If we are now killing babies by failing to make war on Iraq, then we were also killing babies by supporting sanctions. That's absolutely true. We would also be morally responsible for letting Hussein rearm, get a WMD, and become a superpower. Unless the we in those sentences is the whole human race, I don't think it makes any sense to think this way. The reality of the situation is that if the US doesn't do something about a place like Rwanda, the Balkins, Iraq, nothing will be done. The other countries that could do something have a moral responsiblity for sitting back, but US policy must be based on the fact that everyone else may or may not give the US token help, but that's about it (in GB's case its more than token). The citizens of the US are in a unique moral position. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:38:56PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: And, since the US has more power than Iraq, economically, militarily, and culturally, from the point of view of a non-US government, the US presents a more pressing danger, even if, at the moment, it is much nicer than Iraq. Hence, it makes sense to oppose the US, even in a morally justified endeaver, such as overthrowing the government of Iraq. Do you think many French reason this way? I can understand being concerned about excessive American power in general. But when specifically compared to Hussein, do the French really think the probability of the US attacking or subverting their country sometime in the future is greater than the dangers posed by Hussein? If they do assume the US is a likely future threat, then the rest of their behavior follows rationally, but that seems a paranoid assumption to make. Granted, America doesn't have the best track record at refraining from supporting dictators and fascists in third world countries, but that was often rationalized (rightly or wrongs) as being necessary to oppose a greater evil (frequently communism, which is much less likely to appear as a goad to America in the future). What likely future situation would result in America taking such a position against FRANCE? The question here is whether this French policy is even worse than the `Solution Unsatisfactory' that Heinlein envisioned? Seems that way. But then, I tend to favor creating, building, and improving, rather than just complaining. Maybe the French think that the EU can be such a solution. But the track record so far looks rather poor. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: Booting from USB HD
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:36 +, William T Goodall wrote: So far, I haven't seen any computers that had USB as a boot option. (I recently rolled out five brand new Pentium-4 IBM NetVista PC's, and even those didn't have that option.) Macs have been able to use a USB drive (HD or CD) as startup disk for years. My Toshiba notebook has this ability also. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
* Nick Arnett [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 07:33 -0800] But that doesn't mean that there isn't an ethical difference, does it? Agreed, for me there is an ethical difference. I can't preventively bomb 100 Iraqi children even to save 1000 children from my community. -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Progress?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: I spent part of last night and this cleaning up and deleting some old files. When I was done, I had removed about 6GB of stuff I didn't need any more. My last computer had a total of 6GB of hard drive space . . . Every time Dan gets a new personal computer (as opposed to a new work computer), the new one has significantly more hard drive space than the old one. He copies all his files from the old one to a directory on the new one set up for the purpose. I bet he has files he hasn't used since he had the 20-MHz 386 (which had an 80 meg hard drive) Julia who also has a directory containing files from the previous computer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
- Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Re: RE: Deadlier Than War * Nick Arnett [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 07:33 -0800] But that doesn't mean that there isn't an ethical difference, does it? Agreed, for me there is an ethical difference. I can't preventively bomb 100 Iraqi children even to save 1000 children from my community. So, would you have been a pacifist in WWII? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared ^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. This didn't make sense. Could you re-state the sentence in a way that makes sense, using words found in the American Heritage College Dictionary (which is the one I have at hand here, and which doesn't contain the word leagin)? Thanks! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
J. van Baardwijk wrote: While it definitely sucks to be away from loved ones for such a long time, and while I sympathise with those sailors who had to miss their own wedding, you can't put a military operation on hold just because someone wants to get married. You're right, you can't. The advice I have gotten from a couple who went and joined the Marines before getting married and then had a terrible time *getting* married (and this was in more normal times than we're experiencing now) is that if you know before someone joins up that you plan to get married, get married before the enlistment starts. But, given that, the *least* that the countries benefitting from the US buildup without contributing to it could do is pass the hat to help out the US armed forces personnel with things such as non-refundable deposits for weddings that had to be cancelled. ;) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question about Spoilers
G. D. Akin wrote: Sheesh, I hope not. I've never read his works, but I will soon read his Claw of the Conciliator which won a Nebula a few years back. I'm trying to read all the Hugo (actually, done that) and Nebula Award winners. Just a goal. I had that as a goal (the Hugos, anyway) and kind of have let it slide lately. Good goal, IMO. (I've managed to at least *acquire* all but a couple of Hugo-winning novels. Now it's just a matter of *reading*.) What are your favorites of all the Hugo novels? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Names for fries
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:40 PM 3/14/03 -0800, Matt Grimaldi wrote: There are already purple potatoes (naturally occuring pigment) that you can make into purple mashed potaoes. I remember seeing a bag of novelty potato chips which were made using these potatoes. Served with the green ketchup, they just might inspire some people to lose weight . . . Not that many people eat potato *chips* with ketchup. Nor mashed potatoes, come to think of it. Purple *fries* with green ketchup, on the other hand, would be startling. Or, how about purple fries with purple ketchup? That could be fun! Julia who knows that if you use red cabbage (which is actually more purply) for cole slaw, you don't add the dressing until just before serving unless you like the white dressing to go all pink ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Speaking of Bottled Water...
Matt Grimaldi wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: (...) I once listened from a nutty UFO and psychic believer that water from high up in the mountains was more healthy than water from below, because it had less Deuterium and Deuterium would accelerate aging. Sounds nutty, but - as I said before - might be true. Mountain people _seem_ to have longer lifes than groundhogs Not if they fall off a cliff... :-) I would guess that their lifestyle, which by necessity includes more physical labor, less fast food, etc. contributes a lot more to their longevity than a lack of deuterium. One question: What's the infant mortality rate among the mountain people in question, as opposed to the population they're being compared to? If the weaker people die in infancy, the average lifespan of the survivors will likely be longer. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
* Dan Minette [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 10:25 -0600] - Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Re: RE: Deadlier Than War So, would you have been a pacifist in WWII? No. I talked about bombing innocent civils. Sometimes force has to be counterd by force, military against military. And somehow, talking about WWII, I can speak about WWII and bombing and civilian loss. My town (Saint-Nazaire) is an harbour and has been used by german navy. To prevent them to use the harbour Allies bombed it. After the war 90% of the town was destroyed (not the harbour). One of the worst bombing killed 40 pupils in their school. It's still in the collective memory. In the nearby town, Resistance killed one high rank military (bullet in the head in the street, that's war, they were invaders). In retaliation they took 50 people in hostage, asking Resistance to surrender or they killed the hostages. Resistance didn't surrender, they killed the hostages. -- Jean-Marc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bible scholars rejoice at signs
The Fool wrote: More problematic is the fatalistic worldview of apocalyptic thinking, Hill said. Many who obsess about the end of the world fail to enjoy the life they have or reach out to help others in an effort to improve society, he said. They become morally complacent. This is illustrated by a bumper sticker seen on cars of a few Rapturists: In case of the Rapture, this car will be driverless That's a hell of a thing to inflict on everyone else you're in traffic with! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bible scholars rejoice at signs
Julia Thompson wrote: This is illustrated by a bumper sticker seen on cars of a few Rapturists: In case of the Rapture, this car will be driverless That's a hell of a thing to inflict on everyone else you're in traffic with! I imgaine that the ethics of Rapturism would _prevent_ this from happening, namely, a Candidate for being Raptured who is driving a car at high speed would _not_ be Raptured. But then it's pointless to argue with religious nuts OTOH, maybe it could be made into a law: all those that believe in the Rapture and that they will be Raptured must provide their cars with an automatic break system in case of driver rapture. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Walk Away from the UN
This editorial makes a pretty good analysis of how this crisis has transpired so far, until the end. Somehow, Krauthammer seems to have missed the fact that the US proposed exactly the same resolution he described several weeks ago, and it was rejected by the French, et all. Indeed, Jose Maria Aznar famously proclaimed, how can anyone be opposed to this plain and simple fact? JDG Call the Vote. Walk Away. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13017-2003Mar11?language=printer By Charles Krauthammer Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21 Walk away, Mr. President. Walk away from the U.N. Security Council. It will not authorize the coming war. You can stand on your head and it won't change the outcome. You can convert to Islam in a Parisian mosque and it won't prevent a French veto. The French are bent not just on opposing your policy but on destroying it -- and the coalition you built around it. When they send their foreign minister to tour the three African countries on the Security Council in order to turn them against the United States, you know that this is a country with resolve -- more than our side is showing today. And that is a losing proposition for us. The reason you were able to build support at home and rally the world to at least pretend to care about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is that you showed implacable resolve to disarm Iraq one way or the other. Your wobbles at the United Nations today -- postponing the vote, renegotiating the terms -- are undermining the entire enterprise. I understand that the wobble is not yours but a secondary, sympathetic wobble to Tony Blair's. Blair is courageous but opposed by a large part of his party and in need of some diplomatic cover. But, Mr. President, he's not going to get it. Even if you marshal the nine votes on the Security Council by watering down the resolution, delaying the invasion, establishing criteria Hans Blix is sure to muddy and Mohamed ElBaradei is sure to say Saddam Hussein has met, France and Russia will still exercise the veto. You may call it a moral victory. The British left, which is what this little exercise is about, will not. It will not care what you call it but what Kofi Annan calls it, and he has already told us: a failed resolution rendering a war that follows illegitimate. This, of course, is the rankest hypocrisy. The United Nations did not sanction the Kosovo war, surely a just war, and that did not in any way make it illegitimate. Of the scores of armed conflicts since 1945, exactly two have received Security Council sanction: the Korean War (purely an accident, the Soviets having walked out over another issue) and the Gulf War. The Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, whose terms everybody agrees Hussein has violated. You could very well have gone to war under the original Security Council resolutions of 1991 and been justified. I understand why you did not. A large segment of American opinion swoons at the words United Nations and international community. That the international community is a fiction and the United Nations a farce hardly matters. People believe in them. It was for them that you went to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002. And it worked. When you framed the issue as the United Nations enforcing its own edicts, vindicating its own relevance by making Hussein disarm, the intellectual opposition to the war -- always in search of some standard outside the United States' own judgment and interests to justify American action -- fell apart. Thus Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, bought you two things: domestic support and a window of legitimacy, a time to build up our forces in the region under the umbrella of enforcing the will of the international community. Mr. President, the window has closed. Diplomatically, we are today back where we were before Sept. 12. It is America, Britain, Australia, a few Gulf states, some of Old Europe, most of New Europe and other governments still too afraid to say so openly. That's enough. And in any case that is all you are going to get. Why are we dallying and deferring at the United Nations? In your news conference last week, you said you were going to have people put their cards on the table. I thought it a lousy idea to call a vote we were sure to lose. But having made your decision, you are making it worse by waffling. The world knows you as a cards-on-the-table man. Now you're asking for an extension of time and a reshuffle of the deck. If, for Blair's sake, you must have a second resolution, why include an ultimatum that Blix will obfuscate and the French will veto? If you must have a second resolution, it should consist of a single sentence: The Security Council finds Iraq in violation of Resolution 1441, which demanded 'full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions.' The new resolution should be a statement not of policy but of fact. The fact is undeniable. You invite the French to cast what will be seen
