Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is an old boys club writ on a global scale. No backing for this. just becouse the above is true (if it is) does not mean that they are not doing what is right when it comes to forign policy. Think of it this way, just becouse someone is greedy doesn't mean that they would kill someone for money. You seem to want others to believe, just becouse someone is priviliged you think that all their actions are directly related to maintaining that privilige and yet you can not show a direct link, just an assumption. It's like you have a rule that says all rich people are evil. That seems just as bad as raceism to me, and it sound so rediculous that it makes what might be an otherwise convincing political stance seem wrong. And PNAC wasn't planning it's fourth reich and the iraq war since 1992. In another universe. In this one PNAC was planning the Iraq war since 1992. You can read about it from their own literature. planing yes. 4th reich no. you have to provide a reson why the PNAC is wrong, you can't just compare them with the nazis. That would be like me comparing you with the japanese emperialists. There is no connection. Richard Pearle: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759 No stages, he said. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now. Goebbels: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm Total war is the demand of the hour. We must put an end to the bourgeois attitude which we have also seen in this war: Wash my back, but don't get me wet! (Every sentence is met with growing applause and agreement.) The danger facing us is enormous. The efforts we take to meet it must be just as enormous. The time has come to remove the gloves and use our fists. (A cry of elemental agreement rises. Chants from the galleries and seats testify to the full approval of the crowd.) We can no longer make only partial use of the war potential at home and throughout Europe. We must use our full resources, as quickly and thoroughly as it is organizationally and practically possible. Unnecessary concern is wholly out of place. The future of Europe hangs on our success in the East. We are ready to defend it. The German people are shedding their most valuable blood in this battle. The rest of Europe should at least work to support us. There are voices in Europe that have already realized this. Others still resist. That cannot influence us. If danger faced them alone, we could view their reluctance as literary nonsense. But the danger is to us all, and we must all do our share. Those who today do not understand that will thank us tomorrow on bended knees that we courageously and firmly took on the task. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
duck dodgers
Coming Soon to a Galaxy Near You DUCK DODGERS--NEW SERIES PREMIERE! Saturday, August 23, at 11:30 a.m. (e/p) Earth needs a hero. Until then, theres a duck. Dont miss the premiere of Duck Dodgers, coming next month to Cartoon Network. Meet your captain and get a sneak peek of the new show now at the official Duck Dodgers site. http://www.duckdodgers.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Research on ET penetration of government
Along the way to finding other stuff, I came across this: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/6/prweb67746.php Since it's a press release, I think it's okay for me to post the whole darn thing here... -- Research Study on Extraterrestrial Infiltration of Clandestine Government Organizations A US Foreign Policy book author and University Researcher has released a Research Study on the extent to which clandestine organizations embedded in the military and intelligence branches of government have been infiltrated by different extraterrestrial races, and the threat this poses to the sovereignty of humanity. Dr Michael E. Salla, author of the Hero's Journey Towards the Second American Century (Greenwood Press 2002) and a Researcher at a major American university, describes the different intervention philosophies and activities of various Extraterrestrial races intervening on the planet. He analyses how this impacts on the decision making and organizational structure of clandestine organizations embedded within military and intelligence departments of the US and other national governments. The evidence he uses in framing his analysis is primarily drawn from the testimonies of participants in clandestine government organizations which he claims serve as the strongest evidentiary source for analysis of the ET presence. Dr Salla identifies many of these individuals as having participated in black projects which have the highest security classifications in the US and other countries, and carry severe penalties for divulging to the general public. He believes that the fact that many of these witnesses have been able to make these testimonies public in various lectures, videos, websites or books, suggests that an acclimation program is occurring whereby the general public is being prepared for the more disturbing aspects of the ET presence. Dr Salla makes recommendations at the conclusion of his paper designed to assist in developing an adequate response to the infiltration of clandestine government organizations by various ET factions. He concludes that the consequences of inaction in response to the ET presence is a very real threat to human sovereignty. An online version of the Research Study is available at http://www.exopolitics.org -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 05:17:09PM -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: As a continuous policy it stinks, but to jumpstart a failing economy it has worked in the past. Only for a sufficiently vague definition of worked. Getting money into the hands of people who will spend it on consumption has historically worked the best at stimulating GDP growth. Trickle down does not grow the GDP as fast as more progressive measures. The reason I am not backing my claims with data is that it has already been done on this list. Check the archives if you are interested. So what you are saying is that there is a way that works better? Get a graph of the economy for the last 24 years and see where it's good and were it isn't and then talk about who's polices seem to work and who's don't. Done that, AS I SAID IN MY PREVIOUS POST THIS WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED. And we went back much longer than 24 years too. Check the archives. Ok I'll spell it out. If you go back 24 yeas you will se that the Clinton years were the best. Ragan mediocre with the wealthy doing better than anyone else. The Bushes years stinking rotton. Whatever Clinton was doing seemed to work really well. Although what Ragan did worked better than what the Bushs did. If you would believe that it is dependent on the president, which, if you look at the graphs they match almost perfectly offset a few months into each presidency. = _ 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
--- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is an old boys club writ on a global scale. No backing for this. just becouse the above is true (if it is) does not mean that they are not doing what is right when it comes to forign policy. Think of it this way, just becouse someone is greedy doesn't mean that they would kill someone for money. You seem to want others to believe, just becouse someone is priviliged you think that all their actions are directly related to maintaining that privilige and yet you can not show a direct link, just an assumption. It's like you have a rule that says all rich people are evil. That seems just as bad as raceism to me, and it sound so rediculous that it makes what might be an otherwise convincing political stance seem wrong. And PNAC wasn't planning it's fourth reich and the iraq war since 1992. In another universe. In this one PNAC was planning the Iraq war since 1992. You can read about it from their own literature. planing yes. 4th reich no. you have to provide a reson why the PNAC is wrong, you can't just compare them with the nazis. That would be like me comparing you with the japanese emperialists. There is no connection. Richard Pearle: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759 No stages, he said. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now. Goebbels: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm It's ammazing what people will accept as journalism these days. All you need is $10 a month and a very basic understanding of HTML. You get better more up-to-date news here: http://www.onion.com = _ 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Fool wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Fool wrote: From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is an old boys club writ on a global scale. No backing for this. just becouse the above is true (if it is) does not mean that they are not doing what is right when it comes to forign policy. Think of it this way, just becouse someone is greedy doesn't mean that they would kill someone for money. You seem to want others to believe, just becouse someone is priviliged you think that all their actions are directly related to maintaining that privilige and yet you can not show a direct link, just an assumption. It's like you have a rule that says all rich people are evil. That seems just as bad as raceism to me, and it sound so rediculous that it makes what might be an otherwise convincing political stance seem wrong. And PNAC wasn't planning it's fourth reich and the iraq war since 1992. In another universe. In this one PNAC was planning the Iraq war since 1992. You can read about it from their own literature. planing yes. 4th reich no. you have to provide a reson why the PNAC is wrong, you can't just compare them with the nazis. That would be like me comparing you with the japanese emperialists. There is no connection. Richard Pearle: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759 No stages, he said. This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now. Goebbels: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm It's ammazing what people will accept as journalism these days. All you need is $10 a month and a very basic understanding of HTML. Mr pearl has been making statements about total war since the eighties. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
cow question
I rode past four cows to day...I've never seen a skinny cow before. There was feed available, and water and shelter; they must have been sick or part of an experiment. Two of them had letters painted on them. You could see their hip bones under the skin. Sorry for visual, but wow. When I left the house today I decided to ride out on flat roads, then hills on the way back. The wind was blowing in my face and I was wondering if I made a mistake. At times it was coming at me from one side, then the other. But I did think: if it turns just 15 degrees, it will be blowing in my face on the way back. Sure enough it was, with strong gusts even. I doubted it was that bad, but checking the weather info for the past four hours, before I started there was no wind, then it picked up to 8-10 mph north, then switched to 10-12 mph south. Some days you just can't win. Kevin T. - VRWC time for a nap ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
Robert, You have been mixing References: headers between this thread and others and it makes it harder for me to follow. Sorry, I did not mean to. I reply to the digest, then remove the digest's second address, so you do not receive two copies of the same message, and I try replace the digest header with the appropriate Subject. Sometimes, as right now, I have several mail buffers open. I do try to avoid confusing them. I'll harder. If you are going to reply to an unrelated thread, would you please delete the References: header I always reply to the digest. Presumably, all the threads in it are for that digest. It is all one mail message. But I can try to remember to remove References headers, although they should not effect you. -- 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: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:43:36PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: I always reply to the digest. Presumably, all the threads in it are for that digest. It is all one mail message. I didn't expect that! The message I was replying to previously was about the habitat, but it referenced a message in the Seth 16 words thread. I've never tried getting the digests. I don't know how the references line works with the digest. I would have predicted that your reply to the digest would reference a message that I didn't receive (the digest), but your message referenced a single message in the thread (which I did receive). Perhaps the digest takes it ID from the first message in the digest? But I thought email ID's were supposed to be unique, so the digest can't have the same ID as a single message? Weird. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Morality is just self interest?
Seriously, I don't know why I have become so involved. ... Do I worry about my fellow man because I want there to be a fair and clean world for my nephews? Roy Rappaport pointed out, in `Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity', which I am reading right now, ... whatever may be the case among other species, group selection (selection for the perpetuation of traits tending to contribute positively to the survival of the groups in which they occur but negatively to the survival of the particular individuals in possession of them) is not only possible among humans but of great importantance in humanity's evolution. All that is needed to make group selection possible is a device that leads individuals to separate their conceptions of well-being or advantage from bilogical survival. Notions such as God, Heaven, Hell, heroism, honor, shame, fatherland and democracy encoded in procedures of enculturation that represent them as factual, natural, public, or sacred (and, therefore, compelling) have dominated every culture for which we possess ethnographic or historical knowledge. page 10 So perhaps it is not your pre-humanity that is affecting you, but your humanity. -- 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: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
What is the heat conductivity of dirt, rock, and nickle-iron? Does anyone one know? Dirt and rock are similar, in the range 0.2 - 2 W / m K. Iron is about 84 W / m K Nickel is 92 W / m K air at 300K is 0.026 W / m K Thank you. Am I right in thinking that for air, this is the heat conductivity for still air, and not the heat transfer capabilities of moving air? What I have been saying is that if I were to perform the experiment by=20 obtaining a 2-meter or so probe with a sharp end, mount a thermocouple at=20 that end, and drive it into the ground, then place an identical=20 thermocouple at on the surface, the one on the surface would record=20 substantial variations in temperature both diurnally and annually, while=20 the one a couple of meters below the surface would report a nearly constant= Yes, this is a good description of my experience going into cellars and caves: the surface temperature may be high or low, but the temperature in the cellars and caves does not change much. This suggests either that not much heat is taken from the human body by a cold wind or that dirt is a pretty good insulator. I can tell you by personal experience that a cold wind can chill a human body fast. Hence the practical effect in any environment in which air can move, such as the interior of a spinning space habitat, is that air has a much higher possible heat transfer capacity than might be indicated by its still air heat conductivity value. Put another way, if the choice is between waiting out a blizzard while exposed to the wind, or waiting out the blizzard in a cave, choose the cave. You are less likely to