Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1356 I haven't seen much from Dean campaign regarding the evolving It was only 16 words, get over it already. scandal. I think inserting that the inclusion of this particular sentance in the State of the Union Address, (SOTU), demonstrates indictable crimes were committed by the gang at the White House. I also think that a Special Proscecutor needs to be appointed because Ashcroft will never do anything about it. George Tenent's non-apology made a few things clear: 1. The CIA tried to get the infamous 16 words out of the State of the Union Address, but; 2. Un-named others insisted that it be inserted; 3. The 16 words were known to be, uhm, dubious by the CIA; and, 4. By golly, George was really, really, really sorry that he didn't argue hard enough to have this obvious tripe removed. That said, one thing that hasn't been touched on here is how Tenent's statement leaves Bush Co. open to criminal proscecution. Bush presenting dubious/fictious information to Congress in the SOTU was a felony. Go to: U.S. Code Search and look up 18 USC Sec. 1001. It says, in part, and with emphasis added: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully - (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes ANY materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses ANY false writing or document knowing the same to contain ANY materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (deleted material) (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to - (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; . . . The Constitution mandates the President deliver a State of the Union Address, from time to time. The President may, at his choosing, deliver the information orally, but he must deliver it to Congress in writing as well. Ergo, the SOTU is a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress. as defined in paragraph 18 USC Sec. 1001 (c)1. Therefore, Bush's lies in the SOTU are felony violations of 18 USC Sec. 1001. Tenant's statement implies there was a group of un-named others who worked tirelessly to include such, uhm, fictitious, information in the SOTO in violation of 18 USC Sec. 1001. Which, of course, is a violation of 18 USC Sec. 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. And the fact that Tenant knew this, or suspected it, concealed it, and did not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States. leaves him and his un-named co-conspirators liable for prosecution for misprision of felony, 18 USC Sec. 4. --- Trippi: Questions about who put the 16 words in the speech have finally been answered by Bush himself. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56336-2003Jul14.html?nav=hp top_tb He said: _Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldnt have put it in the speech._ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's talk about
Kevin Tarr wrote: streaming audio ;-) I investigated those USB memory things. While the concept is good, they are unpractical for my situation. I want enough music to listen to for nine hours. For a $99 256MB stick, it'd take me three days, or three sticks, to get enough music for one day. I don't know how, but a third stream failed for me at work. It's not like they are being blocked, they just fail. Now there is other stuff I've listened to at work for a while, they still work fine, but my music doesn't. I know I'm not the only one streaming, and no one has told me to stop, it's not part of the corporate policy, but I'm having trouble. I could ask someone...nah. So I bit the bullet and got two things: streaming MP3 recorder software and a new CD-RW drive. I've recorded three days of music already onto my hard drive here at home. Of course, what does my brother tell me today, as I'm putting the CD recorder in the computer? Have you ever heard of Launch? http://launch.yahoo.com/ I tried it at work and it worked, very crisp stream.g. I know if I like it, it will stop working. So I'll record at home. Kevin T. - VRWC rambling I mentioned this before, but maybe on another list. I recently purchased an Apple iPod, 30Gb version. I currently have 4400+ songs and a couple of audio books on it and still have 9Gb left. Though it is a pricey toy ($499.00), it beats the snot out of having several USB keys. Sound is great. Highly recommended. George A ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's talk about
At 11:22 AM 7/17/2003 +1000, you wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: streaming audio ;-) http://launch.yahoo.com/ I tried it at work and it worked, very crisp stream.g. I know if I like it, it will stop working. So I'll record at home. I think I'd rather it didn't work - I get good quality sound, good playlist, BUT I only get the first 23 seconds of each song! drives me nuts. I hear great songs I haven't heard for a while, and before I can Alt-Tab to rate it, it's over... As a complete newbie to streaming audio, I don't know what I should be expecting, but I'm guessing this isn't it... Cheers Russell C. I get the full songs with Launch, with a commercial every two-three songs. Maybe distance is making the songs go longer? (Trying for a pun, and it's an inverse relationship in this case anyway.) The ipodway too much money. I know I'm complaining about this problem a lot, but spending $100 would seem like overkill right now. The stream at home shuts off after an hour now, for my main source. Damn pop-up ads. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
My poodle is in bad need of a haircut . . .