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
- Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:47 AM Subject: Re: RE: Deadlier Than War * Dan Minette [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 10:25 -0600] - Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Re: RE: Deadlier Than War So, would you have been a pacifist in WWII? No. I talked about bombing innocent civils. Sometimes force has to be counterd by force, military against military. But, if one tries as hard as possible to limit damage to military targets, civilians will still be killed. Especially, if one's opponent knows that one is trying to avoid killing civilians and uses them as shields for military assets. So, given that fact, must we chose not to go after any military targets? There is no doubt that the fewer the civilian casualties in Iraq, the better for the US. And somehow, talking about WWII, I can speak about WWII and bombing and civilian loss. My town (Saint-Nazaire) is an harbour and has been used by german navy. To prevent them to use the harbour Allies bombed it. After the war 90% of the town was destroyed (not the harbour). One of the worst bombing killed 40 pupils in their school. It's still in the collective memory. I think this illustrates the problem. Back in WWII, bombings were very inaccurate. It was impossible to pick a military target without hitting civilians. The question is/was: do we refrain from bombing military targets so as not to kill civilians. In the nearby town, Resistance killed one high rank military (bullet in the head in the street, that's war, they were invaders). In retaliation they took 50 people in hostage, asking Resistance to surrender or they killed the hostages. Resistance didn't surrender, they killed the hostages. I've read that French resistance was fairly minimal, and that most French cooperated willingly with the Germans. Do you have a good source on the extent of French resistance? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Names for fries
At 10:42 AM 3/15/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:40 PM 3/14/03 -0800, Matt Grimaldi wrote: There are already purple potatoes (naturally occuring pigment) that you can make into purple mashed potaoes. I remember seeing a bag of novelty potato chips which were made using these potatoes. Served with the green ketchup, they just might inspire some people to lose weight . . . Not that many people eat potato *chips* with ketchup. Nor mashed potatoes, come to think of it. Purple *fries* with green ketchup, on the other hand, would be startling. *That* was what I had in mind as perhaps looking strange enough to normal people (Do I even have to say Present company excluded.?) to perhaps turn off their appetites. Or, how about purple fries with purple ketchup? That could be fun! I of course thought of that combination, but didn't think it would be quite so gross-looking as the other combination. (Naturally, I am tempted to try both combinations and to serve them the next time I have unsuspecting guests for dinner¹ . . .) ¹Insert Your Own Cannibalism Joke Here Maru -- Ronn! :) Your message here! (Call for rates.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:00:44PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Ok, but AFAIK serious consequences should be something worse than the current siege warfare against Iraq, and I fail to see what can be more serious than a siege if you don't mean war Siege with attitude? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bible scholars rejoice at signs
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: This is illustrated by a bumper sticker seen on cars of a few Rapturists: In case of the Rapture, this car will be driverless That's a hell of a thing to inflict on everyone else you're in traffic with! I imgaine that the ethics of Rapturism would _prevent_ this from happening, namely, a Candidate for being Raptured who is driving a car at high speed would _not_ be Raptured. But then it's pointless to argue with religious nuts OTOH, maybe it could be made into a law: all those that believe in the Rapture and that they will be Raptured must provide their cars with an automatic break system in case of driver rapture. The other thing is, it's going to be a lot easier to be Raptured if you're *outside* the car, so maybe you really ought to pull over into the shoulder before you go. This will lead to some cars abandoned in the shoulder, but it's a heck of a lot better than the car being abandoned going around 100 kph on a freeway Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Lynne Thigpen dies
On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 11:57 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: John Garcia wrote: For fans of The District and the Carmen Sandiego series on PBS, sad news: Lynne Thigpen, who played Ella Farmer (assistant to the police chief) on The District police show, and The Chief on the Carmen Sandiego series died suddenly on Wednesday. Dang. Dang, dang, dang. I loved that actress. Thank you for letting me know, John, but I really wish it hadn't been necessary. :( Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l I'd like to say You're Welcome, Julia, but I don't think I will. john ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. ** Get real. Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words serious consequences. Please, try and keep list discussions in the realm of the serious Jeroen. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RE: Deadlier Than War
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Minette ... The reality of the situation is that if the US doesn't do something about a place like Rwanda, the Balkins, Iraq, nothing will be done. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I'm also not sure it matters. Even if others had the power to step forward, if we also have such power, we also should step up. Where Iraq is concerned, there is little disagreement that something must be done, but great disagreement about what. And *what* to do in these sorts of situations is rarely clear, as any study of ethics quickly shows. Obviously in the case of Iraq, sovereignty is hardly an issue at this point, but if often is, for example. The other countries that could do something have a moral responsiblity for sitting back, I don't understand what you're saying here. but US policy must be based on the fact that everyone else may or may not give the US token help, but that's about it (in GB's case its more than token). The citizens of the US are in a unique moral position. It is an obligation, or at least a calling, if I understand you correctly. And I agree. It's like the cliche: from those to whom more is given, more is expected. On the other hand, I tend to abhor anything that smells of prosperity gospel -- the idea that one's wealth is evidence of one's righteousness. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for us to imagine that we surely must be better people *because* we have the power to effect change. I guess it's like the anthropic principle, but applied to the existence of power, rather than life -- there is not a purpose for which we are given this power; rather, we are called to use our power to a purpose. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: RE: Deadlier Than War
---Original Message--- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] If we are now killing babies by failing to make war on Iraq, then we were also killing babies by supporting sanctions. Unless the we in those sentences is the whole human race, I don't think it makes any sense to think this way. ** You need to consider the trade-off. For example, the various Christian Churches of the world do not hold people morally culpable all those who do not sell off all of their possessions to devote themselves to a life of poverty and charity - even though doing so in the short-term would certainly save lives. In the case of sanctions, however, there is minimal moral culpability for supporting sanctions as opposed to lifting sanctions - since the sanctions regime permits Saddam Hussein to buy unlimited food and medicine, and he simplye *refuses* to do so. Thus, in this trade-off, supporting sanctions is not morally culpable. Now, in the trade-off of sanctions vs. war, since war would clearly save Iraqi lives, the moral burden is upon the supporters of continued sanctions to demonstrate why the cost of war is too high to justify the saving of those Iraqi lives. 5,000 children under the age of 5 die every month in Iraq. - UNICEF JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] But, there are indeed benefits in becoming a state, and statehood may pass the next election. It doesn't take a revolution; it just takes voting yes. Congress has to approve statehood, but it has indicated a willingness to do this after a yes vote in the past, and I don't see this as a big hurdle. * BTW, I'd just like to point out, that the quintessential example of Anti-Americanism is criticism of America's treatment of Puerto Rico. Just to review, the US regularly lets the Puerto Rican vote on their status, and they have chosen the status quo every time. I think the biases that would lead one to critcize the US's handling of this are clear. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared ^^ to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf. Typo correction: That should be leaving, not leagin. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] The citizens of the US are in a unique moral position. With great power comes great responsibility. JDG - Who wonders if France would oppose Spiderman's unilateralism in pursuit of criminals. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 8:35 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff? ---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. ** Get real. Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words serious consequences. Right, but everyone also knows that the US would have preferred to write something along the lines of: quote from 678 Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; end quote The meaning that the US gives to 1441 is the clear and plain interpretation of the text. It is indeed the interpretation that makes the most sense. At the very least, these consequences would involve significantly more than heavy bombing and intrusive inspections. However, 1441 has wiggle room for France and Russia. Otherwise they would not have voted for it. Its interesting that they are not using this wiggle room, but are instead arguing for a position (a little progress is being made, so we should continue inspections) that is not in 1441. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bible scholars rejoice at signs
At 11:35 AM 3/15/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: This is illustrated by a bumper sticker seen on cars of a few Rapturists: In case of the Rapture, this car will be driverless That's a hell of a thing to inflict on everyone else you're in traffic with! I imgaine that the ethics of Rapturism would _prevent_ this from happening, namely, a Candidate for being Raptured who is driving a car at high speed would _not_ be Raptured. But then it's pointless to argue with religious nuts OTOH, maybe it could be made into a law: all those that believe in the Rapture and that they will be Raptured must provide their cars with an automatic break system in case of driver rapture. The other thing is, it's going to be a lot easier to be Raptured if you're *outside* the car, so maybe you really ought to pull over into the shoulder before you go. This will lead to some cars abandoned in the shoulder, but it's a heck of a lot better than the car being abandoned going around 100 kph on a freeway I think that those who believe in this happening are of the opinion that no one will have any warning before they find themselves flying up into the sky. (Neither will those who do *not* find themselves flying up into the sky.) For That Matter I Don't Want To Be On The Same Road With A Driver Experiencing A Sudden Rupture Either Maru -- Ronn! :) Your message here! (Call for rates.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff? ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ** Wow! Note the phrase all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. Actually, its not as open and shut as you might think. Whether Iraq now poses a threat to peace and stability in the region is open to interpretation. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it does. But, the US could not get a new resolution like this one passed. That means something. Unfortunately, the reality is that most people in Europe tend to favor the French interpretation of the resolutions. Lost in all of this is the tremendous victory the French are winning in their battle with the US. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 11:34 AM Subject: RE: RE: Deadlier Than War -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dan Minette ... The reality of the situation is that if the US doesn't do something about a place like Rwanda, the Balkins, Iraq, nothing will be done. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I'm also not sure it matters. Even if others had the power to step forward, if we also have such power, we also should step up. Where Iraq is concerned, there is little disagreement that something must be done, but great disagreement about what. And *what* to do in these sorts of situations is rarely clear, as any study of ethics quickly shows. Obviously in the case of Iraq, sovereignty is hardly an issue at this point, but if often is, for example. The other countries that could do something have a moral responsiblity for sitting back, I don't understand what you're saying here. but US policy must be based on the fact that everyone else may or may not give the US token help, but that's about it (in GB's case its more than token). The citizens of the US are in a unique moral position. It is an obligation, or at least a calling, if I understand you correctly. And I agree. It's like the cliche: from those to whom more is given, more is expected. Well, it wasn't a cliche when Jesus first said it. :-) Seriously, I think that we should consider whether this is what Bush is trying to articulate. On the other hand, I tend to abhor anything that smells of prosperity gospel -- the idea that one's wealth is evidence of one's righteousness. We agree on that. Unfortunately, one of the products of the Reformation was the gospel of prosperity. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for us to imagine that we surely must be better people *because* we have the power to effect change. Actually, I think its more complicated than that. Others do have the power to help change things, we're in the unique position where the tragedy of the commons leads to us being the only ones with the will to effect change. Europe could have taken care of the Balkans; it chose not to. I guess it's like the anthropic principle, but applied to the existence of power, rather than life -- there is not a purpose for which we are given this power; rather, we are called to use our power to a purpose. I think that subtle difference is at the root of a lot of the discomfort. People who believe that everything happens for a reason accept the former; I would tend towards the latter. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:48 AM Subject: Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3 On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:38:56PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: And, since the US has more power than Iraq, economically, militarily, and culturally, from the point of view of a non-US government, the US presents a more pressing danger, even if, at the moment, it is much nicer than Iraq. Hence, it makes sense to oppose the US, even in a morally justified endeaver, such as overthrowing the government of Iraq. Do you think many French reason this way? I can understand being concerned about excessive American power in general. But when specifically compared to Hussein, do the French really think the probability of the US attacking or subverting their country sometime in the future is greater than the dangers posed by Hussein? It depends on how subvert is interpreted. The US had now taken France's proper roll as the leading nation of the world. During the Cold War, France has shown its importance by being as uncooperative an ally as possible while remaining an ally...kicking US soldiers out of France but working with the US on its own terms. After the Cold War, the power and prestige of the US as the only superpower grew, and its need to coax France into cooperating lessened. So, to improve France's relative positon in the world, France needs to take the US down a peg. Gautam's comment about other people being able to critique his idea that relative position is the key to a nation's actions referes to a rather long paper (100 pages) he wrote about this subject.** (As an aside, I think that every country does not operate under this paradigm, but I'll agree France does). France sees a strong US as a threat to its natural place in the order of things. What likely future situation would result in America taking such a position against FRANCE? I think the real fear is a cultural attack, that the French will become Americanized by their exposure to such horrors as le weekend. Dan M. **If you want a copy of this thesis, please send 25 cents and a self addressed envelope to Merkle Press ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; ** Wow! Note the phrase all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. Actually, its not as open and shut as you might think. Whether Iraq now poses a threat to peace and stability in the region is open to interpretation. * No... that's not what I meant. Resolution 660 authorizes the use of force to enforce *all*subsequent*resolutions. Resolution 1441, not only explicitly recalls Resolution 660 in the Preamble - but takes the unusual diplomatic step of recalling it in a separate preambulatory clause to emphasize its importance. (In normal operations, the Security Council recalls all of its previous resolutions in a single preambulatory.) Thus, Resolution 1441 reads: Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) Thus, the plain meaning of this unanimous resolution is that the US is authorized to use force to uphold it. Unfortunately, the reality is that most people in Europe tend to favor the French interpretation of the resolutions. Lost in all of this is the tremendous victory the French are winning in their battle with the US. Tremendous victory? Let's see what the world looks like some months after the war is over. I personally think that France may be winning a victory, but that they are losing the War. Their influence will only be reduced after this is all said and done. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
France's influence
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff? I personally think that France may be winning a victory, but that they are losing the War. Their influence will only be reduced after this is all said and done. As the leaders of the contain the US alliance? The only democracy that I know of that favors attacking Iraq without a new specific Security Council resolution authorizing it explicitly is the US. After we go in, probably without GB, this will be a significant force. Rightly or wrongly, many/most people will consider an unconstrained US as the biggest risk to themselves. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: RE: RE: Deadlier Than War
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... You need to consider the trade-off. For example, the various Christian Churches of the world do not hold people morally culpable all those who do not sell off all of their possessions to devote themselves to a life of poverty and charity - even though doing so in the short-term would certainly save lives. Of course one has to consider the trade-off. That was the whole point of my list of people we are killing. Now, in the trade-off of sanctions vs. war, since war would clearly save Iraqi lives, I'm not sure everyone would agree with that, but at this point, I do. But none of this is germane to my troubles with the idea that we are killing children by not going to war. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Commentary on French-bashing
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:50 PM Subject: Re: Commentary on French-bashing At 14:32 14-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote: [The French] actively support a brutal dictator. I think it's quite odd that the US suddenly seems it fit to criticise an other country for supporting Saddam Hussein, when that very same US has done the exact same thing... OK, lets look at the support. After Iran kidnapped American Embassy personnel and held them hostage, they proclaimed that they would lead the rest of Islam into a theocracy like theirs. At that time, the US had a slight tilt towards Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. The logic was that Iraq posed less of a danger than Iran. The tilt was rather small, and involved sale of a very small amount of military equipment and, perhaps, a bit of information. France, on the other hand, activly supported Iraq's program to become a nuclear power. Then, when Iraq and the US alliance were at odds, France supported Iraq in its fight. The logical conclusion is that France favors Iraq's dictatorship over the US. The quesition is why? Another reasonable question, since you make a number of the points that France does, is do you? And it's not like American companies haven't done business with Iraq since the second Gulf War. Halliburton, anyone? Its true that a number American companies got around the US ban on doing business with Iraq by having their French subsidiaries conduct that business. France fought Clinton's efforts to stop this. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: France's influence
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] As the leaders of the contain the US alliance? The only democracy that I know of that favors attacking Iraq without a new specific Security Council resolution authorizing it explicitly is the US. After we go in, probably without GB, this will be a significant force. Rightly or wrongly, many/most people will consider an unconstrained US as the biggest risk to themselves. I don't think that France is going to find too many people in the contain US alliance. According to recent reports, there are currently 47 nations in the coalition of the willing, who are providing material support. Unfortunately, I have not seen a listing of these nations anywhere (and I've looked), but it seems that the number may be inflated slightly. Secondly, I think that there is no nation whose official policy is *do not get a second UN Resolution, even if we could.* Thus, the appropriate numbers to consider are democracies in the current group of 47 that would bail on on the coalition without a second UN resolution. I personally think that the UK will participate even without a second reso, and Blair will hope for vindication from a short, swift, and successful war. I have no doubt that Australia, Spain, the Czech Rep., Japan, Italy, Bulgaria, and Romania (these last two only tokenly materially, but very vigorously diplomatically) will participate without a UN Resolution - and it seems likely that Canada will as well, as I have heard no reports of Canada preparing to withdraw its troops from the Gulf. Meanwhile, I have not been able to find firm reports of the material contributions being provided by other nations, but I have seen no indication Denmark, Norway, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia changing their current pro-war positions without another UN Resolution. I believe that the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Iceland are also pro-war, as they supported the defence of Turkey in NATO, but I haven't found official confirmation of that. Austria and Ireland are officially neutral, but from all reports that I have seen, they are quietly supporting the US war. Additionally, several non-democracies are clearly supporting us. Uzbekistan somehow seems to always be in our camp, for reasons I have never fully discerned. A token Arab contingent has also been assembled to participate in the fighting, including troops from Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, and just this week 1,000 troops from Saudi Arabia. These guys aren't going home without a second UN resolution. JDG - International Opion :), Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 09:35 15-03-03 -0500, JDG insultingly wrote: The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about the how it should be interpreted. ** Get real. Every person in the world new exactly what the US meant when it wrote the words serious consequences. Please, try and keep list discussions in the realm of the serious Jeroen. John, please limit yourself to attacking the *arguments* you disagree with and refrain from attacking the *people* you disagree with. Insulting your opponents does not provide any positive contribution to the discussions whatsoever but only serves to disrupt this list. Thank you for your cooperation. Quote from the Etiquette Guidelines (full text available at www.brin-l.com): Personal attacks, whether direct or indirect are not welcome. These should be handled off list, and if you disagree with some controversial point, direct the attack at the argument, not the person. I await your on-list apologies. BTW, about a week ago I already asked you to refrain from personal attacks against your opponents. I will not ask it again; the response next time will come in the form of a formal complaint filed with the list admins, with the request to take administrative action against you. Jeroen -- who realises that this particular message from JDG was only posted *on-list* because MailWasher is bouncing his *off-list* messages. _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
At 09:44 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: BTW, I'd just like to point out, that the quintessential example of Anti-Americanism is criticism of America's treatment of Puerto Rico. SIGH For the umpteenth time, John, criticism of the US does NOT equal anti-Americanism. I also criticise the Catholic Church for some of its views, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-religion. But hey, here's a challenge for you: prove beyond reasonable doubt that criticism of America's treatment of Puerto Rico equals anti-Americanism. And then prepare to have your proof shot to pieces... GRIN Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: France's influence
---Original Message--- From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip JDG - International Opion :), Maru. BTW - I forgot to include Portugal and Israel in my list of democracies who will support a war without a second UN Resolution. Apologies if I missed any others. Additionally, I missed Jordan in my list of non-democracies that will support a war without a second resolution. I am sure that there are others. JDG - Coalition of the Willing, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
The one country, one vote system also gives you the least amount of paperwork After all, either a country exists or it doesn't. This is a very puzzling statement. What about northern Somalia? It collects taxes, pays civil servants and soldiers, and you can point to it on the map. From what I have heard, it is one of the better run countries in its part of Africa. What about northern Cyprus? Not only does it collect taxes, pays civil servants and soldiers, and exist on the map, but one applicant to the EU recognizes it. -- 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
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
... do the French really think the probability of the US attacking or subverting their country sometime in the future is greater than the dangers posed by Hussein? That is not the question. The question is, for example, whether a US government thinks it better that France workers bear the cost of excess steel production than US workers. Not long after he was elected, President Bush went against Republican rhetoric on freedom of trade and decided to favor certain US workers over French workers (and over some US Republicans, one of whom told me how angry he was with Bush, for pushing up steel prices). -- 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
RE: PC-Vgames and Eye Problems: Help!