freeze to death. The heat capacity of the endcaps is much more than the air, so it is better to say that the air is affected by the temperature of the endcaps. Yes, the heat capacity of the endcaps is much more than the air. But is that the critical factor? Or should the question ask how much heat is transferred to a volume of air near an endcap by conductivity from the endcap, versus how much heat is transferred (by mass exchange) by air moving from a spot on the surface at the rim to that volume? Since dirt and rock are better thermal conductors than air, ... My experience is that they insulate better than the wind. Are you saying that there will be no air movements in the spinning space habitat? If so please explain, because I think there will be, on account of different surface materials on the rim, or different amounts of light falling on different regions. But maybe I am wrong. there will be some heat transfer from the endcaps to the air. So you are saying that heat from the surface a the `rim' will be transferred through the rock and the regolith to the air near the spin axis of the habitat, rather than by air movements. I don't think so. Certainly, air at the top of a mountain I went to Friday did not gain temperature from heat conducted through the rock that day from the warm valley floor. That air at the top of the mountain was cool. The rocks at the top of the mountain were cool, too, they could not transfer much heat to the air. I would expect ... that with sufficiently good insulation, the surface of the end caps would come to the same temperature as the air fairly quickly and would neither contribute nor take much heat from the air. Same temperature as which air? The air on the axis is colder than the air at the rim. I meant the rock and the air at the same distances from the axis. Yes, the air on the axis is colder than the air at the rim. If the endcap had the same temperature vs. radius profile as the air, then there would be heat flowing from the rim to the center of the endcaps (heat flows from high to low T), and the center would heat up until in equilibrium the endcaps are at the same temperature as the rim. Yes, but what is the rate of heat flow from the interior of the rock through its surface into the air? How would it compare to heat transfered by moving masses of air? What wind speed would it produce? Suppose that the spinning space habitat is oriented so its spin axis goes through the North star. This way, the `sides' of its tuna can shape would spin in and out of sunlight, receiving on average about the same as a place on the earth does at a latitude of 45 degrees. (Is that right?) The habitat's end caps would receive slanting sun light (just like the North and South poles on earth, so here the metaphor of naming them that way is accurate.) So the end caps would not receive as much solar energy as the sides. Would the heat from the sides flow to the end caps and then be radiated into space? Would the air by the end caps get chilled by the heat being radiated into space? Or is the insulating quality of rock and dirt good enough to make that fairly irrelevant? (I am assuming here a hull of nickle-iron overlaid on the
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sunday 2003-07-20 14:36, Robert J. Chassell wrote: trickle down: more money to the rich The argument for giving more money to the rich than to the poor is that the rich save more. (That is to say, they save a higher portion of additional income; in jargon, their marginal propensity to save is higher.) After buying big boats, big houses, and jet airplanes, there is not so much left to buy; so the money must be saved. This has been observed empirically. (I cannot remember the numbers.) Saved money can be placed into non-productive investments like cash, or into investments like land, or into investments like factories. If the latter, factories are built, employing people to building and being staffed after being built, also employing people. The employed people receive enough money to buy a portion of what the factory puts out. The general presumption is that the latter occurs, and that the investment takes place at home, not in another country. The dangers are that the rich follow the other two ways of handling money: In the Great Depression, the rich figured that there were no productive investments, so they did not invest in them. In the jargon, this is called a `liquidity trap'. Lower interest rates does not help, since the rich see no reason to borrow money that will not return a profit. Only spending money on the poor helps. The current fear of deflation comes from this experience. Investments in land often mean a transfer of income from one group of rich to another such group. The third danger is that factory investment takes place overseas. For example, right now, major business reports are saying that the US rich are expanding business capacity more in China than in the US. Thus, right now, giving more money to the US rich means providing more money to investment in China. This was the policy of the Clinton administration (they called it `constructive engagement') but is not liked by many Americans, who would prefer that they be employed than that Chinese be employed. Of course, protections for local labor and investment markets lead to other dillemas. trickle up: more money to the poor -- The argument for giving more money to the poor than the rich is that the poor spend more. They do not already have two jet airplanes and a large boat. By spending more, they increase demand for goods. This leads to factories producing more. If the factories are in the local country, then more local people are employed. If the factories are in a foreign country, such as China, then more Chinese are employed. Either way, the rich do not face a `liquidity trap' since they see profitable investments for their money in factories either at home or abroad. Also, there is the argument that a person who has little money will find a hundred dollars more useful than a person who has a lot of money. That is because the one hundred dollars is a bigger portion of the poor person's income or wealth than of the rich person's. Hence, the government gets `more bang for the buck' by giving money to the poor than the rich. The counter argument is that a person with only 1 US dollars will waste an additional 100 dollars, but a person with a million US dollars will spend or invest an additional 100 dollars in a manner that provides more benefit for both the rich and the poor person than the same money going to the poor person. In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social atomization (probably a result of immigration--Americans feel relatively little organic connection to neighbors compared to the Dutch or Scandanavians) and Puritan heritage (meaning that wealth is regarded as both a sign of virture and an absolute right) have made trickle up policies very difficult to pass in the US. In short, 'trickle up', 'share the wealth' policies are regarded as un-American. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
- Original Message - From: Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats What is the heat conductivity of dirt, rock, and nickle-iron? Does anyone one know? Dirt and rock are similar, in the range 0.2 - 2 W / m K. Iron is about 84 W / m K Nickel is 92 W / m K air at 300K is 0.026 W / m K Thank you. Am I right in thinking that for air, this is the heat conductivity for still air, and not the heat transfer capabilities of moving air? Has this been mentioned? Cool air at the axis should be heavier and would try to displace warmer, less dense air. This would cause air currents that would speed up heat transfer in the atmosphere. I don't think you could expect thermal equilibrium in the scenarios I'm reading here, but the atmosphere would be fairly dynamic as opposed to the mostly static metals, regolith, and soils. Or am I way off base? xponent Let There Be Wind Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
