Freedom is Slavery: pre-emptively arresting protesters
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/A4CE375042FC097E862 56D280072957D?OpenDocumentHeadline=Police+raid+three+buildings,+detain+oc cupants Police raid three buildings, detain occupants By Heather Ratcliffe Post-Dispatch updated: 05/16/2003 03:57 PM St. Louis police detained an undisclosed number of people Friday in a sweep of at least three buildings said to be used by protesters of the World Agricultural Forum, which starts here Sunday. In at least some cases, officers were accompanied by building inspectors who checked for occupancy permits and building code compliance. Police Chief Joe Mokwa promised an explanation in a press conference at 3:45 p.m. One police source said about 15 people were in custody from various locations. Included was a building at 3022 Cherokee Street that houses Gateway Green, sponsor of a conference called Biodevastation 7. It is a gathering of activists, meeting this weekend at St. Louis Community College at Forest Park, intending the counter the conference of world agricultural leaders at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Union Station. Also raided were two houses in the 3300 block of Illinois Avenue. One woman was arrested, her companions said, when police stopped a van and confiscated pills in an unmarked container that she said were vitamins. An occupant of the van said they were videotaped by people in plain clothes who accompanied officers. The sweep started about 11:30 a.m. and continued into the afternoon. People who identified themselves as protesters said police had been stopping them in recent days for riding bicycles without helmets or driving vehicles with burned-out lights. Brian Tokar, one of the organizers of the Biodevastation 7 conference, said that there has been no violence at other Biodevastation meetings that coincide with World Agriculture Forums because the forums -- unlike meetings of the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund or World Bank -- do not enact policies that affect farmers and consumers. He said St. Louis police are overreacting and inflating the number of people who will protest. We've been doing these events for years, he said. Every year in the U.S. we've gotten these insane, inflammatory issues from the police. It's to inflame public passion and to prvent public discussion of the dangers of agribusiness. Matt LeMieux, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, said his office received about two dozen phone calls in two hours Friday about conference attendees being arrested. I think if the police are going to conduct searchees and arrest people, it ought to be based on current conduct of what a person is doing now, he said. But what they're doing is pre-emptively trying to arrest people. It's a bad and unconstitutional policy. He said he was told that in one instance, at the home of some local, grass-roots activists where some protesters were lodging, police showed up with a building inspector and said they both must be let in or the building would be condemned. LeMieux termed the threat a trick that enables police to search a home without a warrant. Of the St. Louis police, he said, I think they've gotten some pretty bad advice from police departments in other cities where these protests have taken place. Instead of contacting the protest organizers and making sure the violent elements are kept out, they went the other direction. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Eric Rudolph - Captured
Eric Rudolph, abortion clinic bomber, suspected Atlanta Olympics bomber, appears to have been finally captured after years on the FBI most wanted list. Early reports are that he is being held in Charlotte North Carolina. Rudolph has had a $1,000,000 bounty on his head for many years. I'll post a link as soon as one appears. xponent Justice Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court further dilutes Miranda protections
At 03:55 AM 5/31/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5954295.htm Supreme Court further dilutes Miranda protections BY STEPHEN HENDERSON Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A splintered Supreme Court took another swipe at the landmark Miranda ruling Tuesday, Uh. I don't see how the reporter reaches this conclusion. It seems rather obvious that someone's right to not self-incriminate is not violated if that person is never incriminated, whether by one's self or otherwise. The Supreme Court then left open the question as to whether or not this conduct violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment by sending it back to the lower court for review - standard practice when a lower court has not had an adequate opportunity to consider an argument that was made before the Supreme Court, but not adequately presented before the lower court. Indeed, it seems almost ludicrous to complain about weakening due process rights by in fact *insisiting* upon the due process of having lower courts first consider legal arguments before going to the Supreme Court. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 09:33 PM 5/29/2003 -0700 d.brin wrote: He said the oversight was a lesson about unforeseen tools being used. No. The lesson is to let all passenger KEEP their pocket knives. thanks for showing this. db So, do you also agree that there was a recent lesson that teachers in school should not be able to keep their handguns? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: H.I.P.A.A.
From: The Fool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Speaking as someone who has been immersed in HIPAA for the last 2 years for my job, this article is HORRIBLE and full of inaccuracies. Whether you know it or not you now have a medical identification number. Er, no. You don't. I just received a copy of an in-house memo from an employer concerning HIPAA Compliance. It states, Attached is a privacy notice that (name of company) is required to provide to you based upon a new health privacy law entitled the (print following in bold) Health Insurance Portabality and Accountability Act or HIPAA for short. If you have acquired medical services or filled a prescription in the past two days, you have probably been given a similar notice by the provider. You do not need to take any action regarding this notice, we are simply required by law to provide it to you. This is known as the Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP). All health providrers are required by HIPAA to give you a NPP so you know what they do with your private medical information. It has NOTHING to do with a medical number. You are being told that this new ID number is to protect your privacy but in reality your medical privacy is now beyond your control. These new rules actually destroy your ability to restrict access to your medical records. Doctors, dentists, pharmacists and hospital personnel as well as insurance companies, are now required to share your medical records with the FDA, law enforcement agencies, the US Department of Health and Human Services and even foreign governments, without asking your permission. Such medical information cannot be withheld and doctors and insurance companies do not have to inform you as to who gets your records. The law states, This is for national security reasons. The HIPAA law was passed in 1996! This was long before any of the current national security hysteria. I don't recall anything in the regulation or the law stating anything about national security reasons. Also, all health care providers and plans are required to keep track of disclosures of private health information (PHI) to others for non-treatment, non-payment and non-operational reasons. And as a patient, you have the right to ask the health care provider to whom your information was disclosed. And they have to tell you. You will be informed at the doctor's office, the pharmacy, the hospital or other care providers about your new number. You will be asked to read the new federal regulation and sign a document stating that you did read the regulations, understand it and agree to the new procedures. If you don't sign the document your doctor may refuse to treat you and your insurance company is allowed to refuse coverage. There is no new number. The original HIPAA law did have a national membership ID number in it but Congress specifically exempted HHS from implementing that part of the law. There will be no national membership id number. Not a chance. There will be a national payor number and a national provider/doctor number, but that's it. The doctor may refuse to treat you because by not signing what you are saying to the doctor is go ahead and treat me but you can't give any information to my insurance company or anyone else. Of course the doctor isn't going to do that! They want to get paid. Anytime you feel that your doctor/patient confidentiality has been violated or you've lost your privacy rights you may complain directly to the Department of Health and Human Services. Regardless of your complaint you are not allowed to bring a lawsuit against a doctor or an insurance company for a breach of privacy. Correct, sorta. You cannot sue a doctor or insurance company for a breach of the HIPAA rules. But that doesn't stop you from being able to sue under other laws for a breach of privacy. The standards for privacy of individually identifiable health information rule officially went into effect on April 14, 2001. The enforcement of that rule went into effect April 14, 2003. It was published in 2001 and went into effect in 2003. To say that these new rules and regulation are to protect your medical privacy is bureaucratic double-speak at its worst. There are parts of the HIPAA rule that I don't like, but there are plenty more that I do like. Both as a member of the healthcare community and as a patient. - jmh HIPAA Hippo Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: H.I.P.A.A.
Horn, John wrote: There are parts of the HIPAA rule that I don't like, but there are plenty more that I do like. Both as a member of the healthcare community and as a patient. HIPAA legislation is costing a lot of companies a great deal of money, though. Some of what we do at BCA includes administration for welfare funds, and it's a moumentous task for a small shop like ours. But we're getting through it. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Brin 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 10:21 AM 5/31/2003 -0400 John D. Giorgis wrote: At 09:33 PM 5/29/2003 -0700 d.brin wrote: He said the oversight was a lesson about unforeseen tools being used. No. The lesson is to let all passenger KEEP their pocket knives. thanks for showing this. db So, do you also agree that there was a recent lesson that teachers in school should not be able to keep their handguns? JDG E. That should be: So, do you also agree that there was a recent lesson that teachers in school *should* be able to keep their handguns? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: H.I.P.A.A.