JJ wrote: (Aside: There are some extremely cool games coming out for the PS2. It seems the gas is running low for the XBOX and PC game developers... ). Pah. Panzer Dragoon Orta, um, Splinter Cell, and that's about it. We'll have to wait a little while longer before we see Halo 2, PGR 2 and Soul Calibur 2. Lal GSV Mitsurugi ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bible scholars rejoice at signs
On Saturday 2003-03-15 09:54, Julia Thompson wrote: The Fool wrote: More problematic is the fatalistic worldview of apocalyptic thinking, Hill said. Many who obsess about the end of the world fail to enjoy the life they have or reach out to help others in an effort to improve society, he said. They become morally complacent. This is illustrated by a bumper sticker seen on cars of a few Rapturists: In case of the Rapture, this car will be driverless That's a hell of a thing to inflict on everyone else you're in traffic with! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Mennonite theolgy implies that anyone who expects to be among those Raputured is in grave danger of not being raptured due to egregious pride That is, those who are certain that they are among the elect, aren't. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bible scholars rejoice at signs
The Fool wrote: The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East, writes John, possibly the apostle, of a container of Gods anger Known in modern times as a can of whoop-ass. ;-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, you pay taxes to the US government, but you don't get a say in who will be in that government, and you don't get a say in how your tax dollars are spent. No insult intended, but this sounds like Puerto Rico's primary function is that of a milk cow for the US government -- something like pay up and shut up. :-( This calls for revolution! Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk Our current status was meant, originally, as an intermediate step in the political evolution of the island. While I explain this, I may sound like this is an island with delusions of grandeur, but the status of the island has cost elections and won elections for a lot of our governors. We are a commonwealth. This status came after 40 years of a colonial government from the USA and was conceived by FDR and a very visionary governor (who happened to be related to FDR's wife, btw). Our constitution was ratified by the vote of the people in the mid-fifties, but it's meant to be an intermediate step. When the island of PR was handed over as war bounty to the USA in 1898, the primary intention of the American government was to turn at least a third of this island and its' surrounding smaller sisters into a major military center of operations. It is a matter of historical fact that whoever controls PR, controls access to the Caribbean and Central/South South America. The purpose of the commonwealth, as originally formulated, allowed an unprecedented amount of progress to take place in the economy of the island. Let's face it: after 300 years under Spanish rule, PR was the only remaining colony of the Spanish crown, and the state of affairs, financially, politically and socially was awful and dismal. Our governor at the time was able to obtain FDR's support and channel reforms that made it possible for the multinationals to start working full-swing with local employees. PR then became available as a powerful alternative as work force for those multinationals that wanted to come down here and invest in our economy. The citizens of the island are supposed to eventually come to terms with the fact that the commonwealth is not the ultimate step in our evolution, and eventually we must choose between statehood or independence. The status quo will not hold either in Congress nor in PR for 50 more years. Independence for PR is an ill-conceived dream, and it has been a poorly executed political ideal. I see that sometime in the future, PR will formally petition Congress for admission as a state of the nation. Our political party system is bipartite: it's always the two sides of the coin that are in conflict. One side: pro-statehood. The other side: pro-commonwealth. It's also a pendulum style of government. One election or two are won by one party, then another election or two are won by the other party. Right now, the party in control of the House, Senate and Governor seats is pro-commonwealth. And this is costing us plenty. JJ _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Who is the sheriff?
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:37:22PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will work in Iraq. I guess you left out has not yet succeeded or something similar. I was referring to statement that there is only so much aid that can be absorbed per year. It was associated with an example of just now getting a unified currency. The point was valid, such a limit exists, but I don't think we are there yet. From below, it appears that we agree. (If you didn't make that statement, I apologize for my hazy memory). I didn't make that statement. Maybe it was JDG or Gautam? I was only referring to the sentence of yours I quoted above -- it doesn't make sense. I think you left something out, and I guessed at what it was. Yes. Go to one of your congressman's town meetings and push it there. Find a way to state it in a manner that sounds real supportive of the general US effort, but that you would like to add to the chance of sucess...especially if your Congressman is Republican like mine. If he's Democratic, try to see his viewpoint and argue for how this supports that viewpoint. I've actually gotten a congressman to ask me for more information at such a meeting before. Great idea! I'll look into it. I've never been to a town meeting (or know where and when they are held here), but this is a good time to find that information and attend one. Do others who think that attacking Iraq is the best option agree with this too? I don't know. Do you think if we did NOT attack Iraq now, that we could spend 5 years or so building in Afghanistan, and then come back with a new President and an international coalition to oust Saddam and rebuild Iraq? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
On 15 Mar 2003 at 19:54, Robert J. Chassell wrote: ... do the French really think the probability of the US attacking or subverting their country sometime in the future is greater than the dangers posed by Hussein? That is not the question. The question is, for example, whether a US government thinks it better that France workers bear the cost of excess steel production than US workers. Not long after he was elected, President Bush went against Republican rhetoric on freedom of trade and decided to favor certain US workers over French workers (and over some US Republicans, one of whom told me how angry he was with Bush, for pushing up steel prices). Umm. He pushed *Europe*, and we pushed back, trade-wise. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: France's influence
On 15 Mar 2003 at 13:05, Dan Minette wrote: I personally think that France may be winning a victory, but that they are losing the War. Their influence will only be reduced after this is all said and done. As the leaders of the contain the US alliance? The only democracy that I know of that favors attacking Iraq without a new specific Security Council resolution authorizing it explicitly is the US. After we go in, probably without GB, this will be a significant force. Rightly or wrongly, many/most people will consider an unconstrained US as the biggest risk to themselves. The UK public and leadership are in favour. So are the Spanish. So are quite a few other Eastern European countries. So thanks for that, Dan. We're not a democracy now it seems. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RE: Deadlier Than War
On 15 Mar 2003 at 17:14, Jean-Marc Chaton wrote: * Nick Arnett [Sat, 15/03/2003 at 07:33 -0800] But that doesn't mean that there isn't an ethical difference, does it? Agreed, for me there is an ethical difference. I can't preventively bomb 100 Iraqi children even to save 1000 children from my community. The ethics to me say that if we must kill a million Iraqis to get Saddam, so be it. It's not MY choice to resist the internation community, it's Saddam's. Consider - if he does develop WMD and uses them against Israel, Bagdad will be glassed. That is, frankly, the future alternative to a war now. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: Booting from USB HD