At 10:12 PM 7/20/2003 +, you wrote: What is the heat conductivity of dirt, rock, and nickle-iron? Does anyone one know? Dirt and rock are similar, in the range 0.2 - 2 W / m K. Iron is about 84 W / m K Nickel is 92 W / m K air at 300K is 0.026 W / m K Thank you. Am I right in thinking that for air, this is the heat conductivity for still air, and not the heat transfer capabilities of moving air? Robert J. Chassell Not for nothing, I have my thermodynamics book at work. I'm trying to figure out how long it takes to cool down a can or bottle of beer. Then actual work showed up on my desk. There was something I read about convection vs. radiation in air. I may get this completely wrong: If there is no convection, radiation is significant, but if there is convection, radiation can be ignored. Kevin T. - VRWC off to bed for real ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Mixing Seth and What to Believe
Gautum wrote- That's the name of a drill we use to sanity check ideas. It's probably at the root of my frustration over a lot of what's being discussed with regards to Iraq. What would you have to believe to believe that the Bush Administration faked WMD evidence in order to invade Iraq? In other words, what would you have to believe in order to believe that the Administration, _knowing that Iraq had no WMDs_, invaded Iraq anyways for other reasons? Bemmzim wrote- It would not be a bad thing if the administration was honest about its intentions and motives. It seems clear that the WMD arguement was used since it was thought to be the one that would most easy to sell to the american public (Wolfowitz or Pearl as much as said so a few months ago). Bob wrote- But it is also `nothing short of astonishing' that the US Administration did not have a `Plan B' *already* worked out. Why the need to adapt and learn after the fact, especially when there are people in the US Army, among other places, who have experience and who can and do expect to work out `Plans B, C, and D'? Dee replies I think it is easiest to believe that the administration had a plan A that involved acting on UN Sanctions by April (recalling the rush for sanctions, etc), and that this is a Plan B. Troop build ups started in the Gulf last fall, by the time winter/spring came around the timeline was getting tight to get things rolling prior to bad weather. I think it is more likely that the WMD argument was a plan B, and it was a plausible argument that they felt would reveal some evidence with the least amount of grief/risk when it was all said and done. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
From: Trent Shipley In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social atomization (probably a result of immigration--Americans feel relatively little organic connection to neighbors compared to the Dutch or Scandanavians) and Puritan heritage (meaning that wealth is regarded as both a sign of virture and an absolute right) have made trickle up policies very difficult to pass in the US. In short, 'trickle up', 'share the wealth' policies are regarded as un-American. I agree with what you are saying, but couldn't there be another factor? I'm wondering: from 1450 to 1600 or 1700s (whenever real colonization of the Americas began) was there any middle class in Europe? There had to be some tip over point where a person could see that he didn't have to be a surf, or go into the priesthood, or join an army to become better than the situation he was born into. I'm sure the industrial revolution played a part in that, but were there any worker strikes in Europe before America? I'm just trying to imagine a world where Americas became another Europe with all the old ways. Instead of toiling on farms for some wealthy landowner, they toiled in a factory for some wealthy factory owner. I'm sure for some of the more socialist list members, this is the system we have now but I'm trying to be realistic, in my fantasy world. While anecdotal evidence is bad, I've know plenty of people who lived before and during the depression who say We weren't poor. Maybe we only ate meat twice a week, or had tough winters, but we made due. Human nature was the same back then. They knew who the truly poor families were and I doubt as many people died of starvation or were homeless. (When the population as a whole had a normal supply of food and shelter.) Some families did have tough times from lack of work or losing one or both parents for whatever reason, but not a small fraction brought it on themselves through drinking or other non-productive behaviors. What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has been in place seventy years, at least as government policy, and it certainly hasn't eliminated the poor, it has probably increased. I know this is a bad statement. I don't want to hear about Herr Doctor's diamond shaped society because for 10,000 years there was no such thing. We can't expect this recent change in the human condition to be stable. I'm not saying it should go away, and we should fight however hard we can to keep it, but there will be ups and downs. What I'm more worried about is being dragged down, not by consolidation of wealth at the top, but by everyone below. (Another stupid, bad statement, but this is the last line I wrote and I'm going to bed. The rest was written before.) Let's be honest: the poor in this country are far better off then the poor in other countries. That does not give me or them any comfort. Yes, I'm isolated from the truly poor people where I live. I know I don't do enough to help, but a tax system that forces me to help is the worst thing to do. I have to ask: how many of us sci-fi readers think of the Star Trek universe as the best, as far as humanity is concerned. Would we look at earth 2350 and see no poverty? The first season of ST:TNG had the crew waking three deep sleep humans. Sure, just like Bones in ST IV: The Search for Whales, the doctor could treat their maladies, but Crusher also cleaned their addictions, and they talked about having no money. Do we believe that human nature has been cleaned also? Everyone works, no one covets anothers' things, there is no envy or greed? (Lust and to a lessor extent jealousy are still there, just look at Kirk.) Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religion based ethics
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Religion based ethics Dan Minette wrote: One of the conclusions he accepted was the difficult position someone with his philosophy has with the foundation of ethics. It was one of his greatest regrets in life that there was no logical/calculus foundation for ethics. It was clear, by the nature of his statements, that he accepted that ethics have no firm foundation in his worldview. Indeed, he volunteered this when he was asked about regrets. There's an atheist with his eyes open. I respectfully differ with his position, but he certainly has strong integrity. Let me ask you this, Dan. If morals/ethics are purely a matter of faith, and the rules as set forth by a god, why aren't they constant? The fundamental rules that I follow have been constant for at least 2000 years. The application has changed. Peter Gomes writes an excellent analysis of this in The Good Book He argues for applying Biblical principals, not practices. Practice and interpretation of basic principals are also included in scripture, but one does not have to conform to practice. One of the great things about his argument is that he starts out by showing how the temperance movement (a relatively conservative movement by the 20th century) is consistent with an interpretation of scriptural principals, even though Jesus drank wine. Why are slavery, human sacrifice, infanticide, child labor, the subjugation of women etc. etc. ethical in the past, but unethical now? The scriptural answer was because your fathers were hard of heart. Another way to look at it is seeing us as growing in understanding. Further, there are