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:31:44AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: this article is HORRIBLE and full of inaccuracies. Which is what I have come to expect from most of the articles posted by Fool. I used to at least skim the articles he posted, but now I usually delete them without opening them. He should really do more filtering and critical thinking or fact checking before he posts his articles. It wouldn't hurt if he paid attention to the credibility of the sources, as well. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Preface to _Earth_
At 04:19 PM 5/28/2003 -0700 d.brin wrote: Instead now we see an immature, triumphalist Pax Americana, almost deliberately spitting in the eyes of everybody in sight, driving Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing and Teheran into each others' arms. Not subtle. Not far-seeing. Not wise. Uhhh except we are *not* seeing that. Moscow and Beijjing have shown no signs of cooperation, ever since Yeltsin and Zemin signed a largely toothless declaration in the mid-90's.Since then,cooperation has been hampered by the fact that Russia and China find it nearly impossible to trust each other, especially with China having a billion people bordering a vast, underpopulated, and resource-rich region of Siberia. Nothing in the past year, since this Iraq debate started, has really indicated a change in this dynamic whereby Russia and China are growing closer together.Indeed, Bush will be visiting St. Petersburg today precisely because Russia is making a concerted effort to repair US-Russian relations following the conclusion of the war. The same is true of Germany, which is currently campaigning hard to *maintain* America's military bases within its territory and is also trying to repair relations. As for Beijing, they actually just began cooperating with us on trying to reign in the DPRK. I don't know why you seem to think that even the most silver-tongued diplomat would have been able to succeed in persuading France, Russia, and China to cooperate in bringing the Pax Americana to the 38 million people of Iraq.Would you prefer that those 38 million people still live today under the iron-fisted rule of Saddam Hussein? Quite simply, it is not in China's interest, nor in Russia's or France's perceived interest to submit to American leadership of a Pax Americana, even if the Pax Americana was ruled by King Solomon himself. It will always be much safer for them to pursue a multipolar world where American power is limited. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Releases National Security Policy Statement
From the archives. At 12:12 PM 9/23/2002 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote: By intervene, do you mean protect those people who are being attacked or topple the existing regime and install one that does things your way? I would support possbily sending troops to defend their villages and/or find places for them as refugees if it's too dangerous for them to stay. I would support sanctions and military actions designed to get the existing regime to behave properly. But I would not support imposing a regime upon the country. Let the locals do that if they're willing, it is their country, after all. Yes, but doesn't this risk creating a Vietnam-style quagmire? i.e. if your only intervention is defensive, and you cannot ever actually defeat the evil regime you are intervening against, then aren't you reduced to just simply placing US troops in harms way ad infinitum? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: H.I.P.A.A.
From: Jim Sharkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Horn, John wrote: There are parts of the HIPAA rule that I don't like, but there are plenty more that I do like. Both as a member of the healthcare community and as a patient. HIPAA legislation is costing a lot of companies a great deal of money, though. Some of what we do at BCA includes administration for welfare funds, and it's a momentous task for a small shop like ours. But we're getting through it. :) Trust me. Even for a big shop like mine, it's a momentous task. We are spending a huge amount of money on it. And it's not over yet! But, hopefully, when all is set and done, there will be savings overall due to the increased use of EDI. That's certainly the hope anyway. I'm responsible for all of the transactions covered by the transactions rule. That's a big job! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Good' Bacteria May Thwart Allergies in Toddlers
Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Fool wrote: NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Giving soon-to-be mothers and newborns doses of good bacteria may help prevent childhood allergies up to age four,continuing research suggests. http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNewsstoryID=2853206 Fascinating how we didn't used to deliberately feed bacteria to mothers and children, and childhood allergies are on the rise rather than the decline . . . Maybe Dirt Is Good For You Maru Other studies (previously posted) have shown that children exposed to (i.e. living with) pets or farmyard animals, while for the first 6 months of life have more upper respiratory ailments, after that - and up to age 3 or 4 (can't remember exactly) - have less colds, allergic asthma, bronchitis and ear infections. And IIRC, kids don't start getting polio until general hygiene improves to a certain point. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: H.I.P.A.A.
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 09:31:44AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: this article is HORRIBLE and full of inaccuracies. Which is what I have come to expect from most of the articles posted by Fool. I used to at least skim the articles he posted, but now I usually delete them without opening them. He should really do more filtering and critical thinking or fact checking before he posts his articles. It wouldn't hurt if he paid attention to the credibility of the sources, as well. Sometimes, though, there's a gem in one of those to do something silly with. I've pretty much given up checking the ones that are bare URLs, especially if they're too long and there's no makeashorterlink.com or tinyurl.com equivalent given. (So, if you'd been relying on me before to come up with those, don't anymore. Sorry.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Freedom is Slavery: shrubCo denies child tax credits to the poor
The Fool wrote: http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3909558.html Democrats: Lowest-earning families denied child tax credit David Firestone, New York Times Published May 30, 2003 TAXC30 WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Bush administration on Thursday defended the decision of congressional negotiators to deny millions of minimum-wage-earning families the increased child tax credit. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the new tax law was intended to help people who pay taxes, not those who are too poor to pay. It's a tax cut, not a benefits increase. If you have no tax liability, you're not eligible for a tax *cut*. What can you cut off of $0? Now, if they're cutting benefits to these families, *that's* where people should be up in arms. Has there been any reduction in the EIC? Any increase? Anyone have the answer to *that* one? That's a more relevant datum for those with children but not making enough money to have any tax liability. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Freedom is Slavery: shrubCo denies child tax credits to the poor
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 01:27:38PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: It's a tax cut, not a benefits increase. If you have no tax liability, you're not eligible for a tax *cut*. What can you cut off of $0? True enough. But I think the point, that apparently he made quite poorly, is that this tax cut is reputed to be an economic stimulus package. But the tax cut will put the most money into rich people's pockets, a moderate payout to middle-income people with children, but little or no money will be added into low-income people's pockets. This is the exact opposite of the optimal distribution for stimulating the economy. Rich people make spending decisions almost independently of how much their income is for a given year. Ditto, but to a lesser extent, for middle-income people. But low-income people tend to live hand-to-mouth and will increase consumption immediately if they come into some money. So, to bill this as a tax cut to stimulate the economy is misleading, since if it were REALLY designed mostly to stimulate the economy, it would be MORE progressive, not less. Certainly far less than half of that $350B will really get injected into the economy quickly as the tax bill was structured. Most of it will end up sitting in rich people's bank and brokerage accounts. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Freedom is Slavery: shrubCo denies child tax credits to the poor
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 01:27:38PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: It's a tax cut, not a benefits increase. If you have no tax liability, you're not eligible for a tax *cut*. What can you cut off of $0? True enough. But I think the point, that apparently he made quite poorly, is that this tax cut is reputed to be an economic stimulus package. But the tax cut will put the most money into rich people's pockets, a moderate payout to middle-income people with children, but little or no money will be added into low-income people's pockets. So, instead of making the tax cut package *quite* as big, increase EIC payments, if that's not being done already. (Anyone have stats regarding that?) Or increase some other benefits that these folks with little enough income to have no tax liability can use. I agree that helping out the folks making $15-25K somehow so that *they* can inject a little more into the economy will do something to help, but giving a tax cut to people not paying any taxes to *be* cut is not *necessarily* the way to do it. Sending out a check to *everyone* with a kid, regardless of income, and not saying anything about tax cuts in the process would be more constructive and less divisive (except to the people who don't have kids and might resent it -- but a kid costs more per year to raise than the government is going to hand anyone just on account of their having a kid.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Freedom is Slavery: shrubCo denies child tax credits to the poor
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:50:46PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: So, instead of making the tax cut package *quite* as big, increase EIC payments, if that's not being done already. (Anyone have stats regarding that?) Or increase some other benefits that these folks with little enough income to have no tax liability can use. Yes, that would make more sense for stimulating the economy. I agree that helping out the folks making $15-25K somehow so that *they* can inject a little more into the economy will do something to help, but giving a tax cut to people not paying any taxes to *be* cut is not *necessarily* the way to do it. Sending out a check to *everyone* with a kid, regardless of income, and not saying anything about tax cuts in the process would be more constructive and less divisive (except to the people who don't have kids and might resent it -- but a kid costs more per year to raise than the government is going to hand anyone just on account of their having a kid.) I don't have kids and it wouldn't bother me. Kids consume a great deal, so if you want to stimulate the economy, sending money to parents with kids is not a bad way to do it. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Too Smart To Be So Dumb
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/730avutr.asp (And yes, I know these folks have a bias, and it comes out in the political examples -- but the non-political ones make the point I wanted to share.) One major point is that smart != good. One thing the author never says (but really hints at), but that anyone who's done a good job with DD characters should know, is that intelligence != wisdom. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
