Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
At 11:32 PM 7/20/2003 -0400, you wrote: 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 No I meant it exactly as you have criticized it; that someone was going to say: oh, there is only more poor because the rich have gotten wealthier. Thanks. Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Sunday 2003-07-20 18:54, Kevin Tarr wrote: 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? No. There were no worker strikes to speak of before the 1800s. There were guild actions, bread riots, and peasant rebellions--but nothing quite like an Industral Revolution labor action. 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. Slavery. Its in the Constitution. 3/5ths of a person and so on. 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. but not a small fraction brought it [poverty] on themselves through drinking or other non-productive behaviors - Indeed. But that sort of *radical* investment in personal responsibility and denial of any reciprocal responsibilty for members of an (organic) community can only exist in the Americas--and to a lesser extent in Anglophone countries. Scandanavians feel obliged to care for less fortunate neigbors--and if that misfortune is partly self inflicted, then they deal with the dysfunction. (Scandinavians who don't like this move to America.) I know American's who feel very little obligation toward adult family members. I rember being in highschool with other kids who were really terrified that their parents would cut them off when they turned 18. (It even shows up in pop culture. On Buffy Xander graduates and his parents move him to the basement and charge rent.) 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. Well, its actually wrong. America, and Americans, were *much* poorer in the 1930s and before. Immense swaths of the country and whole populations were brought into the mainstream by the New Deal. In a lot of ways the Great Society also worked -- and the demise of Jim Crow didn't hurt either. The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow growth. If you put off the sharing for another 20 years ... the wealth curve with either stay the same or get worse. On the up side there will probably be *a lot* more wealth to share AND the poor may no longer be misable and powerless--just powerless. But since trickle down gave them a lot more stuff too, they might be satisfied with the current state of bread and circuses, allowing for another 20 years of full growth. Oh yeah, trickle down programs also tend to be anti-cyclical. They help stabilize the economy. Though trickle-up entitelments slow growth, they also help lessen recessions. 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
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:15:47AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote: The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow growth. Do you have any data to support this? Because the data I've seen shows exactly the opposite. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John D. Giorgis ... 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. Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove evil from the world, I'm quite sure. How does this end? Can anyone offer a definition of the conditions necessary for us to return to peacetime, or whatever one might properly call 'normal' conditions? With a clear articulation of the conditions that define whether or not we're in a state of war against terrorism, we seem to be creating a perpetual emergency. Given that the emergency is the justification for suspending and modifying some civil rights, and some even argue that it is inappropriate to criticize the current administration, I think it's quite reasonable to worry that our country is not just responding with temporary measures, but is changing in ways that don't jibe with our fundamental notions of freedom and privacy. Am I going to wake up 20 years from now to more reminders that we are living in a state of emergency because the evil-doers have not yet been wiped off the face of the earth? Tell me why not, please. If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't we return to normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in 20 years? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John D. Giorgis ... 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. Linchpin or not, anything in the State of the Union address is by definition critically important. It just doesn't get any more important than that. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
W, the revisionist historian
History according to W: Last week, CIA Director George Tenet took responsibility for including the allegation in Bush's address. Bush said Monday that he wouldn't have included the uranium allegation if the CIA hadn't cleared it. He then asserted that the United States had invaded Iraq only after Hussein refused to readmit UN weapons inspectors. The fundamental question is: Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is: absolutely, Bush said. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him. http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq15_20030715.htm Of course we all know who W blames the holocaust on: http://www.ffrf.org/news/holocaust.html Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project. - James Madison ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 11:40 PM 7/18/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? What kind of blanket did you bring in? And is there some sort of mattress or padding that they can provide for you, or will you be on the floor? (That could get very uncomfortable if you were trying to sleep for more than, say, 45 minutes.) Julia who has taken 45-minute naps under a desk ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W, the revisionist historian