changes in the world that changes the morality of a given action. For example, child labor was inherently moral when the inherent results of pulling children from the labor pool was to reduce We are discussing gay marriage in another thread. Is it unethical in your opinion? No, it is not. I think that the Christians who are opposed to this are not basing their arguments on biblical principals. I think that they are guided by an earlier understanding of natural law. I think that this understanding is flawed and should be perceived as opposed to fundamental biblical principals. I see our morals evolving before our very eyes, don't you? Not really. Remember there is no purpose to evolution, it just is. The survival of the fittest is not the survival of the best. In particular, fittest may be a function of the sequence of environments; so the nature of the fittest can be somewhat random. Yes, of course, there are some things, such as eyes, which are almost inevitable along many branches of evolution. But, there are many things that survived for reasons that can best be described as luck. I don't the nature of morality is a function of chance. In addition, by this definition, might is right. For example, if the Soviet Union had won the Cold War, then an uncontrolled press would have been immoral. If you think that morality is just the rules of the prevailing culture, then this is probably a self consistent viewpoint. But, then you would have to say that all that prevents the viewpoint that it is immoral for women to live as men's equals from being true is the military and economic power of the US. I don't think this is your viewpoint, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip ... Debbi claims that there may be some as yet unmeasurable by science connection between her numinous experiences and the rest of the universe. Very similar to some claims of astrology. I would not have made the comparison if there were no testable predictions ... Mmmm, hadn't looked at it quite like this before, but what you're saying is that I have *faith* that scientific knowledge will progress to the point that what I am referring to as a 'sixth or seventh or spiritual sense' will be, in the future, to some degree, measurable and verifiable... OK. Let me give an example of 'phenomena that had been investigated for centuries' to no avail, until after the proper equipment was invented and the phenomenon was explained scientifically: blood circulation. Blood had been known to be important for life from early in recorded history (and likely for centuries before that, but we have no record). The heart was thought to be somehow related to blood, but exactly *how* was unknown. Millenia of cutting up animals and each other, yet humans had little idea of how blood actually worked in the body. Even though several people *had* put forth the proper idea that blood was circulated around the body, in the ~1400 years since Galen, there was no evidence convincing enough to dispute him.[1] According to Galen, blood ebbs and flows in the arteries, distributing the vital spirit. Blood moves similarly in the veins, nourishing the body, but generally in an outward direction from the heart...In order to keep the blood from falling down in the venous system, Galen had hypothesized the existence of an attractive force... http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/etmcmull/HARVEY.htm ...Galen in the second century, who said that the blood reaching the right side of the heart went through invisible pores in the septum to the left side of the heart where it mixes with air to create spirit and then is distributed to the body. According to Galen's views, the venous system is quite separate from the arterial system, except when they come in contact by the unseen pores... http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/152/mh9422ar.html Building on the ideas of others, and his teacher's discovery of vein valves, and defying Western 'knowledge' of over a millenium, Harvey reasoned and experimented his way to a theory of blood circulation. http://www.arkanar.com.by/harvey_s_heart_the_discovery_of_blood_circulation.htm The tale of this discovery is one of ingenuity, imagination and perseverance, and a remarkable use of experiment, observation and skill. In the seventeenth century, William Harvey, physician to King James I and Charles I, made one of the greatest discoveries in anatomy, revolutionising our understanding of the human body. He found that the blood vessels form a closed system and that the blood circulates rapidly around the body, pumped by the heart. Having stood unchallenged for 1,500 years, the accepted view that blood was generated in the liver and slowly consumed by the body was overthrown. Andrew Gregorys extraordinary account of Harveys crucial work places it against the background of the art and science of the Renaissance, and narrates the dramatic struggle Harvey fought for its acceptance. Actually, it _wasn't_ accepted widely at the time, and later when capillaries were better visualized through the use of an improved microscope, the theory was further bolstered. http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/medicine/nonint/renaiss/as/reasbi1.shtml After his work was published, Harvey actually lost patients, as his ideas were considered eccentric. It was not until after his death that others became convinced that he was right. Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694), an Italian physician, used better quality microscopes to prove that Harvey's ideas were correct. [1] For the interested, one of the doctors who also disagreed with Galen's assertion was the Arab Ibn Nafis, who in the thirteenth century described blood's pulmonary circulation: http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/152/mh9422ar.html So just because something hasn't been shown in 2000 years doesn't mean that it won't ever. And for an even longer timeframe from observance to 'scientific revision,' look at the change from an Earth-centered to a sun-centered system! :) Debbi Revisio, Revisiari, Revisierunt 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
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 10:12:11PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Thank you. Am I right in thinking that for air, this is the heat conductivity for still air, and not the heat transfer capabilities of moving air? It is the thermal conductivity of air, which is almost the same whether the air is still or moving (it results from excited gas molecules bumping into adjacent molecules and exciting them in turn). However, if the air is moving, heat can be transferred by the moving gas molecules -- the molecules themselves have energy, and when the molecules move, they carry that energy which can excite other molecules at a different location, thus transferring heat. That could be called a convection current. Since the thermal conductivity of air is so low, in most cases more heat can be transferred by moving air than by conduction through the air. I can tell you by personal experience that a cold wind can chill a human body fast. Cold water will conduct heat out of a body much more efficiently than cold air can conduct heat away. Of course, if the air is moving, it will be more efficient at taking the heat away from the body as compared to still air. A windbreaker shell covering a fluffy layer is thus most effective (when dry) at keeping you warm -- the outer layer stops the wind from carrying heat away, and the fluffy layer traps air, which has a very low thermal conductivity, to slow the transfer of body heat by conduction. Heat transfer by natural and forced air convection are complicated processes. I'm not aware of any first principle calculations that are useful for modeling heat transfer between surfaces and air. There are some phenomenological formulas, however: natural convection -- W/m^2 = h (delta_T)^(5/4) h ~ 1.3-2.5 W/m^2 K^(5/4) (value depends on shape and