On 15 Mar 2003 at 11:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:36 +, William T Goodall wrote: So far, I haven't seen any computers that had USB as a boot option. (I recently rolled out five brand new Pentium-4 IBM NetVista PC's, and even those didn't have that option.) Macs have been able to use a USB drive (HD or CD) as startup disk for years. My Toshiba notebook has this ability also. I might be wrong, but I believe it requires USB 2.0 on PC's. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:34:34PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you think many French reason this way? I can understand being concerned about excessive American power in general. But when specifically compared to Hussein, do the French really think the probability of the US attacking or subverting their country sometime in the future is greater than the dangers posed by Hussein? It depends on how subvert is interpreted. I meant more along the lines of covertly attack than along the lines of overshadowing or eclipsing prestige. So, to improve France's relative positon in the world, France needs to take the US down a peg. I can understand this viewpoint rationally, but I find it quite significantly more arrogant and short-sighted than Bush's behavior has been (and from me, that is saying a lot). But I thought Robert was referring more to real danger to France, military or economic, rather than just possible ego damage. Can you clear this up, Robert? I think the real fear is a cultural attack, that the French will become Americanized by their exposure to such horrors as le weekend. At the risk of ruining it, can you explain the joke? I know that le is and article for the, but what is le weekend? I thought the French worked short weeks compared to Americans, so they would have at least as long a weekend as Americans. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 07:54:38PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: ... do the French really think the probability of the US attacking or subverting their country sometime in the future is greater than the dangers posed by Hussein? That is not the question. The question is, for example, whether a US government thinks it better that France workers bear the cost of excess steel production than US workers. This seems a stretch. Are you suggesting the French think their recent actions are a good way to cut down on trade barriers with America? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, let me quote from http://click.hotbot.com/director.asp?id=2query=puerto+rico+taxes+rsource= INKtarget=http%3A%2F%2Fwelcome%2Etopuertorico%2Eorg%2Fgovernment%2Eshtml Hi, Dan. Thanks for bringing these sources to my attention. I love it when I read these interpretations of real political facts. People are always surprised to find out that they may be a little far from the truth. quote The major differences between Puerto Rico and the 50 states are its local taxation system and exemption from Internal Revenue Code, its lack of voting representation in either house of the U.S. Congress, the ineligibility of Puerto Ricans to vote in presidential elections, and its lack of assignation of some revenues reserved for the states. end quote I should have clarified that by saying we pay taxes I meant that we pay local taxes and report all our wages to the Federal Government. What would be the equivalent of sales taxes are embedded in the prices paid for products we buy at the stores, etc. They are set in the distribution line of the products instead. Also, a good chunk of our salary goes to the Feds in the form of payment of Social Security, Medicare, etc. Trust me. I know. My paycheck suffers just like anyone else's because of it. However, we do get a *lot* back from the Federal Government, in the form of financial aids and privileges of all sorts. I am by no means putting the Feds down for their support. This is just an island, and nothing more. We don't have the financial infrastructure to guarantee us a future that is not linked to the USA. Puerto Rico voted down (narrowly) becoming a state (at least twice IIRC) in the last few decades. This is a gross misinterpretation of facts. We have yet to have the final showdown referendum of statehood vs. independence. What we have had are referendums for constitutional changes, and for defining our posture on certain foreign affairs. But to date, no governor has had the gull, in the last 25 years, to handle that political hot-potato. The island is simply not ready to make that choice. There was a referendum to try to narrow down the choices between statehood, commonwealth and independence. But it was just for that: to choose what would be voted for in the final referendum, and this one has yet to happen. They also voted down independence by a wide margin. Independence is NOT a popular option. Never was, never will be. This much is true. 2% in favor, 98% against independence. Is that a wide margin or what? :) The fact that they get many of the benefits of US citizenship (including Medicaid IIRC) without paying income tax is considered a key reason that statehood was voted down. Many people calculate that Puerto Rico is in a better financial position than it would be as a state as a result of this. Not true. This is a major fallacy. Getting many of the benefits without paying income tax is NOT a reason why statehood was voted down. Statehood has never been voted down because we haven't had a chance to vote on it, to say our final word on the subject. And we may not pay taxes openly, but again, the taxes are there. They are just embedded in the prices of the articles we pay and similar areas related to trade and commerce. Cost of living is really high down here. I have read reports that indicate clearly that many states of the Union have a lower tax rate than us. This is one of the fuel arguments of the pro-statehood cause. But, there are indeed benefits in becoming a state, and statehood may pass the next election. It doesn't take a revolution; it just takes voting yes. Congress has to approve statehood, but it has indicated a willingness to do this after a yes vote in the past, and I don't see this as a big hurdle. Dan M. Thanks, JJ _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: France's influence
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:12 AM Subject: Re: France's influence ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] As the leaders of the contain the US alliance? The only democracy that I know of that favors attacking Iraq without a new specific Security Council resolution authorizing it explicitly is the US. After we go in, probably without GB, this will be a significant force. Rightly or wrongly, many/most people will consider an unconstrained US as the biggest risk to themselves. I don't think that France is going to find too many people in the contain US alliance. According to recent reports, there are currently 47 nations in the coalition of the willing, who are providing material support. Unfortunately, I have not seen a listing of these nations anywhere (and I've looked), but it seems that the number may be inflated slightly. I was talking about the opinion of people. In a January Gallup poll, the last one I could find, the numbers were: NO UN Yes ? ARGENTINA 83 4 3 10 BOLIVIA 62 25 9 4 CANADA 36 46 10 8 COLOMBIA 54 25 15 6 ECUADOR 56 19 3 22 URUGUAY 79 10 9 2 USA 21 34 33 12 AUSTRALIA 27 56 12 5 HONG KONG 47 41 8 4 INDIA 59 29 8 4 MALAYSIA 45 12 3 40 NEW ZEALAND32 52 8 8 PAKISTAN 60 16 3 21 CAMEROON 49 38 9 4 NIGERIA 51 35 10 4 KENYA 52 28 17 3 SOUTH AFRICA63 20 9 8 UGANDA 44 27 20 9 DENMARK 45 38 10 7 FINLAND 44 37 6 13 FRANCE60 27 7 6 GERMANY50 39 9 2 IRELAND 39 50 8 3 LUXEMBOURG 59 34 5 2 NETHERLANDS 38 51 7 4 PORTUGAL 53 29 10 8 SPAIN 74 13 4 9 UK - North Ireland 41 39 10 10 ICELAND49 36 7 8 SWITZERLAND 45 45 5 5 ALBANIA53 36 7 4 BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA 75 16 9 0 BULGARIA 59 28 5 8 ESTONIA64 20 9 7 GEORGIA69 18 9 4 MACEDONIA 76 13 4 7 ROMANIA 42 38 11 9 RUSSIA59 23 7 11 YUGOSLAVIA 3 20 8 69 The US numbers have shifted towards going in without the UN, but the trend polls that I have seen in other countries have indicated a firming up of the opinion that they will approve of a war only with a UN mandate. I know that Gautam is fairly optimistic that a quick US victory will change opinions. I'm not so sanguine. I can see Tony Blair having to back off involvement in the war because he could lose his job if he forces the issue. I can see the Spanish government falling too if they support us too strongly. I think France is playing this possibility for all its worth. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call totheirregulars!]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just to review, the US regularly lets the Puerto Rican vote on their status, and they have chosen the status quo every time. Like I stated on an earlier post, this is just not a correct assesment of the situation. We have yet to see the final referendum in which we have to make the final choice of our future status. Past so-called referendums have been political tools used by local governments as smoke screens to take interest from real issues that if faced, would make the island better. More like a waltz around the subject, but with no clear and final objective. Diversionary tactics. I'm running out of metaphors here. :) I think the biases that would lead one to critcize the US's handling of this are clear. JDG I don't understand. Care to elaborate? JJ _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: France's influence
Andrew Crystall wrote: The UK public and leadership are in favour. The UK public are in favour? What is that statement based on? Lal GSV Curious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call tothe irregulars!]
At 11:29 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote: BTW, I'd just like to point out, that the quintessential example of Anti-Americanism is criticism of America's treatment of Puerto Rico. Jeroen wrote: But hey, here's a challenge for you: prove beyond reasonable doubt that criticism of America's treatment of Puerto Rico equals anti-Americanism. Me: I stand by my original statement. Criticism of the US's handling of Puerto Rico is so beyond the pale, given the Puerto Ricans long history of self determination, that far and away the most likely motivation for such criticism is anti-Americanism. You're in for a disappointment then. I have it on good authority that anti-Americanism had nothing to do with my criticism. Jeroen Political Observations van Baardwijk _ Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Replacing the UN Re: Who is the sheriff?
Earlier, I wrote,
What about northern Somalia? It collects taxes, pays civil
servants and soldiers, and you can point to it on the map. From
what I have heard, it is one of the better run countries in its
part of Africa.
By `northern Somalia' I meant the part of the country that has a port
on the Gulf of Aden, Berbera. Some say that the US navy wants to
construct a naval base there although the US government does not
recognize the northern Somalian government. As far as I know, the US
government considers the area to be in rebellion against Somalia
proper, with its capital in Mogadishu.