It was a hot summer's day, and Luke was in the marina, having a few beers aboard his boat, patriotically named the Fourth of July. He was waiting for his friend, Opie, to arrive so they could go for a cruise. Opie was late, unfortunately, because he had to pick up his wife from her appointment with the obstetrician. Her examinations were cheap because the doctor, a fellow named Juan, was Opie's cousin. Anyway, the appointment went overtime, and Opie was late getting to the marina. Luke had been drinking all this time, and was feeling no pain. When he saw Opie finally walking down the pier, he jumped up, staggered to the side of the boat to wave to his friend, and nearly fell in! Opie got there just in time to grab Luke. Thus, it was that O. B. Juan's kin, Opie, saved Luke from falling to the dock side of the Fourth. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's talk about
At 05:50 PM 7/16/03 -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: streaming audio ;-) Just as long as we don't have to talk about screaming audio. There's far too much of that out there already . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: New Interview with PKD
http://frontwheeldrive.com/philip_k_dick.html There's an interview ...sort of... with Philip K. Dick at the above link. Jon Works for Me Maru Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Half of Baghdadis say the war was right
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/17/ wpoll17.xml By Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Editor (Filed: 17/07/2003) Iraqis approve of the war that removed Saddam Hussein but remain suspicious of America and Britain, according to an unprecedented opinion poll in Baghdad. The first western-style survey reveals mixed feelings, confusion, and frustration among Iraqis three months after the fall of Saddam's regime. It shows American and British forces still have a long way to go to win over the trust of Iraqis. Half of the nearly 800 people questioned said they believed that war was right, compared with 27 per cent who said it was wrong. But most dismiss the allies' rhetoric about liberating Iraqis and their formal casus belli, to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. Nearly half believe the main motive was to secure oil supplies and help Israel. Such contradictory replies appear throughout the survey. Fifty-five per cent of respondents wanted the allies to hand over power immediately or within three months, but a similar number wanted coalition troops to stay in Iraq for a year or more. There was no agreement on how Iraq should be ruled. Only about a third wanted a western-style democracy. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who study history are doomed to repeat it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
To me, the most bothersome thing about the 16 words is that it also happened simultaneously in Australia and England -- Howard and Blair said the same thing and now blame it on a failure of the British intelligence service. What a coincidence that neither the British, Australian nor U.S. intelligence services or top elected officials could get this right. -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
To me, the most bothersome thing about the 16 words is that it also happened simultaneously in Australia and England -- Howard and Blair said the same thing and now blame it on a failure of the British intelligence service. What a coincidence that neither the British, Australian nor U.S. intelligence services or top elected officials could get this right. The British apparently believed it. The Americans knew better. 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... The British apparently believed it. The Americans knew better. What concerns me more is that there is a very thorough system for reviewing anything that the U.S. president says in public, and I'm confident that similar procedures are in place in the U.K. and Australia. I'm quite a bit more familiar with the system than most people, thanks to some of my previous work. I have a very, very hard time believing the account offered by the administration, unless something has gone quite wrong with the system by which the intelligence community delivers its products to the executive branch... in three countries. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What concerns me more is that there is a very thorough system for reviewing anything that the U.S. president says in public, and I'm confident that similar procedures are in place in the U.K. and Australia. I'm quite a bit more familiar with the system than most people, thanks to some of my previous work. I have a very, very hard time believing the account offered by the administration, unless something has gone quite wrong with the system by which the intelligence community delivers its products to the executive branch... in three countries. Nick Of course, there's _also_ the fact that what he said was true. He claimed that the British told us that Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa. A true statement. The British do, in fact, _still_ claim that Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa - they stand by the claim. A doubly true statement. Finally, the WSJ (on www.opinionjournal.com) has just printed excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate used to prepare the claim - and it too is quite convincing. A triply true statement. The Bush Administration is not always perfectly truthful, but in this instance they were exactly that - yet the mass media and Democratic partisans have managed to convince almost everyone that the Administration was lying, when it was, in fact, telling the truth. And people wonder why conservatives talk about media bias. Let alone the selfish partisanship of lying to discredit the President during wartime on the very issue of going to war, knowing that your lies will be picked up and believed by a gullible world all too eager to believe the worst of the United States. Shame on everyone involved. Shame on the Adminstration for not defending itself better, and even more on those who slander it for their own partisan advantage or sheer malice. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