20,000 soldiers is a hell of a lot, and the US has more urgent/important things to do ... The message was that the Iraqi government had some weaponised anthrax and radio-active materials, both of which would cause a great deal of trouble if released in Washington, DC or London, England. If Bush was not lying, gathering that material was highly urgent and important. One fear is that is would fall into hands less deterable than that of the Iraqi government. Also, some 466000 coalition troops were involved (most for logistics, operating ships at sea, repairing trucks and airplanes, and the like). I am talking about shifting the task of fewer than 5% of the total troop number for a short time. Moreover, if the army had needed another 2 troops, Bush could have delayed the start a little longer to wait for them and their equipment to arrive. But my main question is why you think that dealing with the threat of an anthrax or radio dusting attack on some west European city (easier to get to than the US) or an attack on the US (coming in through Mexico, perhaps) is not very `urgent/important'? Incidentally, today's BBC news, 2003 May 31 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/2951440.stm says the following: The Pentagon has a list of around 900 sites which may provide clues to Saddam Hussein's alleged chemical and biological arsenal. So far, around 200 locations have been searched, said Pentagon officials on Friday. That means that so far the US has not searched 700 sites whose location the US knows about. Most likely most of those 700 locations will be empty or clueless. Who thinks the US intelligence services know much? But suppose one of those sites contained enough weaponized anthrax to fill a Johnson Baby powder container like those that that many grown up travelers carry? What if someone who is unfriendly to the US and has the right contacts gets hold of it before a US Army team comes by? It may be that none of those 700 uninvestigated sites have or had anything dangerous in them. But the question is what proof can you offer *now* that no one hostile to the US has visited any of those sites in the past 6 weeks, and taken something small? As far as I can see, at this stage, the only response is to say `we don't know'. And the only hope, for Americans who favor security, can be that their President was lying before hand on what is generally considered a national rather than a partisan issue, and incompetent in his follow through. If you say that Bush was not lying, then you must admit the chance that sometime in the past 6 weeks, someone hostile to the US has taken something dangerous from one of the 700 uninvestigated sites. (I am leaving out of this discussion the issue of additional sites yet to be specified -- I have no idea what effort the US is putting into finding them.) -- 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
CC: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Chad Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its easy to criticize, but what would you have done differently, other than not gone to war in the first place? That is not the question. After the war, after more troops had arrived, why did not the US dispatch some of them for several days, to look at sites the locations of which US intelligence already knew? Gautam says that the reason is that other actions were more urgent/important. Do you think so? Note that my questions are not based on reports from Iraq, but on reports from the Pentagon; they are not based on opposition to the war, but on President Bush's statements and on UN inspector Blix's reports, which said that the Iraqi government was not cooperating with the weapon inspectors. It is possible, as some of the anti-war people claimed, that the Iraqi government no longer had any weapons banned by the UN and that their lack of cooperation with the UN inspectors was designed as a bluff. On the other hand, it is also possible that the Iraqi government had kept some of the banned weapons it had already developed. We don't know. The question is, `was the US government competent in its actions in the latter part of April 2003 in not investigating, albeit in a superficial manner, all 900 of the sites that it claimed are suspect?' Gautam says the US goverment was competent; that it allocated resources correctly, in not investigating those 900 sites (most of which, everyone agrees, were empty). My question: is the Bush administration emulating Lyndon Johnson, who lost credibility over the Vietname war? What conveys to you and to others that the US was being competent, in not investigating sites that might contain weaponized anthrax or radio-active waste or radio-active medical materials that could be used in a `dirty bomb'? How are you going to say, over the next several years, that no one should fear a `dirty bomb' detonation in Marrakesh, Madrid, or elsewhere, that, we know, would not hurt many people directly, but would, we fear, have considerable psychological consequences? -- 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: WMD
At 05:58 PM 5/30/2003 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A) What could possibly be more important than finding the weapons of mass destruction that were the entire justification for the invasion in the first place? John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded Off the top of my head: -Toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein -Restoring Civic Order -Preventing Mass Civilian Casulaties I see: my understanding is that you are saying that for Americans as a whole, restoring civic order in Bagdad is more important than preventing an anthrax or radiological bomb attack against Washington, DC. This is the crux of the question. Many people I know think that restoring civic order in Bagdad is important, but also think that for many Americans (but not necessarily for all Americans or for others), it is more important to take steps against another major terrorist attack, whether in Washington, DC, or Omaha, Nebraska, or some place else. And it is not clear to me that the trade off was `restoring civic order in Bagdad' versus `protecting American'. I understand you to be saying the US could not do both. I think the US is strong enough to have both protected Americans against a threat the US president stated he saw and restored civic order in Bagdad in a military occupation. -- 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: teflon silliness
At 10:28 PM 5/30/03 -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Would an Uplifted chimp be able to use tingers and tumbs to drive while reading a laptop and eating? And still have one extremity free for New York's official bird . . . Flip Remarks Maru -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br¡n: Br¡n 9/11 statement shown accurate again
At 09:41 PM 5/31/03 +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: d.brin wrote: He said the oversight was a lesson about unforeseen tools being used. No. The lesson is to let all passenger KEEP their pocket knives. thanks for showing this. I don't think this is what is likely to happen. There are strong calls for all passengers to be frisked before boarding planes. Even better would be to shackle passengers to their seats after a shot of anaesthetic. And the airlines could make more money by stacking the unconscious passengers like cordwood. (Wait. How would that be different from flying today? Oh, yeah: the unconscious part.) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
At 10:44 PM 5/30/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Out of curiosity, Fool, about what percentage of articles that you read (all the way through) on the web do you post to Brin-L? Another question might be: What percentage of said articles do you read all the way through before you post them to Brin-L? Or is it sufficient if they simply bash conservatives and the current administration? -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Too Smart To Be So Dumb
At 02:55 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/730avutr.asp (And yes, I know these folks have a bias, and it comes out in the political examples -- but the non-political ones make the point I wanted to share.) One major point is that smart != good. One thing the author never says (but really hints at), but that anyone who's done a good job with DD characters should know, is that intelligence != wisdom. Or, as it was said earlier by another author: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (1 Corinthians 1:27) -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Borg are coming!
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29 May 2003 at 15:25, The Fool wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opinions: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ??? Fascist power behind the throne of dictator Bush. Top Posting is BAAD. Since when did this turn into a newsgroup? It is generally net etiquette to top post when the message is one line and only slightly related to the original post. Saves time scanning through the rerun looking for the new content. Especially when it doesn't pertain to any of the rerun. It destroys context, and it destroys continuity. Who is going to bother replying to your top post most of the time? No one. It also sets a bad example for people who don't know any better. It's A bad thing. Don't do it. Just say no. Spell checkers are supposed to check only NEW text. On topic: I disagree. I believe that the pnac is dead on target. What makes you think they are at all fascists? How can you call our president a dictator? What do you have to back this up? What dictator like qualities has he shown... Anyone who comes to power through a coup is a dictator. And since Dictator W. II was raised to the throne he been in a non stop assault on the first amendment, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of | from religion, the fourth amendment, the fifth amendment, Miranda rights, among other things. .. Well I did ask didn't I? When I asked I thought we would be close enough to at least hold a conversation. So..., from you perspecitve I look like a Nazi... and from my perspective you look like a Consiericy Theorist Loony. --(Not saying that either of us are mind you)-- And from everyone elses perspective? We both probably look like fools, or worse yet, list clutter. If I remember correctly, the moderators around here don't like that sort of mud flinging. I -AM- willing to have that debate with you, but for the courtisy of others, not on list...not on ~this~ list anyway. I am also willing to agree to disagree with you, and talk or even debate instead about something on which we disagree less. My e-amil is [EMAIL PROTECTED] = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An aircar in every garage
Matt Grimaldi wrote: So I found a deal on a van that runs on natural gas. Erik Reuter wrote: So, how far do you have to drive to fill up the tank with natural gas, compared to the nearest gasoline station? Well they're not on every other corner like gasoline stations, but there's about 50 or so refueling stations in the LA/Orange County area, so it's not that terrible an inconvenience. Another caveat is that the compressed air tanks don't hold as many gasoline gallon equivalents (gge) as would be normal for a vehicle that size. Whereas a normal van would have a 22-30 gal. gas tank, mine holds 14.5 gge, making my range on a full tank somewhere around 180-200 miles. Normally this is not a problem, as there are several refilling stations along my normal haunts, and I have a list of all the public-access refilling stations around the state. I just have to be aware of the fuel situation and whether there are any stations where I'm going. As far as performance, however, it uses the same type of engine as a normal auto, just with the ultra-clean burning natural gas. I get comparable accelleration, etc. to the gasoline version. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: H.I.P.A.A.
Erik Reuter wrote: Horn, John wrote: this article is HORRIBLE and full of inaccuracies. Which is what I have come to expect from most of the articles posted by Fool. I was afraid I was the only who'd noticed that. One of his pension articles was so full of inaccuracies and half truths I actually laughed out loud at it. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: H.I.P.A.A.