Of course we all know who W blames the holocaust on: http://www.ffrf.org/news/holocaust.html I'm no Bush apologizer but this seems to denounce one extreme by taking the other extreme. Hitler's religious conviction isn't a clear cut as these authors would try to make it. There's many words one can use to describe Hitler, but a devout Catholic is not one of them. Again I ask: where is this author's bias and can this be trusted as an absolute credible source? Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: History of sodomy laws
-Original Message- From: David Hobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2003 09:56 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: 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? During the Sevean Years War there were only 11 court martials for sodomy; 4 were acquitted, 7 were found guilty of the lesser charge of indecency -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W, the revisionist historian
From: Damon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Of course we all know who W blames the holocaust on: http://www.ffrf.org/news/holocaust.html I'm no Bush apologizer but this seems to denounce one extreme by taking the other extreme. Hitler's religious conviction isn't a clear cut as these authors would try to make it. There's many words one can use to describe Hitler, but a devout Catholic is not one of them. Well the nazis were also trying to resurrect that olde germanic tribal religion, as well as some other weird stuff. But the fact remains that anti-semitism was primarily developed and influenced by christians since the myth of christ took off. Again I ask: where is this author's bias and can this be trusted as an absolute credible source? I think the freedom from religion foundation is a good source. Rationalist's tend to be. Religious nuts tend not to be. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W, the revisionist historian
I think the freedom from religion foundation is a good source. Rationalist's tend to be. Religious nuts tend not to be. Well I detected a bias. I'm not saying that Bush's word is the Truth, but then again I can't say that this source is absolutely unbiased and critical. IOW, it seems like they have their own axe to grind. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
On Monday 2003-07-21 03:57, Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:15:47AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote: The real problem with share the wealth, trickle up programs, besides the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow growth. Do you have any data to support this? Because the data I've seen shows exactly the opposite. [Ignoring the morality issue...] 0) I will stipulate that the US economy has grown more under Democratic than Republican administrations. However: 1) Desipte its romance with Clinton, Wall Street (or at least Wall Streeters) has (have) historically prefered Republican Presidents. 2) Highly socialist countries like Cuba have historically had much lower rates of growth than captialist counterparts. Very laizie faire capitalist economies like Hong Kong have often had stellar growth. As premiere of China Deng Xiaopeng (sp?) decided that China was is a position of sharing poverty, and had the fundemental problem of not having enough wealth to share. He liberalized the economy and it grew spectacularly. (Admittedly, this could have nothing to do with share the wealth, and be caused entirely by planned control.) 3) Western European and Canadian economies were never command economies, but have had much higher commitments to trickle-up policies. Post-WWII US rates of growth lead European growth rates--especially if you adjust for the pseudo-growth produced by post-war reconstruction. 4) The IMF is *always* hostile to trickle-up policies, subsidies, price controls and entitlement programs. 5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late 1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal economic policies--including low tax burdens, hence, limited opportunity for trickle-up redistributive policies. 6) The sample size of post-WWI US Presidents is too small to resoundingly endorse trickle-up policies. Furthermore, any weak finding of correlation between Democratic administrations, prosperity, and trickle-up policies is at odds with the preponderance of theoretical economic opinion per #5. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W, the revisionist historian
From: Damon [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the freedom from religion foundation is a good source. Rationalist's tend to be. Religious nuts tend not to be. Well I detected a bias. I'm not saying that Bush's word is the Truth, but then again I can't say that this source is absolutely unbiased and critical. IOW, it seems like they have their own axe to grind. No one is free from bias. That would be impossible. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Trickle down vrs trickle up economics
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods. There you go. That is exactly what needs to be expressed and isn't. At least not as loud as it should. Instead everyone is focused on the war. And in this arena the trickle up-ers are loosing. So get on board with the majority in forign policy and focus on the facts of a history we have with econmoics. Who will do this? = _ 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: W, the revisionist historian
No one is free from bias. That would be impossible. Absolutely. But the question is not whether one can be free of any bias, but to what extent it colors their evaluations, and to what extent they want to use facts to support their arguments. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Now Building: Esci/Italeri's M60A1 Patton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