SNIP Shame on everyone involved. Shame on the Administration for not defending itself better, and even more on those who slander it for their own partisan advantage or sheer malice. You neglected to mention the Iraqi opposition's employment of Bush's Lie to discredit U.S. Army efforts in Iraq today. This may directly lead to more deaths of Americans, as Iraqi insurgency may increase as a result of a lack of trust of the US president and the war effort of the U.S., because of the slander. We all know that the democrats will use this to their advantage. We understand it as partisan politics. But how can the Arab world know the truth from political slander? from http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?vts=071720031150 The speaker also called for a jihad, or holy war, against the American-led administration and accused President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of tricking their own people to justify the war in Iraq. What will they say to their people and to mankind. What will the chorus of lies say to those that backed them? said the voice. Bush and Blair have come under increasing criticism at home over some of the intelligence used in the runup to the war. How can one argue with this statement? Who wants to be known as someone who is duped by a liar? What would you do, if the tables were reversed, and we, as Americans, were just freed from a tyranny? I expect we would not want to politically support a liar. Oh well... the damage is already done. Nerd From Hell = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: parallel universes
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unitary Fluctuations Of Decoherence Ergodicity Maru (I thought I'd just toss together some terms from this article :} - what a lovely word-salad!) Ergodisity: of or relating to a process in which every sequence or sizable sample is equally insulted, representative of the whole. As in: Yo mamma in every parallel universe is so ugly.. grin In this particular universe, my mamma didn't *wear* combat boots, but she did spit-shine them for my daddy... So, would DecoHairence have something to do with an artistic movement that amplified lines and angles in hairstyles, rather than scattered curls? :) Dis 'n' Dat Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Listref] Fwd: Wind Power: A Commentary from Bill Hammack
Given the recent discussion on-list, thought I'd pass along this: Wind Power : A commentary from Bill Hammack's public radio program You can listen to this commentary at http://www.engineerguy.com Energy from the wind is renewable and pollutes very little, yet the wind supplies only about one percent of the United States electricity. Why such a small amount? There are several reasons that wind energy hasn't been universally adopted in the United States. First, wind energy only recently became cheap. The most important piece of machinery in turning wind into electricity is a turbine. The large blades of the windmill spin the turbine, and its motion turns wind energy into electricity. A turbine, of course, is the same thing that drives a jet. So naturally the first manufacturers of turbines for capturing wind power based their designs on jet engines. But this yielded wind turbines that were inefficient, making the cost of a kilowatt of wind energy about 40 cents in the early 1980s - many times more than fossil fuels. Today's state of the art windmill is fifteen stories tall, with blades 200 feet or more across. They move very slowly, typically about fifteen revolutions per minute, a tenth that of older systems. New turbines are so efficient that wind energy costs about the same as coal, natural gas or nuclear. With these advances, what's the problem now? It's this: You have to build the wind mills where there is wind. Typical places for wind farms, as they call banks of windmills, are plains, shorelines, the tops of hills, and the narrow gaps between mountains. Places rarely near transmission lines. The United States transmission system was designed to supply electricity to a local area, so power plants are typically built near cities. Since we build our cities where the wind doesn't blow, there are no power lines near wind farms. This calls for building costly transmission lines over unforgiving terrain. In addition, wind power differs from fossil and nuclear fuels in a critical way: It can supply steady electricity, but not a burst of electricity. Utilities use coal- and nuclear-powered plants, in addition to peak plants that kick in when demand is greatest. Engineers are designing special batteries to supply energy when the wind dies down, but the problem hasn't been solved yet. To find the solutions we might look to other countries. For example, Denmark gets one-third of their electricity from wind. Yet, oddly this highlights the scale of the problem in bringing wind power to the United States. Denmark is slightly smaller than Vermont and New Hampshire combined and has a population about that of Chicago. To generate their electrical energy from wind takes over 6,000 wind turbines, located off-shore. So, wind power isn't the pancea that will save us. The most optimistic estimate I can find is from the American Wind Energy Association. They think that about six percent of America's power will be from wind in the next twenty years. Mostly likely wind power will be part of a patchwork of many energy systems that, if all goes well, will supply the energy needs of the United States. Copyright 2003 William S. Hammack Enterprises Every now and then, when I'm driving in the foothills, I'll see a single wind turbine near a ranch house -- it does look incongruous near the more common windmill water-pumps! Grow Your Own Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Difference between man and woman.