Horn, John wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: HIPAA legislation is costing a lot of companies a great deal of money, though. Trust me. Even for a big shop like mine, it's a momentous task. We are spending a huge amount of money on it. And it's not over yet! But, hopefully, when all is set and done, there will be savings overall due to the increased use of EDI. That's certainly the hope anyway. I hope you're right. I'm not involved much at all in the welfare end of things, but I'm not sure how exactly it's going to improve things. Can you give me some ideas? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Good' Bacteria May Thwart Allergies in Toddlers
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: --- Ronn!Blankenship wrote: The Fool wrote: NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Giving soon-to-be mothers and newborns doses of good bacteria may help prevent childhood allergies up to age four,continuing research suggests. http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNewsstoryID=2853206 Fascinating how we didn't used to deliberately feed bacteria to mothers and children, and childhood allergies are on the rise rather than the decline . . . Maybe Dirt Is Good For You Maru Other studies (previously posted) have shown that children exposed to (i.e. living with) pets or farmyard animals, while for the first 6 months of life have more upper respiratory ailments, after that - and up to age 3 or 4 (can't remember exactly) - have less colds, allergic asthma, bronchitis and ear infections. And IIRC, kids don't start getting polio until general hygiene improves to a certain point. Polio is transmitted via a fecal-oral route - and thus should be common in very young children - so when an individual isn't exposed by a toddlerish age, the effects are worse (similar phenomenon in chicken pox, where the newly-infected adult has a higher risk of bad outcomes like pneumonitis and death, instead of an itchy rash with fever). The incidence of paralytic polio peaked in the 1950's, and after vaccines were introduced it declined; does anyone know offhand when drinking-water chlorination was introduced? Polio's increase in the 19th and 20th centuries probably reflects improved separation of drinking water from sewage, with possible influence of overcrowding and the shift from rural - urban lifestyles. The usual manifestation of polio was a self-limiting febrile gastroenteritis, but meningitic and paralytic forms could cause long-term sequelae or even death. This is a pretty good short medical article: http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1843.htm Poliomyelitis is an enteroviral infection that can manifest in 4 different forms: inapparent infection, abortive disease, nonparalytic poliomyelitis, and paralytic disease. Before the 19th century, poliomyelitis occurred sporadically. During the 19th and 20th centuries, epidemic poliomyelitis was more frequently observed, reaching its peak in the mid 1950s. The worldwide prevalence of this infection has decreased significantly since then because of aggressive immunization programs. Eradication of this disease during the present decade is a top priority for the World Health Organization (WHO)... Here is an overview of polio infection, which has occured since at least Egyptian pharoah times: http://cumicro2.cpmc.columbia.edu/PICO/Chapters/History.html This is a 20th century timeline of polio in the US: http://www.pbs.org/storyofpolio/polio/timeline/index.html Ooh, and this is a cool site with all sorts of links to disease history, plague, epidemics, and so forth; a number of diseases are listed individually lower-down on the page: http://www.mic.ki.se/HistDis.html Thanks for prompting me to review polio info! I'm Gonna Get Info-loaded At That Last One Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Hormone Replacement Therapy started after age 65increasesReply-to: bob@rattlesnake.com
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I did note in a later post (different thread, I think 'reactor woes'?) that it *is* possible that normal background radiation helps 'prime' immune cells to hunt for mutant cells, just as exposure to normal gut bacteria seems to help the immune system tackle pathogenic bacteria later. Yes; we know the latter is true. I wonder whether the former is. Certainly, one can entertain the idea that normal background radiation causes some cells to change in a way that the immune system recognizes as `not us' and so goes after them. It would seem to me that we have had lots of experience over the past century with people receiving doses of radiation that can be sufficiently well estimated, such as miners breathing radon gas in a mine, so that epidemiological investigations could be made. Perhaps they have been made, but the highly politicized character of the field has made it very difficult to find them. The current problem is that defining the line between probably safe dose and harmful is controversial; Yes, that is a problem -- I think the language is not helpful; rather than make an ordered sequence of categories safe dose probably safe dose probably harmful harmful I think it would be better to drop the word probably and use some other term, such as mostly but not entirely. But in addition to that, as you say, ... considered to be a safe cumulative fetal exposure, yet _there_is_documented_increase_in_leukemia_, albeit quite small, with as little as 1-2 rads cumulative (as a fetus)! As a practical matter, a widely accepted authority has to define what is considered `more than small' for death rates. (Traditionally, religions have done this.) The goal is to define what is a socially acceptable death rate. After all `safe' is not a medical term, but a description of the level of danger. This is a separate issue from determining what the death rate actually is. According to some of my old notes, such a widely accepted authority must do something that amounts to a ritual: Rituals bring into being certain states of affairs. When authorized persons declare peace in a proper manner, peace is declared whether or not the antagonists are persuaded to comply. (p. 189) In addition, these states of affairs are judged according to criteria that are provided by rituals. If a man is properly dubbed to a knighthood and then violates the code of chivalry, ... we do not say that the dubbing was faulty, but that the knight is faulty. The state of affairs created by a ritual is judged by the degree to which it conforms to the stipulations of the ritual. (p. 189) A descriptive statement, on the contary, is assessed by the degree to which it conforms to the state of affairs it purports to describe. A yellow house is accurate described only if the hous is indeed yellow. The two sources of criteria are exactly inverse. (p.198) (Quotations from Roy Rappaport, an anthropologist, who published Ecology, Meaning Religion in 1979.) However, currently no one agrees on what should socially be considered an acceptable death rate. But I would like to find out what the actual death rates are, at least for processes that can be measured. For example, in the US, coal fired electric power plants release radioactive uranium dust in their smoke. I have been told that if coal fired electric power plants had to meet the same standards for `off-site radiation release' as nuclear electric power plants, all the coal fired electric power plants in the US would be shut down. But I don't know for sure; and I don't know the death rates. The other issue is harder: predicting the future. As far as I know, whether or not the society can agree an acceptable death rate, no one can figure the probability or improbability that some group of suicidal soldiers highjacks a large freight carrying jet and flies it into a nuclear power plant's spent fuel storage building and distributes radioactive materials over the surroundings. As for another remark 5 rads (I think those were the units!) Ah! To be so young again :-) Rads are not the original units. http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/units.html Roentgen: The old unit of radiation exposure. It is a unit of gamma radiation measured by the amount of ionization in the air. In non-bony biological tissue, a roentgen delivers a dose equal to about 0.93 rad. Rad (radiation absorbed dose): a unit of absorbed dose of radiation defined as deposition of 100 ergs of energy per gram of tissue. And, in another change, people seem to be using Sieverts more often nowadays than rems; and I have seen reference to Gy, too: Gray (Gy): A unit of absorbed radiation dose equal to 100 rads. Rem (radiation equivalent man): a unit of equivalent absorbed dose of radiation, which takes
RE: Too Smart To Be So Dumb
Julia Thompson wrote: One major point is that smart != good. This is true. I know plenty of smart people that don't seem like they *think* before speaking or acting. This quote from the article, however, is bull: We live in an age when pure intelligence is valued and honored beyond all bounds of reason. I'm not sure exactly what planet the author is living on, but it isn't this one. Smart people are reviled and despised by the portion of the population that isn't as smart. Being smart is an aberration; it sets you apart, and given human beings' innate xenophobia, it's still considered a Bad Thing (tm) by most people. At least that's been my observation for a long time. All I know is, when you're growing up, being smart is the biggest sin of all. Maybe there's a chicken/egg thing, where smart people start off with a certain amount of strikes against them in social settings, which only winds up feeding on itself. As a result, they withdraw further from the norm, which sets them further apart, and so on. *shrugs* Whatever the reason, that assertion is still bull. jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irony?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:18 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: At 02:55 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/730avutr.asp (And yes, I know these folks have a bias, and it comes out in the political examples -- but the non-political ones make the point I wanted to share.) One major point is that smart != good. One thing the author never says (but really hints at), but that anyone who's done a good job with DD characters should know, is that intelligence != wisdom. Okay, so it wasn't exactly a bare URL . . . ;-P No, it wasn't. I at least try to give people a hint of what might be there, or drop at least *some* remark about what it's about. I may provide fewer words if I'm offering the URL as something in reply to something else (as I did earlier this week regarding the Texas Dems and the DPS crap), but I try to offer at least *something* besides the URL on its own. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Good' Bacteria May Thwart Allergies in Toddlers
Deborah Harrell wrote: Thanks for prompting me to review polio info! You're welcome. It's one of my hot-button diseases, having had an uncle die of it in 1952, his 3-year-old (IIRC) son end up having to wear a leg brace all his life (and nobody will let him drive a rental car, BTW), and his wife ending up just with one leg thinner than the other. And, of course, that was the brother my father was closest to, and the first of the brothers to die. :P Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 08:55:23PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: saying the US could not do both. I think the US is strong enough to have both protected Americans against a threat the US president stated he saw and restored civic order in Bagdad in a military occupation. Of course it is strong enough. It is just incompetently managed in everything other than pure military operations, as the poor handling of restoring civic order in Baghdad demonstrated. By the way, Robert, thanks for the clearly reasoned posts on this matter. It is refreshing to see some clear thinking on the subject. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fiction and the Tax Cut
Fiction and the Tax Cut A personal anecdote. I saw my accountant on Thursday (needed an extension because I was traveling too much in March and April to see him). He is a rich guy because he provides an excellent and honest service to a clientle of people like me; physicians making very good living. (by any criteria floated in the press I am wealthy. Now I don't feel that way and I don't live too extravagantly - one car,a Volvo, a nice apartment on a side street on the Westside of Manhattan, no doorman, but I can do most things I want without worrying about money as long as I don't go crazy. My accountant is higher up on the food chain but we since we have kids in private school in New York we do have some contact with true wealth.). He looked at me and said that my taxes would be significantly less with the cut. So would his. I didn't smile and neither did he. In part because we both felt it was somehow wrong, but all sense of fairness aside, if the economy does poorly as I think it must the tax cut will be a pyric victory. My investments and retirement funds have already lost more than any tax cut could compensate for and I think things will only get worse. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Too Smart To Be So Dumb
Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: One major point is that smart != good. This is true. I know plenty of smart people that don't seem like they *think* before speaking or acting. This quote from the article, however, is bull: We live in an age when pure intelligence is valued and honored beyond all bounds of reason. I'm not sure exactly what planet the author is living on, but it isn't this one. Smart people are reviled and despised by the portion of the population that isn't as smart. Being smart is an aberration; it sets you apart, and given human beings' innate xenophobia, it's still considered a Bad Thing (tm) by most people. At least that's been my observation for a long time. All I know is, when you're growing up, being smart is the biggest sin of all. Maybe there's a chicken/egg thing, where smart people start off with a certain amount of strikes against them in social settings, which only winds up feeding on itself. As a result, they withdraw further from the norm, which sets them further apart, and so on. *shrugs* Whatever the reason, that assertion is still bull. One thing, though, a lot of the *parents* thought that pure intelligence was the most important thing. I don't know how well those kids like themselves, but given the report of the 7-year-old, I don't think that child will be liked by peers very much, and the parent is going to be stuck with an intelligent but miserable person at some point. And I think the worst thing you can do for your kid is rub other people's faces in how smart he or she is. I was bright, I blew away most of my peers in a number of things, but if my parents thought I was getting a swelled head about it, they took me down a few pegs. And that is probably one of the best things they did as my parents. And I found out in high school that there's stuff you can do to be likeable, so that even if you're picked last in gym class, the people picking the teams will help you figure out where you can do the least harm, or the most good, and stick you *there* instead of some place you're guaranteed to fail. (Speaking of gym class, ask me sometime about the volleyball incident.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Defining Safety (was: Scouted: Hormone Replacement Therapy startedafter age 65...)