--
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
Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 09:43:42PM +, Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: And we may not pay taxes openly, but again, the taxes are there. They are just embedded in the prices of the articles we pay and similar areas related to trade and commerce. Cost of living is really high down here. I have read reports that indicate clearly that many states of the Union have a lower tax rate than us. This is one of the fuel arguments of the pro-statehood cause. How about some numbers? What percent of your income goes to various taxes (social security, medicare, equivalent of Federal income tax, equivalent of state income tax, etc.) and what percentage of a purchase price is sales tax? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: France's influence
On 15 Mar 2003 at 21:55, Lalith Vipulananthan wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: The UK public and leadership are in favour. The UK public are in favour? What is that statement based on? Poll I saw 2 days in a newspaper. Can't think offhand which. Support has been growing recently. Andy Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Deadlier Than War
Dan Minette wrote: I've read that French resistance was fairly minimal, and that most French cooperated willingly with the Germans. Do you have a good source on the extent of French resistance? If 50 innocent lives were taken for the life of one combatant how much resistance would you expect them to put up? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Deadlier Than War
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Deadlier Than War Dan Minette wrote: I've read that French resistance was fairly minimal, and that most French cooperated willingly with the Germans. Do you have a good source on the extent of French resistance? If 50 innocent lives were taken for the life of one combatant how much resistance would you expect them to put up? As much as the Danish did. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
Erik Reuter wrote: At the risk of ruining it, can you explain the joke? I know that le is and article for the, but what is le weekend? I thought the French worked short weeks compared to Americans, so they would have at least as long a weekend as Americans. The use of the word weekend rather than its French equivalent. Other examples: le hot dog and le fast food (not sure about the gender on these). Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Heinlein and current international politics L3 Erik Reuter wrote: At the risk of ruining it, can you explain the joke? I know that le is and article for the, but what is le weekend? I thought the French worked short weeks compared to Americans, so they would have at least as long a weekend as Americans. The use of the word weekend rather than its French equivalent. Other examples: le hot dog and le fast food (not sure about the gender on these). The French equivalent had to be invented. IIRC, the use of le weekend is against the law. How chauvinistic of them. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: France's influence
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The US numbers have shifted towards going in without the UN, but the trend polls that I have seen in other countries have indicated a firming up of the opinion that they will approve of a war only with a UN mandate. I know that Gautam is fairly optimistic that a quick US victory will change opinions. I'm not so sanguine. I can see Tony Blair having to back off involvement in the war because he could lose his job if he forces the issue. I can see the Spanish government falling too if they support us too strongly. I think France is playing this possibility for all its worth. Dan M. Me too. I do think that _British_ opinion will change with a quick victory - has there ever, in all of history, been an unpopular victorious war? But I don't think French public opinion will change either way. Note, btw, that this was, in my opinion, the single largest mistake made by the Bush Administration, and it goes all the way back to the early days of Afghanistan. The Administration, at the behest of the Pentagon, refused France's offer of military aide, for the good reason that France's military was so far behind the American one that this would actually be a hindrance, not a help. This is a classic example of a situation where military necessity should be overrided by strategic (i.e. political) concerns. Before World War I, General Joffre was asked how many British troops he needed to defend France. He replied, One, and we will put ensure that he is shot. His point was the involving _any_ British troops in combat would, almost certainly, bring wholehearted British support fairly soon. I don't know if France's hostility to the United States is so deeply ingrained that having American and French soldiers fighting side by side in Afghanistan wouldn't have helped, but it should have been tried. I also wonder how different things would look if Schroeder had lost in Germany. France, isolated in Europe, would not, I think, have acted in this fashion. Without a Franco-German Axis, they are nothing. World opinion would look a lot different if this was all of the governments of the West, plus Japan and Australia (culturally, a member of the West) were standing together in this situation - something that would have happened, I think, if the CDU were running Germany right now. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Deadlier Than War
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Minette wrote: I've read that French resistance was fairly minimal, and that most French cooperated willingly with the Germans. Do you have a good source on the extent of French resistance? If 50 innocent lives were taken for the life of one combatant how much resistance would you expect them to put up? As much as the Danish did. Dan M. Or, you know, the Russians, who had a pretty effective partisan campaign going. Or the Serbs, in Yugoslavia. The Vichy government could, at the least, have pretended to care about preserving the lives of its Jewish citizens, instead of shipping them off with enthusiasm. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Deadlier Than War
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Deadlier Than War Or, you know, the Russians, who had a pretty effective partisan campaign going. Or the Serbs, in Yugoslavia. One of my favorite people during the time I was a kid was widowed because her husband was in the resistance. She agreed to marry a Serb. in the US, sight unseen so that her son could have a good life. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call tothe irregulars!]
---Original Message--- From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're in for a disappointment then. I have it on good authority that anti-Americanism had nothing to do with my criticism. * Whose authority, yours? Heh. Believe me Jeroen, your doing exactly what I would expect of you is hardly a disappointment for me JDG P.S. Prediction: Jeroen's next message will ask me what would I expect. Double-Bonus Prediction: My next message will be my answer: Deny the fact that you have ant-American biases. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ah...My Favorite Topic - Books (Was Question about Spoilers)
Julia asked G. D. Akin wrote: Sheesh, I hope not. I've never read his works, but I will soon read his Claw of the Conciliator which won a Nebula a few years back. I'm trying to read all the Hugo (actually, done that) and Nebula Award winners. Just a goal. I had that as a goal (the Hugos, anyway) and kind of have let it slide lately. Good goal, IMO. (I've managed to at least *acquire* all but a couple of Hugo-winning novels. Now it's just a matter of *reading*.) What are your favorites of all the Hugo novels? Julia Tough question! I'll pick my top five in no particular order. - 1978 Gateway Frederick Pohl - 1988 The Uplift War David Brin - 1962 Stranger in a Strange Land Robert A. Heinlien - 1971 Ringworld Larry Niven - 1976 The Forever War Joe Haldeman If you really press me for an absolute favorite, I'd give a slight nod to Stranger in a Strange Land. Worst (IMO) tie - 1958The Big TimeFritz Leiber - 1963The Man in the High CastlePhilip K. Dick Nebula Winners still to Read - 1966Babel-17 Samuel R. Delany - 1968Einstein Intersection Samuel R. Delany - 1971A Time of Changes Robert Silverberg - 1981The Claw of the Conciliator Gene Wolfe - 1987The Falling Woman Pat Murphy - 1990Tehanu: The Last Book of Earthsea Ursula K. LeGuin - 1999Parable of the Talents Octavia E. Butler - 2001The Quantum Rose Catherine Asaro George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: France's influence
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was talking about the opinion of people. In a January Gallup poll, the last one I could find, the numbers were: ** Again, though, I definitely believe that those numbers are skewed by the presence of the UN option. If truly forced to choose between supporting the US in War without UN and opposing the US in war without the UN, I think that those numbers look much differently. Moreover, I think that the opions of governments are more important that those of polls. I think that this is a prime example of why republican government is preferrable to a direct democratic government as sometimes governments need to make tough decisions that an inexpert populace might not make. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Question about Spoilers
William wrote: Since 'Claw' is volume 2 of _The Book of the New Sun_, it might be a good idea to start with volume 1, The Shadow of the Torturer. Probably. I have a self-inflicted rule to read any prequel in a series, so I will do as you suggest. I have a nice SFBC omnibus edition of The Book of the New Sun in my to read stack. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about some numbers? Why not? Take your pick. You have infinite choices!! JUST KIDDING! ;-) (A little math humor..) What percent of your income goes to various taxes (social security, medicare, equivalent of Federal income tax, equivalent of state income tax, etc.) and what percentage of a purchase price is sales tax? Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ I have to admit the last place *on Earth* I thought I'd end up discussing my Income Tax return was on a SciFi themed mailing list. But hey, it's Saturday nite. I can kick back for a while. If I use my experience as a frame of reference, roughly 9.22% from the monthly paycheck goes to Social Security and Medicare, while only 7.5% go to local state taxes. This amounts to a deduction of a 16.72% from your salary in tax related discounts alone, which is not taking into consideration the calculations that are finalized when you file your tax return and the deductions to which you may be eligible or not, depending on your bracket, etc. From my experience, at the time you file the tax return, you end up paying a little bit more which takes it around to (approximately) one third of your yearly salary. And that's A LOT. As far as tax-related mark-ups for prices of articles, my guesstimate is that it would be somewhere in the vicinity of the 3 to 9 percent (and maybe a little higher), depending on the article and where it comes from. Our current trade agreement needs a little working, too. For example, products like Tylenol or BauschLomb Contact Lens Care Products are produced in PR, but you can't appreciate a difference in price that would reflect the fact that they are manufactured locally, as one would normally come to expect. A 50 pill bottle of Tylenol PM Extra Strength Gelcaps can go up to $6 or more, and it is manufactured HERE. This is irrelevant of where you buy. Such is the case of, for example, expensive clothing lines which may be mass-produced overseas where they are usually available at the fraction of the price they retail in the States PR. For a more clear example, I believe that in Mexico you can obtain a decent Volkswagen for ridiculous prices, because they are manufactured there. Isn't that the case of the BMW in Germany and Europe? In contrast, those products for us are status symbols of the upper classes. I guess statehood would end a lot of financial woes. Like I mentioned before, this island is by no means self-sufficient. Most pro-independence supporters claim that oh, we can produce enough with the land we have to sustain the island's economy. This is a pathetic claim. Agriculture has been all but abandoned, due to the fact that the former trade agreements that made us top suppliers of products like sugar or coffee have been overturned, or our competition from new markets has just gone way over our production numbers. Another big headache in the economic horizon for Puerto Rico is Cuba. There is a big, big possibility that in the near future trade lines between Cuba and the US may be re-established to the way they were before Castro took over. Castro's death may bring this, or he may just have to give in and admit to the choke-hold the current restrictions imposed by the US have in Cuba, and force him to open up to a more democratic trend of government. And if that happens, may God have mercy on PR. Hand labor in Cuba will be infinitely cheaper, just as it is in the Dominican Republic. Workers in PR have obtained something called rights, which they have obtained as being under the umbrella of the US Constitution. Rights that regulate minimum wage, for example, are nonexistent in countries/islands like Cuba or the Dominican Republic. The very few tax exemptions we had, by way of our prior agreements with the Federal government have simply expired in the light of REALLY bad political decisions from the part of government factions in PR that want to see the commonwealth dismembered. Therefore, Cuba may end up being the haven it was for american commerce, and that would certainly spell doom for PR economy. I also have to admit I don't have the information that has been distilled from the economists' analysis which explain why statehood would be better, financially, for the average PR citizen. At least, at this time. I could dig it up for the sake of the discussion, but it will take me a couple of days. P.R The Shining *Star* of the Caribbean... :-( JJ _ 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: Tropical US Politics [Was Re: br!n: Re: a call to theirregulars!]