An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Difference between man and woman.
Gary Nunn wrote: An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Could you point out the bits that kick in during pregnancy? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Difference between man and woman.
At 05:43 PM 7/17/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Gary Nunn wrote: An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Could you point out the bits that kick in during pregnancy? :) She gets a bigger rack . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Difference between man and woman.
From: Gary Nunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Unless, of course, you are talking about actual stereo or computer equipment. Then, the woman is content with just an on/off switch and, perhaps, a volume switch. The guy needs all the cool knobs and buttons and dials and switches and blinkenlights! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Of course, there's _also_ the fact that what he said was true. He claimed that the British told us that Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa. A true statement. The British do, in fact, _still_ claim that Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa - they stand by the claim. A doubly true statement. Finally, the WSJ (on www.opinionjournal.com) has just printed excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate used to prepare the claim - and it too is quite convincing. A triply true statement. The Bush Administration is not always perfectly truthful, but in this instance they were exactly that - Sort of like I did not have sex with that woman. The administration had very good evidence that this story was bogus; from the horse's mouth. the guy who did the report. So the key is not whether you can hide behind the fact that the british thought it was true. That is just playing with words. This was a very important accusation. They knew or should have known it was not true (based on their own investigation). Either they ignored it or created a climate where the CIA would downplay it. Most benign explanation. Tbey made an honest mistake. But wait, if I make the honest mistake of going the wrong way on a superhighway and cause a major accident I am not excused from responsibility by the fact that I had no malicious intent. I am held accountable. And the more important the mistake the more accountable I am held. yet the mass media and Democratic partisans have managed to convince almost everyone that the Administration was lying, when it was, in fact, telling the truth. That is so twisted. It was telling the truth; it said the british said the story was true but the administration knew it was not true. That in my book is worse than a lie. And people wonder why conservatives talk about media bias. Many analysts think the media has given bush a very free ride in the coverage of this war. Watching BBC versus CNN or heaven forbid FOX was like watching two different events. It is time for conservatives to stop this BS of media bias. Bush controls the media not the other way around. Let alone the selfish partisanship of lying to discredit the President during wartime on the very issue of going to war, knowing that your lies will be picked up and believed by a gullible world all too eager to believe the worst of the United States. Wait; we are at war because this administration unilaterally committed the country to this course of action. We were told it was necessary because of WMD. Now we find out that some of the proof for these weapons, the rationale for the war was false and that the government either knew or should have known it to be false. How is it unpatriotic to question this? We are putting no one at risk by doing this analysis. Do you really think that more soldiers are dying because of this? Sadam's loyalists and/or their terrorist allies would have come up with another excuse to fan resentment against that. But this was the risk going in. If we did not secure the peace with minimal loss, get Sadamm and restore order quickly we were going to have these problems. So we did what we did quickly but have done poorly on the catching Sadamm and restoring order. Those who were against the war for tactical (not moral reasons) were concerned about these problems and those concerns have turned out to be true. Shame on everyone involved. Shame on the Adminstration for notdefending itself better, and even more on those who slander it for their own partisan advantage or sheer malice. It can't defend itself better. To claim your narrow version of truth (I didn't say A was true, I said the British said A was true) is a transparent attempt to shift blame. The speech in which Bush made this claim was important. The claim was important. They put it in the speech to prove that we were in danger. If they just had hear say evidence or more accurately they had reason to believe that the evidence was false it should not have been in the speech. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Difference between man and woman.
--- Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Do you see the inoculous little knob on the lower left? The one where all the arrows point -down-? Whatever you do, DONT TURN THAT KNOB! Also be forwarned any time you get a red light, quickly undo whatever you just did. It won't stop the screeaching noise, and the unit will never work the same as it did before, but it's much better than the whole system crashing. (notice: most models come with a red light already on) = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Difference between man and woman.