I'm snipping various parts of this post (lots of ...s) for brevity. --- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I wrote:] But I did note in a later post...that it *is* possible that normal background radiation helps 'prime' immune cells to hunt for mutant cells... ...Certainly, one can entertain the idea that normal background radiation causes some cells to change in a way that the immune system recognizes as `not us' and so goes after them. It would seem to me that we have had lots of experience over the past century with people receiving doses of radiation that can be sufficiently well estimated, such as miners breathing radon gas in a mine, so that epidemiological investigations could be made. I think I posted one such study of uranium miners. Perhaps they have been made, but the highly politicized character of the field has made it very difficult to find them. Unfortunately true. You have to eye both gov't and eco sites knowing that they slanted the data in their favor at least a little bit. (*I* never slant anything at all! :} Well, I do at least admit my bias.) The current problem is that defining the line between probably safe dose and harmful is controversial; Yes, that is a problem -- I think the language is not helpful; rather than make an ordered sequence of categories... ...I think it would be better to drop the word probably and use some other term, such as mostly but not entirely. snip As a practical matter, a widely accepted authority has to define what is considered `more than small' for death rates. (Traditionally, religions have done this.) The goal is to define what is a socially acceptable death rate. After all `safe' is not a medical term, but a description of the level of danger. This is a separate issue from determining what the death rate actually is. And what is considered safe by the general public has changed quite a lot in the past 50-100 years; expectations of perfect safety have led in some cases to a 'victim mentality' and massive upswing in lawsuits. grimace Not immune myself, esp. WRT environmental impact, but I think part of that is the change from our culture's POV before-the-60's of Man As Nature's Master, to Nature Is Being Corrupted By Man POV. Hopefully we'll develop the mature Man As The Jewel In The Crown Of Glorious Nature POV in the not-too-distant future... According to some of my old notes, such a widely accepted authority must do something that amounts to a ritual: Rituals bring into being certain states of affairs. When authorized persons declare peace in a proper manner, peace is declared whether or not the antagonists are persuaded to comply. (p. 189) snipped rest of quote However, currently no one agrees on what should socially be considered an acceptable death rate. But I would like to find out what the actual death rates are, at least for processes that can be measured. For example, in the US, coal fired electric power plants release radioactive uranium dust in their smoke. I have been told that if coal fired electric power plants had to meet the same standards for `off-site radiation release' as nuclear electric power plants, all the coal fired electric power plants in the US would be shut down. But I don't know for sure; and I don't know the death rates. I don't think such things have been - perhaps at this time cannot be - accurately measured. Most of the epidemiological studies on radiation exposure are based on *calculated* or estimated, rather than actual, exposures. Since no one distributed dosimeters to the general public before the Nevada tests, or Chernobyl... :P But miners and other *radiation-related workers do wear dosimeters now, so we ought to get some better data soon. Semi-related: I just found out that old Fiestaware pottery was glazed with *uranium-containing slips to make certain orange, red, green and yellow (IIRC) colors...and similarly decorative ceramic tiles of pre-1940s make. There was a flap not-too-long-ago over the potential disposal of low-level *nickel (IIRC) by incorporating it into various consumer products -- it got squelched (as well it ought!!! What were they thinking, to want stuff like table flatware to contain this *metal???). The other issue is harder: predicting the future. As far as I know, whether or not the society can agree an acceptable death rate, no one can figure the probability or improbability that some group of suicidal soldiers highjacks a large freight carrying jet and flies it into a nuclear power plant's spent fuel storage building and distributes radioactive materials over the surroundings. Too true. And as I said before, I don't think the disposal/containment issues (of *waste) have been at all adequately defined or solved. As for another remark 5 rads (I think those were the units!) Ah! To be so young again :-)
Re: Too Smart To Be So Dumb
Julia Thompson wrote: One major point is that smart != good. Jim Sharkey wrote: At least that's been my observation for a long time. All I know is, when you're growing up, being smart is the biggest sin of all. Maybe there's a chicken/egg thing, where smart people start off with a certain amount of strikes against them in social settings, which only winds up feeding on itself. As a result, they withdraw further from the norm, which sets them further apart, and so on. *shrugs* Whatever the reason, that assertion is still bull. People with significantly low intelligence also have similar problems. I would argue that bare intelligence is a factor which is orthoganal to general happiness or social standing. That would be much more heavily governed by something along the lines of EQ, or your innate ability to manage your emotions and those of others around you. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- At 10:44 PM 5/30/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Out of curiosity, Fool, about what percentage of articles that you read (all the way through) on the web do you post to Brin-L? I thought I plonked You. 5%. --- Another question might be: What percentage of said articles do you read all the way through before you post them to Brin-L? --- All of them. Sure not every article is as coherent and to the point as want them to be, but it is enough if they make some small point for which I am trying to express. Almost all stories I post come from links from slashdot, or Google NEWS, and few other major news sites. --- Or is it sufficient if they simply bash conservatives and the current administration? --- I have posted things critical of other things, like religious values, or Grey Davis, or Microsoft, or Unix, etc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 06:44:20PM -0500, The Fool wrote: 5%. So, on days that you post 4 or 5 articles to Brin-L, you have actually read 80 or 100 articles? Wow, I thought you said you were not that well read. All of them. Sure not every article is as coherent and to the point as want them to be, but it is enough if they make some small point for which I am trying to express. Almost all stories I post come from links from slashdot, or Google NEWS, and few other major news sites. Well, if your purpose is to try to educate people here, or to try to persuade people to a point, or even to try to start a discussion, I would suggest that you need to filter more for quality. As I mentioned, your posts have made my usually delete without reading threshold since the S/N is so low. And apparently I am not the only one who thinks so. In the past month I estimate that, for me, your S/N is maybe 0.1. That is too low for me to bother with your posts. If you could get it up to 0.25 or 0.3, then I would be inclined to read them again. But right now your credibility is shot. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Too Smart To Be So Dumb
Julia Thompson wrote: (Speaking of gym class, ask me sometime about the volleyball incident.) Speaking of gym class, if there's any group that is elevated far beyond its logical station, it's athletes. Jim Who does want to hear about the volleyball incident Maru :) ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: H.I.P.A.A.