[Listref] Childhood obesity - changing the culture
Programs that promote variants of the 'Victory Garden' are gaining steam, as American children are gaining too much weight. http://www.msnbc.com/news/931272.asp ...Thats exactly what those like Bryant Terry are attempting to engineer. Eating healthy is synonymous with whiteness for some of these kids, he says. Theyll be like, Salmon? Thats white people food. There are ways to make it more accessible; the first part is about education. Terry launched b-healthy! (Build Healthy Eating and Lifestyles to Help Youth) with a $52,000 grant from Open Society Institute. A culinary school graduate with a masters in history, he leads workshops at a community center in Manhattan on how to cook, eat a healthy diet and think about the role food plays in urban communities. Over piles of black bean burritos and baba ghanoush, Terry forces kids to think about why they cant get beets as easily as burgersand how to take the initiative to change that... ...Naomi Neufeld, a pediatric endocrinologist in Los Angeles, recalls that in 1986, when she had just started a non-profit weight-control program called KidShape, obesity was considered primarily a cosmetic problem that occurred infrequently among children. Today she regularly sees 40-pound two-year-olds, 90-pound seven-year-olds and 150-pound ten-year-olds. This trend has particularly calamitous effects: high blood pressure, abnormal lipid levels, breathing and sleep disorders and psychological issues take their toll on all the morbidly obese. And Type 2 diabetes is ravaging overweight adolescents, especially those in minority ethnic groups more genetically disposed to the disease... Debbi Grow Your Own! (Veggies Herbs) 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: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:09 AM Subject: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John D. Giorgis ... 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. Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove evil from the world, I'm quite sure. How does this end? Can anyone offer a definition of the conditions necessary for us to return to peacetime, or whatever one might properly call 'normal' conditions? The Watchmen Gambit. But its nothing like normalcy. xponent Alan Moore Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
THROUGH THE EYES OF CHILDREN
LOVE THROUGH THE EYES OF CHILDREN A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to 8 year- olds, What does love mean? The answers they got were broader and deeper than anyone could have imagined. See what you think: - When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn't bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That's love. Rebecca - age 8 - When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You know that your name is safe in their mouth. Billy - age 4 - Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and they go out and smell each other. Karl - age 5 -Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries without making them give you any of theirs. Chrissy - age 6 -Love is what makes you smile when you're tired. Terri - age 4 -Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK. Danny - age 7 -Love is when you kiss all the time. Then when you get tired of kissing, you still want to be together and you talk more. My Mommy and Daddy are like that. They look gross when they kiss Emily - age 8 -Love is what's in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen, Bobby - age 7 (Wow!) -If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate, Nikka - age 6 -Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it everyday. Noelle - age 7 -Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well. Tommy - age 6 -During my piano recital, I was on a stage and I was scared. I looked at all the people watching me and saw my daddy waving and smiling. He was the only one doing that. I wasn't scared anymore, Cindy - age 8 -My mommy loves me more than anybody. You don't see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night. Clare - age 6 -Love is when Mommy gives Daddy the best piece of chicken. Elaine - age 5 -Love is when Mommy sees Daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is handsomer than Robert Redford. Chris - age 7 -Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day. Mary Ann - age 4 -I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes and has to go out and buy new ones. Lauren - age 4 -When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars come out of you. Karen - age 7 -Love is when Mommy sees Daddy on the toilet and she doesn't think it's gross. Mark - age 6 -You really shouldn't say 'I love you' unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget. Jessica - age 6 Author and lecturer Leo Buscaglia once talked about a contest he was asked to judge. The purpose of the contest was to find the most caring child. The winner was a four year old child whose next door neighbour was an elderly gentleman who had recently lost his wife. Upon seeing the man cry, the little boy went into the old gentleman's yard, climbed onto his lap, and just sat there. When his Mother asked him what he had said to the neighbor, the little boy said, Nothing, I just helped him cry. xponent A Different Focus Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. grin Then we have rather different ideas of 'what is known'... Hmm, what about astronomy? Centuries of looking at the skies, yet quasars/pulsars weren't discovered until the 60's (again, because of the development of the detecting technology). Understanding what novae/supernovae were also required the proper equipment (and theories and reasoning of course), despite their documentation throughout recorded history. http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/pulsars/pulsars1_1.htm Debbi who still remembers the little jingle that went with Qua-sar... -- I think it was a television brand? __ 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] Trans-fatty acids