On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 11:53 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:43 PM 7/17/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Gary Nunn wrote: An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Could you point out the bits that kick in during pregnancy? :) She gets a bigger rack . . . 1u or 2u ? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard. - anonymous ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Listref] Legality of Bambi events questioned
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2003/jul/17/515353096.html xponent Wascawy Woman Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Difference between man and woman.
On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 12:02 am, Horn, John wrote: From: Gary Nunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Unless, of course, you are talking about actual stereo or computer equipment. Then, the woman is content with just an on/off switch and, perhaps, a volume switch. The guy needs all the cool knobs and buttons and dials and switches and blinkenlights! Unless the guy is into the real deal equipment. Then less is more :) http://www.krellonline.com/html/m_ClassA_p_FPBm_750cx.html -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life - Terry Pratchett ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: God, Religion, and Sports Medicine
Robert J. Chassell wrote: Daniel Defoe satirized this kind of distinction ... Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] said I think you might mean Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels? Yes, you are right. My mistake. I don't know why I was thinking of Defoe. -- 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said Of course, there's _also_ the fact that what he said was true. He claimed that the British told us that Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa. A true statement. No, not quite. If my memory serves me right, US President Bush did not say that the `British said'. Instead, Bush said that the `British learned'. There is a difference. In everyday language, people do not say of others that they learned a lie, unless the belief on the part of speaker that it is false is specified. The default presumption in language is that when you say someone else learned, that what they learned is true. In addition, if my memory serves me right, part of the honor code for the US military academy at West Point is not only to tell the truth, but also `not to quibble'. Put another way, the presumption ought to be that the Commander in Chief is uses language in a more nearly customary way. You cannot expect him to tell `the whole truth', but you can expect him to keep silent on that about which he otherwise would lie. Unfortunately, your statement comes across as similar to those who defended President Clinton after he talked about sex, except in this case, a war resulted. -- 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sort of like I did not have sex with that woman. The administration had very good evidence that this story was bogus; from the horse's mouth. the guy who did the report. So the key is not whether you can hide behind the fact that the british thought it was true. That is just playing with words. This was a very important accusation. They knew or should have known it was not true (based on their own investigation). Either they ignored it or created a climate where the CIA would downplay it. Most benign explanation. Tbey made an honest mistake. But wait, if I make the honest mistake of going the wrong way on a superhighway and cause a major accident I am not excused from responsibility by the fact that I had no malicious intent. I am held accountable. And the more important the mistake the more accountable I am held. No, they did _not_ know it was not true. In fact, it was almost certainly true. The British government _still_ believes that it was true. The Iraqis may (or may not) have been seeking Uranium in Niger. There is more to Africa than Niger. Bush never claimed that they were seeking anything in Niger. He claimed that the British told him they were seeking something in Africa. _The only information that we have_ as to the credibility of the accusation - the British government's stated position - hold that the accusation is true. End of story. You've just been swindled by people who hate George Bush more than Saddam Hussein, Bob. conservatives talk about media bias. Many analysts think the media has given bush a very free ride in the coverage of this war. Watching BBC versus CNN or heaven forbid FOX was like watching two different events. It is time for conservatives to stop this BS of media bias. Bush controls the media not the other way around. That's true, because the BBC hates Israel and the United States. The argument that watching the BBC means the media is not biased is about equal to saying that the fact that Al Jazeera claimed we were mass murdering Iraqi civilians means that the BBC must have been telling the truth. The BBC - we now know - was _faking_ stories to make Tony Blair look bad. What does that tell you? Wait; we are at war because this administration unilaterally committed the country to this course of action. Bob, US + UK + Australia + Poland + several other countries unilateral. We were told it was necessary because of WMD. Now we find out that some of the proof for these weapons, the rationale for the war was false and that the government either knew or should have known it to be false. How is it unpatriotic to question this? We are putting no one at risk by doing this analysis. Do you really think that more soldiers are dying because of this? Sadam's loyalists and/or their terrorist allies would have come up with another excuse to