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 01:45:09AM +, Jose J. Ortiz-Carlo wrote: If I use my experience as a frame of reference, roughly 9.22% from the monthly paycheck goes to Social Security and Medicare, while only 7.5% go to local state taxes. In the 50 states, last I checked, we paid 6.2% for social security and 1.45% for Medicare. Add to that the Federal income tax, ranging from 10% to 38.6% (a median income person would pay around 15% net for Federal income tax since it is graduated). State income taxes range from 0 to about 10%. If we take a median figure for state tax of 3%, then adding it up for a median income person we have about 26%. This amounts to a deduction of a 16.72% from your salary in tax related discounts alone, which is not taking into consideration the calculations that are finalized when you file your tax return and the deductions to which you may be eligible or not, depending on your bracket, etc. From my experience, at the time you file the tax return, you end up paying a little bit more which takes it around to (approximately) one third of your yearly salary. And that's A LOT. You seem to use the words differently than they are used in the States. A deduction is normally a REDUCTION in your taxes (technically, you deduct some expense from your income which results in a lower taxable income and thus a lower tax). I don't see how you get from 16.72% to 33.3%. Could you explain? If your ~17% figure is correct, it looks like your taxes are lower than in the States. If your 33% figure is correct, then it is higher. As far as tax-related mark-ups for prices of articles, my guesstimate is that it would be somewhere in the vicinity of the 3 to 9 percent (and maybe a little higher), depending on the article and where it comes from. Sales taxes in the states and localities I've lived in (Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey) have ranged from about 5% up to 8%. Our current trade agreement needs a little working, too. For example, products like Tylenol or BauschLomb Contact Lens Care Products are produced in PR, but you can't appreciate a difference in price that would reflect the fact that they are manufactured locally, as one would normally come to expect. A 50 pill bottle of Tylenol PM Extra Strength Gelcaps can go up to $6 or more, and it is manufactured HERE. This is irrelevant of where you buy. That doesn't sound so strange to me. With Tylenol, you are paying a lot for the name, so where it is manufactured isn't so relevant. If you buy generic acetiminophen tablets, it will be less, perhaps as little as half the price of Tylenol. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brawl erupts after song played at rodeo
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/31403_local_rodeofight.html Talk of war with Iraq has sparked an atmosphere of tension and anxiety. And it may be to blame for a brawl that broke out at the rodeo Thursday night With some 15,000 to 20,000 folks at the rodeo drinking beer and having fun, things can get a little out of hand at times. It happened when a tape of Lee Greenwood's song Proud To Be An American was playing. Some rodeo fans were standing and others were sitting down. Felix Fanaselle and his buddies chose to remain seated. This guy behind us starts yelling at us (because) we're not standing up, said Fanaselle. He starts cussing at us, telling us to go back to Iraq. The 16-year-old said the man seated behind him started spitting at him and spilling his beer on him and his friends. By the end of the song, he pulled my ear. I got up. He pushed me. I pushed him, said Felix. He punched me in my face. I got him off me. When the dust settled, Fanaselle had been handcuffed and released. He and John McCambridge were cited for mutual combat and fighting in public. That's a $200 fine. Fanaselle's lawyer says you don't have to stand for a country and western song. I guess next time, he'll think maybe we need to stand for the Okie From Muscogee, said attorney Clayton Rawlings. This is phony patriotism. This man needs to be ashamed of himself for what he did. Rawlings says he and the Fanaselle family will give McCambridge a chance to make this right without going to court. The family says the biggest insult was McCambridge telling Fanaselle to go back to Iraq. Fanaselle is half Hispanic and half Italian. He was born in this country and who is this clown to tell him to go back where he came from? He came from Houston, Texas, so he is where he came from, said Rawlings. Rawlings says if the citation isn't dismissed after witnesses testify, they'll be going to court with accusations of assault and battery, mental anguish and lawyer's fees. Eyewitness news tried to contact John McCambridge in Austin for his side of the story, but so far there's been no response. xponent Tale Of The Cowboy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Word is made flesh as God reveals himself... as a fish
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,915125,00.html An obscure Jewish sect in New York has been gripped in awe by what it believes to be a mystical visitation by a 20lb carp that was heard shouting in Hebrew, in what many Jews worldwide are hailing as a modern miracle. Many of the 7,000-member Skver sect of Hasidim in New Square, 30 miles north of Manhattan, believe God has revealed himself in fish form. According to two fish-cutters at the New Square Fish Market, the carp was about to be slaughtered and made into gefilte fish for Sabbath dinner when it suddenly began shouting apocalyptic warnings in Hebrew. Many believe the carp was channelling the troubled soul of a revered community elder who recently died; others say it was God. The only witnesses to the mystical show were Zalmen Rosen, a 57-year-old Hasid with 11 children, and his co-worker, Luis Nivelo. They say that on 28 January at 4pm they were about to club the carp on the head when it began yelling. Nivelo, a Gentile who does not understand Hebrew, was so shocked at the sight of a fish talking in any language that he fell over. He ran into the front of the store screaming: 'It's the Devil! The Devil is here!' Then the shop owner heard it shouting warnings and commands too. 'It said Tzaruch shemirah and Hasof bah,' he told the New York Times, 'which essentially means that everyone needs to account for themselves because the end is near.' The animated carp commanded Rosen to pray and study the Torah. Rosen tried to kill the fish but injured himself. It was finally butchered by Nivelo and sold. However, word spread far and wide and Nivelo complains he has been plagued by phone calls from as far away as London and Israel. The story has since been amplified by repetition and some now believe the fish's outburst was a warning about the dangers of the impending war in Iraq. Some say they fear the born-again President Bush believes he is preparing the world for the Second Coming of Christ, and war in Iraq is just the opening salvo in the battle of Armageddon. Local resident Abraham Spitz said: 'Two men do not dream the same dream. It is very rare that God reminds people he exists in this modern world. But when he does, you cannot ignore it.' Others in New Square discount the apocalyptic reading altogether and suggest the notion of a talking fish is as fictional as Tony Soprano's talking-fish dream in an episode of The Sopranos . Stand-up comedians have already incorporated the carp into their comedy routines at weddings. One gefilte company has considered changing it's slogan to: 'Our fish speaks for itself.' Still, the shouting carp corresponds with the belief of some Hasidic sects that righteous people can be reincarnated as fish. They say that Nivelo may have been selected because he is not Jewish, but a weary Nivelo told the New York Times : 'I wish I never said anything about it. I'm getting so many calls every day, I've stopped answering. Israel, London, Miami, Brooklyn. They all want to hear about the talking fish.' A devout Christian, he still thinks the carp was the Devil. 'I don't believe any of this Jewish stuff. But I heard that fish talk.' He's grown tired of the whole thing. 'It's just a big headache for me,' he added. 'I pull my phone out of the wall at night. I don't sleep and I've lost weight.' xponent Speaker To Fis Maru rob My love and I, we escaped, we left no trace For they had raped both body and soul ... The taste was much too hard to swallow, We ran naked through the cold ... Above our heads, in fiery red, The clouds, they bled like open wounds across the sky ... The wings of many nations, falling, burning, turning, Trying oh, so hard to die ... Oh, oh, oh, oh, there's Panic in the World ... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
France seeks urgent Iraq rethink
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/15/villepin/index.html French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said on Saturday he believed Washington was now working on the basis that war could start in Iraq in a matter of days, and urged a rapid rethink at U.N. level. Paris also issued a statement urging an emergency meeting of U.N. Security Council ministers on the heels of an arms inspections report next Tuesday. Speaking on television after the statement, Villepin said France could compromise on some issues regarding the speed of arms inspections, but not on any automatic trigger to war. France is prepared to compromise, on the basis of a very tight timetable (for inspections), but not on an ultimatum and not on automatic recourse to force, he said on France 2 television. Asked if he now believed war was imminent as far as the United States and its closest supporters were concerned, Villepin said:We think the talk was of a March 17 deadline, and there was a question of allowing a few extra days, but I think that for the Americans it's a question of days. When the moment of truth comes, when you see what is being prepared now and the consequences and the uncertainty that war could mean for the world, I believe a last moment of reflection would be welcome, he said. The Foreign Ministry statement called for a United Nations meeting at ministerial level next week and said nothing justified recourse to war at this stage. The statement was issued on the eve of a meeting in the Azores islands in the middle of the Atlantic between U.S President George W. Bush, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. An official at the ministry said the same statement was also being issued in Russia and Germany, two other countries that have joined France in resisting pressure from Washington to back military action against Iraq. xponent Not On Their Timeline Maru rob Workings of man Set to ply out historical life Reregaining the flower of the fruit of his tree All awakening All restoring you Workings of man Crying out from the fire set aflame By his blindness to see that the warmth of his being Is promised for his seeing his reaching so clearly Workings of man Driven far from the path Rereleased in inhibitions So that all is left for you all is left for you all is left for you all this left for you NOW... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: France's influence
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Re: France's influence ---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was talking about the opinion of people. In a January Gallup poll, the last one I could find, the numbers were: ** Again, though, I definitely believe that those numbers are skewed by the presence of the UN option. If truly forced to choose between supporting the US in War without UN and opposing the US in war without the UN, I think that those numbers look much differently. The eternal optimist? John, the question was 1) Not even with UN backing 2) Only with UN backing 3) Even without UN backing You really think all the 2s are going to slide into 1s? What's amazing to me is how many people would be opposed to action, even if mandated by the UN. Moreover, I think that the opions of governments are more important that those of polls. I think that this is a prime example of why republican government is preferrable to a direct democratic government as sometimes governments need to make tough decisions that an inexpert populace might not make. And, what are the chances of being re-elected when they take actions that are opposed by the overwhelming majority of their citizens? If I were a politician willing to do what it takes, I'd say that I would represent the interest of _fill the country in here_ and not by Bush's lap dog. Unless the war in Iraq is not considered important by people, why wouldn't politicians who oppose it have a tremendous advantage in the next election in countries where the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to the war? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: France's influence