This is a simplified list of the current worst offenders WRT trans-fat content; substitutes/alternatives are given for some, but for now the real answer seems to be -- cut out a lot of convenience/processed foods. http://my.webmd.com/content/Article/70/81100.htm?printing=true Debbi Thank Goodness Ice Cream Isn't On The List! Maru :) Forcing Myself To Consume Nuts And Chocolate 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
Worst Opening Sentences Contest 2003
2003 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/2003.htm Winner They had but one last remaining night together, so they embraced each other as tightly as that two-flavor entwined string cheese that is orange and yellowish-white, the orange probably being a bland Cheddar and the white . . . Mozzarella, although it could possibly be Provolone or just plain American, as it really doesn't taste distinctly dissimilar from the orange, yet they would have you believe it does by coloring it differently. Ms. Mariann Simms Wetumpka, AL Runner-Up The flock of geese flew overhead in a V formation - not in an old-fashioned-looking Times New Roman kind of a V, branched out slightly at the two opposite arms at the top of the V, nor in a more modern-looking, straight and crisp, linear Arial sort of V (although since they were flying, Arial might have been appropriate), but in a slightly asymmetric, tilting off-to-one-side sort of italicized Courier New-like V - and LaFonte knew that he was just the type of man to know the difference. John Dotson (U.S. Naval Officer) Arlington, VA Grand Panjandrum's Special Prize Colin grabbed the switchgear and slammed the spritely Vauxhall Vixen into a lower gear as he screamed through the roundabout heading toward the familiar pink rowhouse in Puking-On-The-Wold, his mind filled with the image of his comely Olive, dressed in some lacy underthing, waiting on the couch with only a smile and a cucumber sandwich, hoping that his lunch hour would provide sufficient time for both a naughty little romp and a digestive biscuit. Randy Groom Visalia, CA Winner: Science Fiction Colonel Cleatus Yorbville had been one seriously bored astronaut for the first few months of his diplomatic mission on the third planet of the Frangelicus XIV system, but all that had changed on the day he'd discovered that his tiny, multipedal and infinitely hospitable alien hosts were not only edible but tasted remarkably like that stuff that's left on the pan after you've made cinnamon buns and burned them a little. Mark Silcox Auburn AL 36830 Runner-Up: 'Thy're here!' whispered Billy Joe under his foul breath through yellowed teeth as brilliant white light permeated all of the windows of his trailer, and he flashed back to fragmented recollections of the previous four abductions--the questions, the pain, the probe--which he was powerless to stop but this time was better prepared for, having just finished a seventh bean burrito, a case of Bud, and four packs of Pop Rocks. Jim Sheppeck II Newtown, PA Dishonorable Mentions: She fumbled for her laser gun, knowing that the alien was eager to ravage her, unlike Captain Johnson, who wanted to take things slow since he was coming off the heels of a very painful divorce. Wendy Burt Colorado Springs, CO Brock de-holstered his Maxi-Hurt 3000 phaser and blasted off the Narguwullian trooper's head, the way a teenager pops the head off a zit, except of course on a much larger scale because those Narguwullians are big suckers, and although Brock had personally had some door stoppers in his teenage years, most zits aren't twelve feet high, blue, and liable to rip your arms off if you look at them the wrong way, and are also much less inclined to leave a mess on the flight deck. Geoff Blackwell Bundaberg QLD Australia xponent Paperback Writer Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars query: air pressure in spinning habitats
You have been mixing References: headers between this thread and others and it makes it harder for me to follow. I always reply to the digest. 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 just created a number of mail buffers using the usual reply key while being located in different parts of the Brin-l digest buffer. Every one of the mail buffers had the same reference number which is References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you had not said that the number referenced in the Seth 16 words thread, I would have thought that the reference number got confused when I took a quote from some other digest; but now I don't know. Perhaps the digest takes it ID from the first message in the digest? No, I just checked. I do not know what is going on. -- 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