fan resentment against that. But this was the risk going in. If we did not secure the peace with minimal loss, get Sadamm and restore order quickly we were going to have these problems. So we did what we did quickly but have done poorly on the catching Sadamm and restoring order. Those who were against the war for tactical (not moral reasons) were concerned about these problems and those concerns have turned out to be true. Actually, they didn't. There were lots of lies told about Iraq. We were told we would take tens of thousands of casualties. We were told that we woudl kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. We were told that the people of Iraq would fight against us. We were told that Saddam was not hated in Iraq. Lots of lies. Of course, Bob, they were all on your side of the political fence, but I won't hold that against you. Those concerns have turned out to be the beliefs of the abysmally ignorant. Attacks on American forces in Germany after the Second World War continued until 1947. It has now been about, oh, three months since Saddam was overthrown. In that time we have been, on average, losing one person every three days. I mourn for every person lost. I have friends in the war zone - can you say the same? But that isn't exactly a catastrophe. If Bush had really been lying, then it would not at all be unpatriotic to criticize him. Making up false accusations for pure partisan advantage - and there is no other reasonable explanation for what is happening - is contemptible. The Democratic Party leadership has gone so collectively insane that they would rather investigate this than, say, the failures of the Homeland Security Department (real, although overstated) or the intelligence problems that led to 9/11, or Saudi support of terrorists, or anything that might actually be useful and in the national interest. They are fundamentally unserious. This is, of course, why Bush is going to win in a walk in 2004, but I would _hope_ that you would at least not fall for such mendacious behavior. We have, apart from which,
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately, your statement comes across as similar to those who defended President Clinton after he talked about sex, except in this case, a war resulted. -- Robert J. Chassell Except, the British still believe that the statement was true. The British government has repeated, on many occassions, that it still believes that Iraq was doing exactly what Bush and Blair said it was doing in Africa. Furthermore, Bob, you're much too smart to believe something as dumb as that the world of intelligence is quite as clear as whether Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky. The most harsh interpretation fo the facts available is that the Administration honestly made a claim that has now been called into question. Not proven false, just called into question. The most plausible interpretation of the facts available is that the Administration made a claim that is still supported by the preponderance of the evidence. There is _no_ plausible interpretation of the facts which holds that the Adminstration lied or sought to lie. Anyone who argues that is either themselves a liar or a dupe. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What concerns me more is that there is a very thorough system for reviewing anything that the U.S. president says in public, and I'm confident that similar procedures are in place in the U.K. and Australia. I'm quite a bit more familiar with the system than most people, thanks to some of my previous work. I have a very, very hard time believing the account offered by the administration, unless something has gone quite wrong with the system by which the intelligence community delivers its products to the executive branch... in three countries. Nick Of course, there's _also_ the fact that what he said was true. He claimed that the British told us that Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa. A true statement. The British do, in fact, _still_ claim that Iraq was seeking Uranium in Africa - they stand by the claim. A doubly true statement. Finally, the WSJ (on www.opinionjournal.com) has just printed excerpts from the National Intelligence Estimate used to prepare the claim - and it too is quite convincing. A triply true statement. The Bush Administration is not always perfectly truthful, but in this instance they were exactly that - yet the mass media and Democratic partisans have managed to convince almost everyone that the Administration was lying, when it was, in fact, telling the truth. And people wonder why conservatives talk about media bias. Let alone the selfish partisanship of lying to discredit the President during wartime on the very issue of going to war, knowing that your lies will be picked up and believed by a gullible world all too eager to believe the worst of the United States. Shame on everyone involved. Shame on the Adminstration for not defending itself better, and even more on those who slander it for their own partisan advantage or sheer malice. Except for the fact that the CIA pulled the very same information from a an earlier speech by W., three months _before_ the state of the union address, because they thought it was false. They sent someone to Africa to determine if it was true, and determined it was not. Whoever put the 16 words into the speech knew those 16 were false, and therefore committed a felony by lying to the congress in a required document. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... Monica Lewinsky. The most harsh interpretation fo the facts available is that the Administration honestly made a claim that has now been called into question. Not proven false, just called into question. The most plausible interpretation of the facts available is that the Administration made a claim that is still supported by the preponderance of the evidence. There is _no_ plausible interpretation of the facts which holds that the Adminstration lied or sought to lie. Is a general pattern of making misleading statements on similar subjects admissable evidence? If you are going by a strict legal interpretation, I would tend to agree that Mr. Bush has not committed perjury. On the other hand, his administration has been succeeding in misleading most of the American public for years, and finally got called on it. That does seem fair. ---David Weepons of Mass Deestruckshen? We don't need no steenk'n Weepons of Mass Deestruckshen! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Erik Reuter wrote: ... That way we won't get caught in a loop with me making math mistakes and you saying the result doesn't make sense to you but you don't want to work out the math. But actually doing the math makes it like WORK for me. : ) By the way, how did you know, before working out the equation, that the potential function of the spinning habitat had to be approximately the same as that due to gravity? Did you intuit that from a principle of the equivalence of a gravitational field with that of a centrifugal force field in a rotating frame? Yes. The fields of acceleration vectors are approximately equal, so everything else must be as well. (A scene from _Consider Phlebas_ notwithstanding...) ... n[h] / n[0] = Exp[ - m g h ( 1 - 0.5 h / R ) / k / T ] So, assuming I don't make another math mistake, the formula for pressure ratio is the same as that for n[h] / n[0] which can be written ... Looks good. Clever. My way I would have had to solve a differential equation. ---David Robert-- You started all this. Am I right in thinking that you WANT the habitat to have vaguely terrestrial weather? Something like a layer of clouds a kilometer or two up? Sounds cool! Going back to physical intuition again, it does seem to me that we need to say which parts of the habitat are hot, and which are cold. Weather is essentially a heat engine, so the direction of heat flow should make a large difference. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Weepons of Mass Deestruckshen? We don't need no steenk'n Weepons of Mass Deestruckshen! So your belief, David, is that Saddam Hussein, having expelled all inspectors from his country, decided Yes! Now is my opportunity to get rid of all of my chemical and biological weapons without telling anybody so that I can keep sanctions on my country.? Now that's pretty astonishing. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
For Matrix fans (funny)
For windows media player. (Safe for work) mms://wmt-od.stream.ne.jp/ntv/hkzkt/hkzkt10.wmv _ Help STOP 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: Difference between man and woman.
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:43 PM 7/17/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Gary Nunn wrote: An image that definitively and clearly illustrates the difference between men and women. http://www.newpacifica.net/life.html Could you point out the bits that kick in during pregnancy? :) She gets a bigger rack . . . And eventually she reaches a point where you can't really tell it's a bigger rack. :) Julia 28 weeks today, at *least* as big as she was at 39 weeks last time, and the belly kinda overshadows everything else (makes even the butt look small!) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:34 PM Subject: RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words Lots of lies. Of course, Bob, they were all on your side of the political fence, but I won't hold that against you. The expanses are quite broad on both sides of the fence. The small minded penchant for pigeonholing, a divisive tactic lately popularised by the likes of Limbaugh for example among party faithful types, and aimed at the ignorant who might find it convincing, seems to have crept into your rhetoric. I would find your already persuasive arguments much more effective if I were not continually distracted by what appears to be condescension that borders on the insulting. Even though it is not directed toward me, and is often directed towards those I disagree with, I still find it a distraction. When I read this type of disputation I sometimes wonder if the point of an argument is to convince or inform of hash out the truth, or if it is simply a mechanism to perpetuate arguing. xponent The Politics Of Online Disputation Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Gautam Mukunda wrote: So your belief, David, is that Saddam Hussein, having expelled all inspectors from his country, decided Yes! Now is my opportunity to get rid of all of my chemical and biological weapons without telling anybody so that I can keep sanctions on my country.? What I believe? That things are usually not all black or white. I believe that Hussein did have some remnants of a weapons program that was against the Geneva Convention. And I believe that he was not eager to open his country up to thorough inspections. On the other hand, there don't seem to be large stockpiles of WMDs, do there? I'm not sure that Hussein believed that allowing unfettered inspections WOULD save him. (I'm not sure that I believe it--for all I know the US would have seized on some other pretext to attack.) We also know that his judgment is not always sound, and that his ego is large. Given all this, it's not clear from his actions that he did have actual WMDs. ---David Now that's pretty astonishing. (And please stop these little digs at the end. If you'll look back at my post, I managed to refrain. I even called the US President Mr. Bush, which took great forbearance.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