orientation of surfaces) forced air convection - W/m^2 = eta delta_T eta ~ 5-60 W/m^2 K eta depends on airspeed and slightly on delta_T Here's an example comparing heat transfer from a body to either (windy) air, or to cold water. The normal human skin temperature around the torso is about 33C, which is 306 Kelvin. We'll look at heat transfer from the skin to either a moderate wind at 7C, or to still water at 7C (280K). Assume the surface area of the skin is 2 m^2 (rough estimate assuming all the skin is exposed) and that half of the skin is in a wind shadow (opposite side of body from the wind). Then for forced air convection, assuming eta=50 for this windspeed and delta T, the heat transferred per second is: 50*1*(306 - 280) = 1300 W Compared to radiation cooling, which would be about 150W, this is quite large. If we model the body as being made up of water, with a mass of 80kg, then the heat capacity of the body is 4216*80 J/K = 337000J/K. Dividing the heat transfer rate 1300 J/s, by the heat capacity 337000 J/K, gives a temperature drop of about 0.004 K/s, or about 0.23 degree Celsius per minute. This assumes zero cooling by evaporation of sweat. This is just a rough estimate, since the core of the body is somewhat insulated from the skin, the real problem is quite a bit more complex. But this should be roughly correct. I found a paper http://www.arbetslivsinstitutet.se/publikationer/pdf_ah/2003-04.pdf that gives 1319 W/m^2 for wind chill in 4 m/s wind. For a body in 7C water, to make the math simple I again have to make some approximations. In addition to the ones already mentioned, I am going to assume that the distance the heat must travel through the body and water as it moves away from the body is 4cm (I chose 4cm because all the water within 4cm of the body weighs about 80kg, same mass as assumed for the body). Since the thermal conductivity of water is 0.6 W/m K, then the heat transfer rate is 0.6*2/.04 * (306-280) = 780 W which translates to a temperature drop of 0.14 deg C per minute. I found a link http://www.heat.uk.net/cooling2.htm that gives body cooling by ice water bath immersion of 0.2 C per min, so this estimate isn't too bad. If the water were moving (or the person were moving in the water), I wouldn't be surprised if the actual rate could be more than twice that calculated above. So, standing naked in a moderate wind at 7C and being submersed in cold water at 7C will result in roughly the same body chilling by convection and conduction. Of course, few people stand naked on a windy cold day, and clothing makes a big difference in keeping a layer of warm air trapped near the body, drastically reducing the wind cooling. In contrast, clothing won't help much in the cold water (unless you are wearing something like a neoprene wetsuit, which keeps the water away from the skin). Hence the practical effect in any environment in which air can move, such as the interior of a spinning space habitat, is that air has a much higher possible heat transfer capacity than might be indicated by its still air heat conductivity value. Yes.
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:36:11PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Hence, the government gets `more bang for the buck' by giving money to the poor than the rich. Yes, and if you look at GDP growth, it is greater with trickle up than trickle down. The counter argument is that a person with only 1 US dollars will waste an additional 100 dollars, but a person with a million US dollars will spend or invest an additional 100 dollars in a manner that provides more benefit for both the rich and the poor person than the same money going to the poor person. That sounds like a shaky argument to me. How will the poor person waste the $100? What are they likely to spend it on that doesn't help to increase demand? The capital (capacity) utilization in America is lower now than it has been in many years. If we want to grow the GDP more quickly, first we have to get the capacity utilization up so that businesses start investing in more capital and hiring more people, which is what grows the GDP. The way to do that is to generate more demand for products and services. And one way to do that, which has better in the past than trickle down, is to get more money into the hands of the people who will spend it on goods and services -- people who are not rich (as you said, the rich will tend to save additional money unless there are good investments, and there aren't many good investments when capacity utilization is so low). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote: What I'm trying to come around to: trickle up for good or evil has been in place seventy years, In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more progressive taxation, and the Republicans toward less progressive taxation. Which way tends to grow the GDP faster? Democrat policies. at least as government policy, and it certainly hasn't eliminated the poor, it has probably increased. No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods. I know this is a bad statement. Huh? Do you mean an unpopular statement? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 08:12:30PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Let me give an example of 'phenomena that had been investigated for centuries' to no avail, until after the proper equipment was invented and the phenomenon was explained scientifically: blood circulation. Bad example. While the exact mechanism was not known, lots of things about blood and the circulatory system were known and examined. You need to find an example where, despite a great deal of study, NOTHING AT ALL WAS KNOWN OR MEASURED ABOUT THE PHENOMENON. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 11:10 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This actually a JDG style arguement. The things that conservatives and replubicans do are right and moral because republicans are right and moral which of course means that anything they do is right and moral. Actually, this is a Bob Z. style argument.Conservatives and Pro-Lifers are wrong, and their positions are inherently without justification, and therefore all of their attempts to justify their position are based on fiat, rather than careful reasoning and consideration. Bob Z., I don't know what I did to deserve that kind of nasty insult from you - which indeed, strikes me as uncharacteristic for you, but I want to be clear that I object totally to this specious insult of yours. 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
List Etiquette Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 07:35 AM 7/19/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Frankly, Ray, I think that I'm showing a lot more respect for people on the list who disagree with me than most of the people on this list are showing to me. The difference is that I'm in the minority, so it just looks different. One of the original principles of this List is that it should be open to rough-and-tumble adult conservation. So long as Gautam is employing a semblance of rasoning and attempting to engage in constructive discussion, I think that there is nothing wrong with him being a little heated in his language. Or to put it simply - I hardly think that Gautam was engaging in particularly uncivil behaviour to warrant the level of on-list rebukement generated. I know that I've said this one way or another 1,000 times - but it is worth reiterating We are all friends here, and if we are *serious* in wanting to make constructive changes in a friend's behavior - then we pull that friend aside OFFLIST to quietly let them know that we think they are starting to step over the line. Or to use another popular list analogy, you don't try to correct a friend's behavior at a party by criticizig that friend in a loud voice that the entire party can hear.Note only is that far ruder behavior than the original offence, but it is likely to be counterproductive as well. 