In a message dated 5/31/2003 4:00:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To say that these new rules and regulation are to protect your medical privacy is bureaucratic double-speak at its worst. Let me way in from the provider side of this debate. HIPA is going to make the practice of medicine much more difficult and more expensive. All of those forms patients are being required to sign are forced on all of us by the government. We have no choice. for the past two years medical organizations have been struggling to figure out how to comply with this legislation. You cannot imagine the amount of time energy and money spent on this stuff. More later; have to take my teenage daughter to a party. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court further dilutes Miranda protections
Alan Wisotsky, an attorney for Oxnard and the police officer who interrogated Martinez, said the court's ruling was a victory for persistent police work. If someone had kidnapped your child, wouldn't you want police doing everything they possibly could to get information from someone who had it? he asked hypothetically. And what if he didn't do it, and they tortured him, and permanently injured him, and meanwhile the real kidnaper got away? And this is not a hypothetical question. There is a serial rapist on the loose in Trenton, and a couple of weeks ago the police arrested and charged a man. They announced that a thorough investigation (details of which were not released) left no doubt that they had the man. Then, two days ago, DNA tests proved conclusively that he could not possibly have been the rapist, and he will be released. Meanwhile, however, he has been fired from his job, his name is absolute mud, his life is essentially ruined - and the real rapist is still on the loose. There is no substitute for painstaking, careful, honest, slow, deliberate police work - no matter how frantic the public may be, no matter how desperate they may be for a quick fix. There is no such thing, and attempts to concoct one always end up making things much worse. And pandering to people's legitimate fears, although it may serve the selfish purposes of right wing scum politicians and right wing filth talk radio bastards, only feeds the public's short term fear and complete misunderstanding of how decent, serious police work is actually done. It can't be rushed. An innocent man has had his life ruined - for nothing. The public is no safer for this having been done - indeed, the public is less safe, as the real rapist is still out there and the trail has gone colder, considering all the time and resources wasted by focusing on the wrong man. A man whom the police claimed to have no doubts was guilty - until they found out he couldn't possibly actually be guilty. You can't let the police get away with cutting corners. No matter how much they and their right wing stooge toadies may bitch and moan about how their hands our tied. They work for us - we should never let them forget that. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court further dilutes Miranda protections
Uh. I don't see how the reporter reaches this conclusion. It seems rather obvious that someone's right to not self-incriminate is not violated if that person is never incriminated, whether by one's self or otherwise. So, in other words, as long as you are not a suspect, the police can do anything they want to you? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz
2) What is wrong with that strategy? It seems to me we are finally doing what is necessary to make the world a better place to live in, even if, especially if, you are a middle eastern Muslim. War is never the best way to solve anything. I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that I think we tried all the better ways. If not, I sure would like to hear what they are. Then why not admit it? Why not tell the truth? Why not just come right out and say that's what they were doing? They were going to be castigated by much of the rest of the world anyway - so why not simply be honest and tell the truth right from the start? Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
one for Nick: networks, funding, agenda, Scaife
Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors? http://hnn.us/articles/1244.html Medium-ish with links. These are the guys propagating the false 'liberal media bias' that you hear unendingly from right wing ideologues. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hipper on HIPAA, Re: H.I.P.A.A.
H.I.P.A.A. Whether you know it or not you now have a medical identification number. I just received a copy of an in-house memo from an employer concerning HIPAA Compliance. It states, Attached is a privacy notice that (name of company) is required to provide to you based upon a new health privacy law entitled the (print following in bold) Health Insurance Portabality and Accountability Act or HIPAA for short. If you have acquired medical services or filled a prescription in the past two days, you have probably been given a similar notice by the provider. You do not need to take any action regarding this notice, we are simply required by law to provide it to you. The privacy notices do not give you a number (already covered). Try this as a starter website btw (http://cms.hhs.gov/hipaa/) The average HIPAA notice has several basic elements you will see- 1. What is considered protected info (things that can identify you) 2. The legal obligations the group has to protect your privacy (should healthcare providers always do/have done this-yes- but now there are $25000 fines involved) 3. Some statement relating to using your info for treatment, payment, healthcare operations without your permission (this is standard language to help keep things clear). If a doctor refers you for an x-ray they can give info relating to your diagnosis, phone # etc (or you would have to sign permission everytime they tried to schedule you with a specialist, etc) (very simplified btw) (You could probably modify the payment stuff if you were paying cash I don't know). If you have ever had a run in with insurance over not using SSN, sigh, they just say you have a choice not to get their coverage) 4. Some generic wording relating to when they have to legally such as- When disclosure is required by federal, state or local law, judicial or administrative proceedings, or law enforcement. For example, victims of abuse, neglect, or domestic violence, gunshot or other wounds, as well as when ordered to do so by the courts or their designated appointees. 5. Language on uses of your info you may object to. In some cases this is worded not to sound so optional, but things like marketing purposes, etc you can just make a object and tell them no. 6. A section on your rights-right to view your personal health info, to restrict who sees it (family members for example), specify how you want to be contacted, identify who outside of billing and treatment, etc your info has been sent to, copies, amendments, etc 7. Language on who to complain to (and how fast you will get a response) I'm sure I missed a few things, but after a while they kinda read the same. You are being told that this new ID number is to protect your privacy but in reality your medical privacy is now beyond your control. These new rules actually destroy your ability to restrict access to your medical records. Your medical record belongs to you, this does not change your access to it. You know, as a consumer it is getting tough to know who owns who in healthcare. I have been places where one facility just assumed it was ok to throw my info in a large database that was accessible to more than 1/4 of the local medical community that had nothing to do with my annual uncompromising OBGYN data at a minimum and questionable mammo at worst. I can understand sharing info in the cases of emergency (IIRC this is ok'd by the treatment language). I know now if my neighbor knows I had a case of imagine compromising something or another of which you would like privacy from the hospital, blabbing about it comes with a $25000 price tag. Also, if someone inadvertently talks about you, you have to be informed who, what, etc The rest of the post seems like it is getting good attention, or I am just tired to blabber on. I am far from an expert, but have had my own dealings on both sides of the fence on this one. Hope it helps, Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Supreme Court further dilutes Miranda protections
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 03:55 AM 5/31/2003 -0500 The Fool wrote: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/5954295.htm Supreme Court further dilutes Miranda protections BY STEPHEN HENDERSON Knight Ridder Newspapers WASHINGTON - (KRT) - A splintered Supreme Court took another swipe at the landmark Miranda ruling Tuesday, Uh. I don't see how the reporter reaches this conclusion. It seems rather obvious that someone's right to not self-incriminate is not violated if that person is never incriminated, whether by one's self or otherwise. So, in the orwellian world that JDG wants us all to live in, the police can do anything they want at any time to people who are not suspects. A novel take on the authoritarian police state concept. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fasten, then zip or . . .
I thought about titling this post I hate you . . ., but then I thought
about the just-passing-time conversation between Garibaldi and Sinclair on
their way to B4 in Babylon Squared. Garibaldi is asking about how one
fastens pants, fasten then zip or zip then fasten. Turns out both are
fasten first kind of guys; makes me feel good, so am I.
The possible I hate you . . . post title comes from the realization that
all of you on this list told me I would grow into B5 after watching the
series mature. I just finished the last episode and . . . you were RIGHT!
Now I hate you because I don't have season 2 in my hands, ready to watch.
The Post Exchange doesn't have it. My friend has ordered it but he'll
probably watch it first(that a..hole). (We agreed on this: he'll buy B5
and I'll get the SG-1 DVD sets and we'll share. I have SG-1 season 3
pre-ordered.) After watching Chrysalis, my appetite for B5 season 2 is
quite acute.
Who ever told me to get over Laurel Takashima was almost right; Ivanova is
starting to rock (but I re-watched The Gathering after the season finale
and I do like Takashima, probably a libido thing). Garibaldi has definitely
grown into his part.
I understand Sinclair is not in season 2. This saddens me. I know from 30
years military experience I would have enjoyed a few more commanders like
him. PLEASE DON'T tell me what his fate is. I know he is not gone from the
series as Babylon Squared reveals and there is still the unresolved 24
hours he spent after capture by the Minbari.
I'm really impressed by the way the threads interweave dovetail in
Chrysalis. Events are poised for things to burst out in season 2. This
is probably the most coherent, intriguing, and ripe with anticipation season
ending cliffhanger of any of the most popular SF series. Most series such
as Star Trek (even SG-1, my favorite ('til now maybe)) leave you hanging on
one huge event that must, and will, be resolved in the next episode. These
have only one question to be answered and that is How will they solve the
problem. There is never any doubt a reasonable happy solution will be
found and it will be one that meets my expectations. B5 left me with
several smaller, yet no less significant events to ponder possible
solutions. Having watched the Earth President's assassination, I very sure
not every thread will end happily ever after, my expectations be damned.
My favorite episodes:
1. The Parliament of Dreams
2. Babylon Squared
3. A Voice in the Wilderness (I II)
4. Legacies
Least Favorite:
1.Eyes (The colonel with the chip on his shoulder was way, way too
over the top. Bad acting killed this one for me.)
George A
P.S.I don't really hate you, but you got me . . . I'm Hooked and can't
wait for season 2.
P.P.S. Don't ask about socks.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: H.I.P.A.A.