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unless the war in Iraq is not considered important by people, why wouldn't politicians who oppose it have a tremendous advantage in the next election in countries where the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to the war? Dan M. That may be the case, though, Dan. Certainly, Schroeder is even farther out there than Chirac in opposing the war, and David Hasselhoff probably has a better chance of getting elected Chancellor in the next go-around than he does. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The World's First Brain Prosthesis
Public release date: 12-Mar-2003 New Scientist issue: 15th March 2003 http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns3488 The World's First Brain Prosthesis By DUNCAN GRAHAM-ROWE AN ARTIFICIAL hippocampus, the world's first brain prosthesis, is about to be tested in California. Unlike devices like cochlear implants, which merely stimulate brain activity, this silicon chip implant will perform the same processes as the damaged part of the brain it is replacing. The prosthesis will first be tested on tissue from rats' brains, and then on live animals. If all goes well, it will then be tested as a way to help people who have suffered brain damage due to stroke, epilepsy or Alzheimer's disease. Any device that mimics the brain clearly raises ethical issues. The brain not only affects memory, but your mood, awareness and consciousness - parts of your fundamental identity, says ethicist Joel Anderson at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. The researchers developing the brain prosthesis see it as a test case. If you can't do it with the hippocampus you can't do it with anything, says team leader Theodore Berger of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. The hippocampus is the most ordered and structured part of the brain, and one of the most studied. Importantly, it is also relatively easy to test its function. The job of the hippocampus appears to be to encode experiences so they can be stored as long-term memories elsewhere in the brain. If you lose your hippocampus you only lose the ability to store new memories, says Berger. That offers a relatively simple and safe way to test the device: if someone with the prosthesis regains the ability to store new memories, then it's safe to assume it works. The inventors of the prosthesis had to overcome three major hurdles. They had to devise a mathematical model of how the hippocampus performs under all possible conditions, build that model into a silicon chip, and then interface the chip with the brain. No one understands how the hippocampus encodes information. So the team simply copied its behaviour. Slices of rat hippocampus were stimulated with electrical signals, millions of times over, until they could be sure which electrical input produces a corresponding output. Putting the information from various slices together gave the team a mathematical model of the entire hippocampus. They then programmed the model onto a chip, which in a human patient would sit on the skull rather than inside the brain. It communicates with the brain through two arrays of electrodes, placed on either side of the damaged area. One records the electrical activity coming in from the rest of the brain, while the other sends appropriate electrical instructions back out to the brain. The hippocampus can be thought of as a series of similar neural circuits that work in parallel, says Berger, so it should be possible to bypass the damaged region entirely (see Graphic). Berger and his team have taken nearly 10 years to develop the chip. They are about to test it on slices of rat brain kept alive in cerebrospinal fluid, they will tell a neural engineering conference in Capri, Italy, next week. It's a very important step because it's the first time we have put all the pieces together, he says. The work was funded by the US National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. If it works, the team will test the prosthesis in live rats within six months, and then in monkeys trained to carry out memory tasks. The researchers will stop part of the monkey's hippocampus working and bypass it with the chip. The real proof will be if the animal's behaviour changes or is maintained, says Sam Deadwyler of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, who will conduct the animal trials. The hippocampus has a similar structure in most mammals, says Deadwyler, so little will have to be changed to adapt the technology for people. But before human trials begin, the team will have to prove unequivocally that the prosthesis is safe. One drawback is that it will inevitably bypass some healthy brain tissue. But this should not affect the patient's memories, says Berger. It would be no different from removing brain tumours, where there is always some collateral damage, says Bernard Williams, a philosopher at Britain's University of Oxford, who is an expert in personal identity. Anderson points out that it will take time for people to accept the technology. Initially people thought heart transplants were an abomination because they assumed that having the heart you were born with was an important part of who you are. While trials on monkeys will tell us a lot about the prosthesis's performance, there are some questions that won't be answered. For example, it is unclear whether we have any control over what we remember. If we do, would brain implants of the future force some people to remember things they would
Re: Word is made flesh as God reveals himself... as a fish
In a message dated 3/15/2003 7:56:23 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An obscure Jewish sect in New York has been gripped in awe by what it believes to be a mystical visitation by a 20lb carp that was heard shouting in Hebrew, .. Carp? Hey deum. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda ... Or, you know, the Russians, who had a pretty effective partisan campaign going. Or the Serbs, in Yugoslavia. The Vichy government could, at the least, have pretended to care about preserving the lives of its Jewish citizens, instead of shipping them off with enthusiasm. For heaven's sake... The Vichy government was not the government of France. It was a small group that collaborated with the Nazis, after the Nazis had already defeated the French army. Yet the way you offered this out of context suggests that you would have us believe that the so-called Vichy government was France. Is that what you intended? At any rate, even calling it a government is terribly misleading to anyone who doesn't know French history. Certainly France's behavior toward Jews during WWII was among the worst in Europe outside of Germany itself, but clearly was the work of a small minority that was only able to do thanks to Nazi occupation. While that group surely was wrong, characterizing the entire nation, a nation that granted Jews citizenship in its revolution (far better treatment than many other nations), by the behavior of the Vichys is fairly outrageous. They were atavists who wanted to return to pre-revolutionary Catholic aristocracy. At most, they made up 20 percent of the population. Given your earlier misrepresentation of French gratitude about its liberation in WWII and now this comment, I'm wondering if you simply don't know much about France or you have some anti-French prejudice, or it is carelessness driven by your distaste for their position regarding Iraq... or what? In any event, I hope the clarifications are appreciated. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: France seeks urgent Iraq rethink
---Original Message--- From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] France is prepared to compromise, on the basis of a very tight timetable (for inspections), but not on an ultimatum... Me: France can't ever agree to *any* ultimatum to Iraq? That is all you need to know about how fundamentally unserious France is about this situation... Pathetic really. Villepin: When the moment of truth comes, when you see what is being prepared now and the consequences and the uncertainty that war could mean for the world, I believe a last moment of reflection would be welcome, he said. Me: Mr. Villepin, that smell in the air is the smell of *defeat*. THe US does not need your blessing to defend ourselves, and you can be rest assured that we won't make the mistake of asking for it again. France, welcome to the margins of history. I hope you enjoy your stay there - as it looks to be a long one... JDG - Au Revoir, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The World's First Brain Prosthesis
The inventors of the prosthesis had to overcome three major hurdles. They had to devise a mathematical model of how the hippocampus performs under all possible conditions, build that model into a silicon chip, and then interface the chip with the brain. My first thought about a hippocampus is where are they going to find cheerleaders that can do the splits. Sometimes I can't seem to turn it off A real question, but still not on the very serious side: Will this be just one more thing that'll set off airport security alarms? William Taylor - As long as no one gets control of the remote ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Corrected French history (was RE: Deadlier Than War)
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given your earlier misrepresentation of French gratitude about its liberation in WWII and now this comment, I'm wondering if you simply don't know much about France or you have some anti-French prejudice, or it is carelessness driven by your distaste for their position regarding Iraq... or what? In any event, I hope the clarifications are appreciated. Nick Since they seem to be made by someone who knows a _lot_ less of France's history than I do, no, not really. The Vichy government was a collaborationist government of France that ran southern France _without German occupation_ for much of the early war. German troops did not move into Vichy-controlled areas for at least a couple of years after 1940. German demands for the exportation of Jews were met with more alacrity in France than they were in _Italy_, an actual honest-to-God Axis power. There is no record of significant efforts to prevent the massacre of the Jews by the Vichy government, which had much more independence than dilettantes in French history realize, by the French Catholic Church, by the Resistance, or by anyone else of significance in French society. You might want to look up the Dreyfuss Affair for more information on how deeply anti-Semitism was set into the elites of French society. Zola (who wrote J'Accuse!) was driven into exile and, many people believe, murdered for his role in exposing this. Nor do I think I was misrepresenting anything about French gratitude - I don't think anything you say quite qualifies as demonstrating that I am misrepresenting anything. When a bestselling book in France is about how Americans were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, that rather says something about French society. When American tourists in France are told to identify themselves as Canadian to avoid trouble, that says something too. When France expelled American soldiers - another incident you might want to examine, and prompting the SecDef at the time to ask De Gaulle, in one of the great moments in American diplomatic history, Does that include the ones buried in Normandy?, that wasn't exactly an expression of gratitude either, come to think of it. I wonder if given your earlier arrogant sanctimoniousness on related topics you simply don't know much about France and world politics in general, or you have some need to preen in your own perceived superiority, or you're driven by your contempt for people from conservative positions, or what? I hope this clarification helps. Now, are we done? Do you want to at least pretend to be civil to me, and stop calling me a fascist or a bigot, and I'll stop calling you an arrogant prick and a fool, or does this have to continue? I don't want it too, but I'm not willing to put up with it in silence, either. Gautam __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Re: Re: France's influence
---Original Message--- From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] The eternal optimist? John, the question was 1) Not even with UN backing 2) Only with UN backing 3) Even without UN backing You really think all the 2s are going to slide into 1s? Not all, but I expect that enough will. I think that we've seen some of that effect here on Brin-L, with several posters very reluctantly falling into the even without UN backing camp, now that it has become clear that UN backing simply will not happen. Moreover, those numbers will take a big jump after we win the war. It is easy to forget just how unpopular Gulf War I once was. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