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 11:40 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would not be a bad thing if the administration was honest about its intentions and motives. It seems clear that the WMD arguement was used since it was thought to be the one that would most easy to sell to the american public (Wolfowitz or Pearl as much as said so a few months ago). Are you arguing that Bush Administration hid the fact that it had multiple motives for attacking Iraq?Or would you like me to pull out all of the Bush speeches that mention multiple justifications for attacking Iraq? Cut the war time crap! We are not under active attack. Which is why the US government instructed me to to stock a change of clothes, toiletries, a pillow, and a blanket in my office in case of an attack? We are at war because this president put us into this war. No, we are at war because September 11th caused this President to recognize that we had long since been at war in a way that we had not previously recognized.Moreover, 9/11 caused this President to realize that the commoditization of WMD-technology was rapidly creating a very dangerous future for the United States unless we attacked to prevent that dystopia from happening. 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
Cementing the Republican Majority Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 11:27 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam, I am actually quite fearful for our country at the moment. The current government is doing all that it can to insure its control of the US for years and decades to come. It is using means that I find at least objectionable if not illegal. Illegal?Insuring its control of the US? What are you referring to? 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 11:10 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Government enters war without being attacked based on claim that the opponent has WMD. Information comes to light that these claims are false. Actually, a large part of the justification for te war was based on the fact that Iraq was continuing to pursue the acquisition of WMD's - particularly nuclear weapons - and not that it necessarily already had nuclear weapons. Moreover, I also recall Colin Powell mentioning mobile biological weapons *production* facilities in his speech to the UN - again reference to a program, rather than the acual weapons themselves, during the justification period. We already have one smoking gun that indicated that Iraq merely buried its nuclear program, not dismantled it as required. Moreover, given the past record of our intelligence on predicting the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a country accurately, this fear was certainly very real. 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 08:07 PM 7/18/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Had you told me, on September 12th, that _no_ significant terrorist attack on the United States would be launched in the one and a half years after the attack, I would have told you that such a suggestion was absurd. I believe that you meant no significant *successful* terrorist attack, right? 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 10:05 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: Since his actions are producing the conditions for MORE terrorism rather than less, this is asking a bit much. On what basis do you make this claim? Given that one of Al-Qaeda's primary recruiting tools was US presence in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia and the direct and overt US support for the repressive Saudi regime, and given that the liberation of 38million Iraqis has permitted the withdrawal of US troops from the Holy Land and the end of direct and overt support for the Saudi regime - isn't it far more likely that the liberation of Iraq has produced the conditions for at the very least - fewer recruits of foot soldiers for Iraq? THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR. The United States has fewer than 1 casualities, civilian and military, since September 2001 or whenever. Sorry, but we have not been hurt enough to justify treating this as a war. Having Bush call it a war does not make it one. Feel free to give your opinion to the 3rd Infantry Troops that just found out they aren't coming home after a year's deployment in what you term peacetime. 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: What would you have to believe?
Erik Reuter wrote: This is quite shaky reasoning. Certainly. That doesn't make it unlikely though. Besides, how many solid ideas do you think Saddam ever managed to come up with? :) Why would Saddam destroy the weapons at all? Insert the obligatory warning about sheer speculation...and here we go: How about he destroyed them because eluding the inspectors turned out to be harder than he had assumed, the pressure from the US/UN was stronger and sustained for longer than he had assumed and he had already stated that he had no WMDs to begin with ? [now that is shaky reasoning at its best - his original claim. He *bought* the weapons and then turned around and denied their exostence to the very people who sold them to him] So he finds himself in a position where he can't suddenly claim to have 'discovered' some weapons within his borders, he doubts his ability to ensure that the inspectors don't stumble across anything that they shouldn't stumble across and he no longer doubts the international will to disarm him, by force if necessary. He must have perceived some benefit in doing so, something to outweigh the detriment of losing the ability to use or sell them. The only reasonable explanations I can think of why he might destroy the WMD is that he wanted to get the sanctions lifted or was afraid he would be attacked again if he did not destroy them. I'd lean towards the latter. I doubt the sanctions bothered him too much - he was doing well enough for himself inspite of them. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume a solicitude for the people he claimed to represent. In either case, after he secretly destroyed them, why didn't he come up with some vague excuse for why he kicked the inspectors out Didn't he say something about them spying for the CIA when he kicked them out? but that they are now welcome back and they will be given full cooperation to verify that there exist no WMD in Iraq? What? After all those defiant speeches, through all those years, about the great Iraqi people fighting against the hegemonistic US, he was to suddenly backtrack and bend over backwards to co-operate with the people who were spying for the enemy? Come on, Erik. :) Saladin re-born, whose manifest destiny is to unite the Arab people against an overwhelmingly strong enemy, can't suddenly stop his defiant blustering and deal rationally with the agents of the enemy. It would have been too drastic and too sudden a change. Saddam didn't do this -- the only way the inspectors got in was from extreme pressure and threat, led by the US. I don't see any other way he could have let them in. He must have been trapped within his original lie. If one is willing to consider as likely the notion that he had already chosen to destroy his existing stock, it would not require a separate No, not a likely notion. :) I wonder if we will ever find out what happened to these WMDs. Ritu GCU Mystery Of The Missing WMDs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: List Etiquette Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: One of the original principles of this List is that it should be open to rough-and-tumble adult conservation. So long as Gautam is employing a semblance of rasoning and attempting to engage in constructive discussion, I think that there is nothing wrong with him being a little heated in his language. Or to put it simply - I hardly think that Gautam was engaging in particularly uncivil behaviour to warrant the level of on-list rebukement generated. John-- I mostly agree with you here. I certainly would not be offended if someone accidentally insulted me in the heat of an argument. I guess what jumped out at me in my recent exchanges with Gautam was that it looked like he was intentionally delivering a mild insult at the end of every post. Most of his reply would be perfectly civil, and then there would always be a dig at the end. I can't really argue that this is any worse than my calling some of his views ridiculous, and refusing to be respectful towards his president. Still, I found it annoying, and commented on it. I know that I've said this one way or another 1,000 times - but it is worth reiterating We are all friends here, and if we are *serious* in wanting to make constructive changes in a friend's behavior - then we pull that friend aside OFFLIST to quietly let them know that we think they are starting to step over the line. Normally I would. This time, onlist felt right. Maybe it was because it felt like he was doing it intentionally. Got me. Sorry. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 09:14 PM 7/17/2003 -0400 David Hobby wrote: Is a general pattern of making misleading statements on similar subjects admissable evidence? 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. On Iraq?? 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 05:37 PM 7/17/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: 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. Which of course is what this all about.So many Democrats turned a blind eye to Clinton's perjury - even in the face of a law Clinton himself had championed - under the justification that they all do it.Well, Democrats have been positively desperate to pin the same liar label on Bush, Indeed, when Joshua Micah Marshall first raised the Niger story to the national level, he couldn't resist making the parallels. Well, sorry it just doesn't fly. the British are standing by their report - and if the same people who argued so strongly for the necessity of iternational cooperation with our allies on Iraq now state that we shouldn't have made use of British intelligence - well, everyone has their own right to be a hypocrite. 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 01:07 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 Jon Gabriel wrote: Criticize him?!? If Bush had really lied to Congress so he could initiate an unjustified war, it would be more appropriate for us to push for his *impeachment* and felony prosecution under US law. Time will tell. Huh? Surely if the Bush Administration was going to lie, they could do much better than a third rate, no, fifth-rate forgery that could be so blatantly exposed. As it is, we now know that the statement The British have learned that Saddam recently tried to acquire significant quantities of uranium from Africa was certainly true to the best of Bush's knowledge. There is no time will tell. The British certainly did, and indeed STILL DO, believe that they had learned exactly that. Even if somehow, this is proved false,it would signifiy nothing. The British told us that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium. We tried to independently confirm it - but couldn't. Of course, it isn't particularly surprising that the British should have some diferent intelligence sources than the US.Still, the British gave us the fullest assurances that their intelligece was of high quality. Given all that - wouldn't any of us have believed the British as well?And given the importance of this intelligence, and the absence of an a priori security reason to hide his intelligence, shouldn't the American people have had this same informaion in forming their opinions on the Iraq war?Or do you believe that the ush Administration should have acted on the best intelligence provided by our allies - but hid it from the American people - even without an a priori security reason for doing so? Indeed, weren't all these same people clamoring back in January for the Bush Administration to produce more of the evidence that the Administration was using to make its decision on war with Iraq? 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 10:48 AM 7/18/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: When is it acceptable to criticize the administration regarding justification for a war? Sorry Nick, but if you can find me someone who thought that the British reports of Iraqi atempts to acquire uranium in Africa was the lynchpin of the war argument, then maybe this hulabaloo would all be justified. As it was, this claim was merely one Lego (tm) block in the justification architecture, and should be treated as such. 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: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
At 12:24 AM 7/18/2003 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: 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. This, of course, was a totally unreasonable presumpion regarding intelligence from our British allies, which they had strongly vouched for in response to US questions. 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
History of sodomy laws
Here's part of a New York Times article, covering claims that strong enforcement of laws against homosexuality first began about 100 years ago in America. Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Comments? ---David In Changing the Law of the Land, Six Justices Turned to Its History July 20, 2003 By PETER EDIDIN When the Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 last month to strike down criminal sodomy laws, it reversed its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which held that the Constitution didn't guarantee the right to engage in homosexual sodomy. Both cases turned on history, not just law. In Bowers, the majority cited evidence that in the 18th and 19th centuries, sodomy was generally illegal in the United States. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, in his concurring opinion, wrote that to affirm the right to engage in homosexual sodomy would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching. The notion that Western society has held a consistent view about what constitutes sodomy, and that the practice of it by same-sex couples, in particular, deserved punishment, was one that a group of nine historians knowledgeable about the history of the treatment of lesbians and gay men in America decided to challenge. In a supporting brief on behalf of the petitioner in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that was the occasion for the court's momentous decision in June, these scholars contended that history taught a different lesson: that the legal prohibitions against same-sex sodomy derived from 20th-century prejudice, not the enduring attitudes of Western civilization. Their argument won the day. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy made clear in his majority opinion, there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. Excerpts follow from the historians' brief. The full document can be found at www.lambdalegal.org. ... (I snipped the rest. You can find the NY Times article at the following URL, although you need to register. Or I'll email the entire article offlist.) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/weekinreview/20WORD.html?ex=1059728154ei=1en=1d8381765e84cd84 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: History of sodomy laws
In a message dated 7/20/2003 10:25:49 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's part of a New York Times article, covering claims that strong enforcement of laws against homosexuality first began about 100 years ago in America. Interesting, but I'm not convinced. Comments? ---David If another newspaper claimed to have a more accurate history of anti homosexual sodomy law enforcement, through documentary naval records, it would clearly be a case of one-upmanship. Or two if you have Lucky Pierre.. William Taylor What price dory? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