Horn, John wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: HIPAA legislation is costing a lot of companies a great deal of money, though. Trust me. Even for a big shop like mine, it's a momentous task. We are spending a huge amount of money on it. And it's not over yet! But, hopefully, when all is set and done, there will be savings overall due to the increased use of EDI. That's certainly the hope anyway. I hope you're right. I'm not involved much at all in the welfare end of things, but I'm not sure how exactly it's going to improve things. Can you give me some ideas? Jim I'm not sure what John has in mind for future benefits, but one of the impacts the legislation has had to date is on healthcare portability. If you move from one employer to another you can no longer be denied care or have preexisting conditions that can lead to denial of care for a year (or more). Dee ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Too Smart To Be So Dumb
Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: (Speaking of gym class, ask me sometime about the volleyball incident.) Speaking of gym class, if there's any group that is elevated far beyond its logical station, it's athletes. Jim Who does want to hear about the volleyball incident Maru :) The way gym class worked in my high school was that freshmen sophomores were in 1 class that met either MW and alternate F, or TTh and the other F. The juniors seniors were in the other class. You needed 2 years of gym to graduate, but you could take care of 1 year by either doing 4 sports over 4 years (running fall track every fall would take care of it nicely, that's what a friend of mine did), or doing 3 sports in 1 year (which is what whichever of the Bernas was a senior when I was a freshman did, but he needed the year of actual *class* to graduate, and he was really good, and I wasn't, and our roles were totally reversed in the math class we were in together). But not enough people signed up to take gym the first period of the day to make splitting the class make any sense, so they threw us all together in one class. So I was with a couple of other freshmen, a number of sophomores, some juniors, and some seniors who needed the class to graduate. Among the freshmen was the *guy* in the freshman class who was best at math. I'd managed to do Algebra II in a summer program, so I was in pre-calc while he was in Algebra II, but he had at least as much aptitude as I did. He was also about as athletic as I was not, which is saying a lot. After one incredibly one-sided game of flag football one morning, the rule was laid down that he and the Berna guy couldn't be on the same team, at least for flag football. Anyway, when we got to volleyball, he and I ended up on the same team one day. It was my turn to serve. I was horrible at serving. I could practice for awhile and get to where I could manage about 3 good serves, and then I'd lose it again. I was winding up for a really good serve, but botched the exact direction, and instead of going over the net, it went really hard at head level -- and hit him in the back of the head. (The jokes made and the actions taken by everyone for the remainder of volleyball whenever it was my turn to serve are left as an exercise for the reader for now.) I didn't get to fully live that one down until Denise graduated one year before I did Julia p.s. the guy in my class who was good in math ended up going to a private school the next year, I think Phillips Exeter, but I'm not sure -- I just know he went somewhere else; I don't think it was to get away from me, though! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
G. D. Akin wrote: I understand Sinclair is not in season 2. This saddens me. I know from 30 years military experience I would have enjoyed a few more commanders like him. PLEASE DON'T tell me what his fate is. I know he is not gone from the series as Babylon Squared reveals and there is still the unresolved 24 hours he spent after capture by the Minbari. I am hoping that you will appreciate, if not enjoy on some level, his ultimate fate. (Can't remember exactly when that's revealed, but someone else will be able to say which season, I'm sure, so you'll have an idea as to just how long of a wait you're in for on *that* one.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- At 10:44 PM 5/30/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Out of curiosity, Fool, about what percentage of articles that you read (all the way through) on the web do you post to Brin-L? I thought I plonked You. 5%. How much time do you spend reading articles? Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
At 10:40 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually Boinking, on the other hand, is apparently a different matter . . . -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
At 10:47 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:40 PM 5/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually Boinking, on the other hand, is apparently a different matter . . . Talking about specific instances of plonking on-list is an indication of dislike for another individual. On the other hand, actual boinking has a lot diametrically opposed to that sort of mindset. :) Julia who appreciates a good boink (as if that weren't apparent already) Which was the reason for my observation . . . Ever Wonder What It Meant When The Animaniacs Ran Around Chanting Boinky Boinky Boinky Maru -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
At 12:07 PM 6/1/2003 +0900, you wrote: snip I hate you George A All I can say is, I think you are on the wrong end of the Babylon 5/SG1 trade, unless your friend really wanted B5 more. B5 is almost the perfect series. I can think of one episode I hated. I'm sure there were others I didn't like (well, I've already thought of another) but so many of them were good or great. And for me, understandable. I liked Farcape, by most of the time I have no clue what is going on. What season was it, the third, he wrote every episode by himself? For all the praise that's heaped on David R. Kelley, or Sorkin, JMS should be recognized as the best of the best. What I'm wondering, I hear JMS complaining about the direction the new shows he tried to make were forced to go, too much sex* or other reasons. I know he can't finance 22 episodes of a series, but couldn't he have gotten enough backers that would let him do whatever he wanted? Heck, if he'd had a stock sale, I'd have bought in. Let's see: 22 episodes, 5 mil an episode is 110 mil. 100 dollars per stock, well that's still 1.1 million shares, but I'd have bought one. Anyway, I couldn't imagine being somewhere, being shown season one, told they were made x years ago, and I can't see season 2-5 for seven more years. I would hate others too. Well, some are on Kaza. Kevin T. - VRWC Can you ever have too much sex? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
At 10:38 PM 5/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: G. D. Akin wrote: I understand Sinclair is not in season 2. This saddens me. I know from 30 years military experience I would have enjoyed a few more commanders like him. PLEASE DON'T tell me what his fate is. I know he is not gone from the series as Babylon Squared reveals and there is still the unresolved 24 hours he spent after capture by the Minbari. I am hoping that you will appreciate, if not enjoy on some level, his ultimate fate. (Can't remember exactly when that's revealed, but someone else will be able to say which season, I'm sure, so you'll have an idea as to just how long of a wait you're in for on *that* one.) Julia Ahh don't even hint like that. Just say he dies and let him get the surprise. Kevin T. - VRWC TMI Just joking ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually Boinking, on the other hand, is apparently a different matter . . . We do seem to know a bit more about each others' sex lives than one might expect, don't we? :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
Julia Thompson wrote: How much time do you spend reading articles? Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually What is plonking, anyway? Is this some bit of Internet lingo I just happened to miss? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: An aircar in every garage
Well they're not on every other corner like gasoline stations, but there's about 50 or so refueling stations in the LA/Orange County area, so it's not that terrible an inconvenience. Another caveat is that the compressed air tanks don't hold as many gasoline gallon equivalents (gge) as would be normal for a vehicle that size. Whereas a normal van would have a 22-30 gal. gas tank, mine holds 14.5 gge, making my range on a full tank somewhere around 180-200 miles. Normally this is not a problem, as there are several refilling stations along my normal haunts, and I have a list of all the public-access refilling stations around the state. I just have to be aware of the fuel situation and whether there are any stations where I'm going. As far as performance, however, it uses the same type of engine as a normal auto, just with the ultra-clean burning natural gas. I get comparable accelleration, etc. to the gasoline version. -- Matt I want to ask a different question. I looked on-line but saw no information. You say the same type of engine, but is it exactly the same? I meanwell I don't know how much you know about mechanics. Not physics/mechanics, but how an engine works. What I'm getting at: is you vehicle and engine 'matched'? I don't even know if you said what type of vehicle it is. I'm trying to ask two things: if I walked into a Chevy dealership and was looking a minivans, would there be one model that offered a regular engine or a NG engine, or would there be two separate models? Maybe the same outward appearance, but basically a different vehicle. If it's the same model, just with different engines the next question is: will they ever get into retro-fits of cars that had a regular engine? Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
From: G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The possible I hate you . . . post title comes from the realization that
all of you on this list told me I would grow into B5 after watching the
series mature. I just finished the last episode and . . . you were RIGHT!
Woot! Glad you like it!
Now I hate you because I don't have season 2 in my hands, ready to watch.
The Post Exchange doesn't have it. My friend has ordered it but he'll
probably watch it first(that a..hole). (We agreed on this: he'll buy B5
and I'll get the SG-1 DVD sets and we'll share. I have SG-1 season 3
pre-ordered.) After watching Chrysalis, my appetite for B5 season 2 is
quite acute.
If you think it's tough waiting, you shoulda felt what it was like waiting
between
seasons (and episodes) back during its original run! Particularly when the
chances
of B5 getting renewed each season were always iffy. It was agony!
I just told my wife I want Season 2 as my Father's Day gift.
I understand Sinclair is not in season 2. This saddens me. I know from 30
years military experience I would have enjoyed a few more commanders like
him. PLEASE DON'T tell me what his fate is. I know he is not gone from
the
series as Babylon Squared reveals and there is still the unresolved 24
hours he spent after capture by the Minbari.
You'll see Sinclair again. Didn't In The Beginning cover what happened in
those
missing 24 hours? If not there, it's revealed somewhere, eventually.
I think you'll like Sinclair's replacement. He's a very different
character, though.
Less paternal and less diplomatic than Sinclair, I'd say.
I'm really impressed by the way the threads interweave dovetail in
Chrysalis. Events are poised for things to burst out in season 2. This
is probably the most coherent, intriguing, and ripe with anticipation
season
ending cliffhanger of any of the most popular SF series. Most series such
as Star Trek (even SG-1, my favorite ('til now maybe)) leave you hanging on
one huge event that must, and will, be resolved in the next episode. These
For me, even the best Star Trek cliffhangers left me disappointed. The
season-
ending cliffhanger part was often quite excellent, but their conclusions
always
seemed somewhat unsatisfying. I later discovered that when they wrote the
Riker orders the Enterprise to open fire on the Borg ship carrying the
Borgified
Picard cliffhanger, the writers had *no clue* what would happen, or how
they
were going to resolve the story! It was all left for them to figure out
over the
summer. I suspect that was/is standard operating procedure for the Trek
franchise
have only one question to be answered and that is How will they solve the
problem. There is never any doubt a reasonable happy solution will be
found and it will be one that meets my expectations. B5 left me with
several smaller, yet no less significant events to ponder possible
solutions. Having watched the Earth President's assassination, I very sure
not every thread will end happily ever after, my expectations be damned.
That's for sure. The ending of one particular episode in Season 2
absolutely
stunned me when I first saw it because of this.
My favorite episodes:
1. The Parliament of Dreams
2. Babylon Squared
Zathras rocks!
3. A Voice in the Wilderness (I II)
4. Legacies
I'd drop 1 4, and add Mind War, Deathwalker, and Signs and Portents
as my favs
Least Favorite:
1.Eyes (The colonel with the chip on his shoulder was way, way too
over the top. Bad acting killed this one for me.)
Grail is probably my least favorite of season 1.
-bryon
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
Jim Sharkey writes: Julia Thompson wrote: How much time do you spend reading articles? Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually What is plonking, anyway? Is this some bit of Internet lingo I just happened to miss? I seem to have missed it, too. Anyone care to clue us in? _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Taxes anyone (L3?)
At 03:48 PM 5/31/2003 -0400, you wrote: On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 02:50:46PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: So, instead of making the tax cut package *quite* as big, increase EIC payments, if that's not being done already. (Anyone have stats regarding that?) Or increase some other benefits that these folks with little enough income to have no tax liability can use. Yes, that would make more sense for stimulating the economy. I agree that helping out the folks making $15-25K somehow so that *they* can inject a little more into the economy will do something to help, but giving a tax cut to people not paying any taxes to *be* cut is not *necessarily* the way to do it. Sending out a check to *everyone* with a kid, regardless of income, and not saying anything about tax cuts in the process would be more constructive and less divisive (except to the people who don't have kids and might resent it -- but a kid costs more per year to raise than the government is going to hand anyone just on account of their having a kid.) I don't have kids and it wouldn't bother me. Kids consume a great deal, so if you want to stimulate the economy, sending money to parents with kids is not a bad way to do it. Erik Reuter Wow, well it does bother me. Not saying kids don't consume, but you are making a non-special class of people even more special than they are already and I doubt you'd really stimulate the economy (more on this*). I don't know where I read or saw this, two doctor's talking about dividend taxation. The one person said, 'Design a tax system that is completely blind to the individual being taxed.' Which I took to mean: it doesn't matter if the person is born poor or rich, is poor or rich during his life, or even comes into or out of the system like an immigrant; the rules apply the same to everyone. They didn't mean a flat tax either, but in my book that should be the number one system reform that we shoot for. So question one is: can a tax system be blind? In a pure socialist sense it could be, but what about a non-socialist solution? *A lot of people engage in feel good economics and ignore reality. Of course it would be an instant good if the poor or middle class or parents had more money, but would it really do any good long term? If just the economically dis-advantage got more money, all it would fuel is short term inflation. Prices for the things they need go up, they gain no real benefit and the extra money is quickly absorbed into the system...in fact ending up in the pockets of 'rich' business owners. Not enough for them to hire more workers, there isn't an increase in goods purchased, so at best they pay a little bit more taxes, maybe they give raises to a few workers but nothing with real impact. Business owners aren't dumb. Anyone with half a brain can use price cuts and increases to maximize his profit. Big ticket items go on sale from mid February to May, when people are getting their tax refund checks. Two weeks before a summer holiday, soda is at the regular price, but the week after it's on sale. So after the first of the month, when government checks go out, food stores may have higher priced items on sale, like delmonico steaks, but the cheaper meats are at the normal price. Near the end of a month flank steaks are on sale, the company is just trying to sell more of an item that is going to be selling anyway. I'm not trying to focus on the very poor, just trying to point out trends that could be found from fixed income retirees up to yacht buyers. So if a tax rebate was somehow focused on the lower tax payers (and that would be a good thing, for them at least) it would not have a positive impact on the economy as a whole. Now the other side, like Bob Zim pointed out. Does Bob or his accountant having more money in his savings account or some other money storage vehicle..even stocks...really help? Even if it's just his savings account, he pays taxes on interest on that so some will go directly back to the government. Not the greatest return on investment to be sure, but it's a start. Banks have more liquidity with the extra money, maybe they make a few more loans. Maybe he does invest in some stocks and a company or two decides to hire a few more workers, or do more RD, or add an extra product line. I'm grasping at straws here (where I am tired) but Bob Zim isn't going to buy a hundred more delmonicos for the hundred times less taxes he's paying. There won't be a sudden upswing in BWM orders. It will be the little things that his money, concentrated with others who can invest their money instead of just quickly spending it, that will help the economy. My governor Ed it's only fourteen cents Rendell engages in class warfare, yet he hates people talking about winners and loser with his tax reform. One reform will benefit property owners, but not renters. He actually said, Well, they only make 30% of the state population. So it's okay
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
--- G. D. Akin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Garibaldi is asking about how one fastens pants, fasten then zip or zip then fasten. Turns out both are fasten first kind of guys; makes me feel good, so am I. If you zip first then fasten, sometimes you got to do a bit of re-zipping. Still do it that way though. You should have named the post Zooty, Zoot Zoot. but then that's season 2 isn't it? You mentioned Farscape. That's my Fav. Sci.Fi. really goofed not following up on that one. They even claimed they were having a loss in viewership, please. Their whole channel has lost quite a bit of viewership after they dropped Farscape. Subscriptions which include Sci-Fi have also fallen prompting Comcast to move Sci-Fi off of their high end. With SG1 sure to go to DVD there just is no reason to pay the extra $40 a month just to have Sci-Fi. What else in on that chanel? Nothing. Has anyone considered why the ending of the series was the way it was? I think that they hope to bring it back eventually and know they might not get the same actors back. For Criton and Sung that would end the show, unless Their DNA is mixed...or something... Thoughts? Anyone hear a rumor about a movie on Showtime? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Farscape ending (was; Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .)
Jan Coffey wrote: Has anyone considered why the ending of the series was the way it was? I think that they hope to bring it back eventually and know they might not get the same actors back. For Criton and Sung that would end the show, unless Their DNA is mixed...or something... Thoughts? It's Crichton and Sun. ;) They finished shooting that season before knowing they'd been cancelled. So no idea... Ticia ',:) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
George said: I'm really impressed by the way the threads interweave dovetail in Chrysalis. Events are poised for things to burst out in season 2. This is probably the most coherent, intriguing, and ripe with anticipation season ending cliffhanger of any of the most popular SF series. _Babylon 5_ is very good at those sorts of cliffhangers. The one for the end of the third season, especially, is awesomely good. It's interesting, though, that most of the cliffhangers are sidestepped at the beginning of the next season and their themes reintroduced and developed over the first third or so of the season. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fasten, then zip or . . .
Richard Baker said after George said: I'm really impressed by the way the threads interweave dovetail in Chrysalis. Events are poised for things to burst out in season 2. This is probably the most coherent, intriguing, and ripe with anticipation season ending cliffhanger of any of the most popular SF series. _Babylon 5_ is very good at those sorts of cliffhangers. The one for the end of the third season, especially, is awesomely good. It's interesting, though, that most of the cliffhangers are sidestepped at the beginning of the next season and their themes reintroduced and developed over the first third or so of the season. --- If that is the case, then I'm in for a treat. I know, I know, you told me so. The writing was given considerable fore- and long range-thought. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Format and Media consolidation of America [L3]
On Sunday, June 1, 2003, at 06:49 am, Bryon Daly wrote: Jim Sharkey writes: Julia Thompson wrote: How much time do you spend reading articles? Julia who hates hearing about plonking on-list, actually What is plonking, anyway? Is this some bit of Internet lingo I just happened to miss? I seem to have missed it, too. Anyone care to clue us in? Adding someone to your killfile, ie setting a mail filter rule so that their posts go straight to the bin unseen. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly. - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