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. I think the atmosphere would be fairly dynamic, if only because the air above fields is warmer than the air above woodlots, so that air would tend to rise and the air over woodlots tend to fall. But I am not sure and would like someone who understands better to explain it. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Hmm, what about astronomy? Centuries of looking at the skies, yet quasars/pulsars weren't discovered until the 60's (again, because of the development of the detecting technology). Understanding what novae/supernovae were also required the proper equipment (and theories and reasoning of course), despite their documentation throughout recorded history. http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/pulsars/pulsars1_1.htm Hey! What about the astronomy example I gave in my first post this thread: And for an even longer timeframe from observance to 'scientific revision,' look at the change from an Earth-centered to a sun-centered system! :) Despite millenia of watching the stars and sun and moon, the earth-centered viewpoint wasn't dispelled until after Copernicus, in the 1600s. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html ...We noted earlier that 3 incorrect ideas held back the development of modern astronomy from the time of Aristotle until the 16th and 17th centuries: (1) the assumption that the Earth was the center of the Universe, (2) the assumption of uniform circular motion in the heavens, and (3) the assumption that objects in the heavens were made from a perfect, unchanging substance not found on the Earth... (Of course, just as with blood circulation, there *were* earlier 'correct' proposals re: sun-as-center, but prevailing wisdom overturned these 'heretical' notions -- see further down the page for Aristarchus. And Copernicus' views weren't really vindicated until after his death.) Debbi VFP Sneaky! __ 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: Worst Opening Sentences Contest 2003
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2003 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest. http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/english/2003.htm Winner They had but one last remaining night together, so they embraced each other as tightly as that two-flavor entwined string cheese that is orange and yellowish-white, the orange probably being a bland Cheddar and the white . . . Mozzarella, although it could possibly be Provolone or just plain American, as it really doesn't taste distinctly dissimilar from the orange, yet they would have you believe it does by coloring it differently. Ms. Mariann Simms Wetumpka, AL snip ROTFLOL Check this one out (almost on-topic!): Winner: All Creatures Great and Small Category His knowing brown eyes held her gaze for a seeming eternity, his powerful arms clasped her slim body in an irresistible embrace, and from his broad, hairy chest a primal smell of male tantalized her nostrils; Looks like another long night in the ape house thought veterinarian Abigail Brown as she gingerly reached for the constipated gorilla's suppository. Paul Jeffery Oxford, England Thanks for the guffaws! :) Debbi It Was A Dark And Stormy Night 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: I'm back
Dan wrote: Well, I've not been posting for a while because I've been overwhelmed with 1) Planning my parents' funerals 2) A heavy work load 3) Preparing for my wife's operation. But, I've got a bit of time now, so I'll try to catch up on posts I owe an answer to. I hope you've recovered from the stress of 1 and are coping well with the stress of 2, and best of luck with 3; I hope the prognosis is good. I wouldn't say it's a post you owe me an answer to, but in the middle of another thread I mentioned an alternate interpretation of quantum mechanics along with a link to the original paper. I'd love to see your opinion of it when you get a chance. It's called the transactional interpretation, and John Cramer's paper on this interpretation can be found at: http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html It was originally published in July of 1986 in _Reviews of Modern Physics_. Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Hmm, what about astronomy? Centuries of looking at the skies, yet quasars/pulsars weren't discovered until the 60's Not a good example. If we had a pulsar right next to us, and we studied it for decades, but never noticed that it was pulsing, then you would have a point. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Hey! What about the astronomy example I gave in my first post this thread: And for an even longer timeframe from observance to 'scientific revision,' look at the change from an Earth-centered to a sun-centered system! :) Not a good comparison. If we looked at the sun and planets but never realized they were moving at all, then maybe you would have a point. The problem is that you are comparing a situation where we have a lot of measurements and interaction with the element of interest and have found NOTHING to support your claim, with various things that were based on interpretation of data that did exist and just required further refinement. NOTHING does not equal SOMETHING. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:06 PM Subject: Re: Science and knowledge On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:01:20PM -0700, Deborah Harrell wrote: Hey! What about the astronomy example I gave in my first post this thread: And for an even longer timeframe from observance to 'scientific revision,' look at the change from an Earth-centered to a sun-centered system! :) Not a good comparison. If we looked at the sun and planets but never realized they were moving at all, then maybe you would have a point. The problem is that you are comparing a situation where we have a lot of measurements and interaction with the element of interest and have found NOTHING to support your claim, with various things that were based on interpretation of data that did exist and just required further refinement. NOTHING does not equal SOMETHING. I waited to allow someone else to come up with this one. We have no scientific means to allow people to tell if they are dreaming, even though dreams have been studied for thousands of years. We have means to see if other people are dreaming, but we have no means of someone telling if (s)he is dreaming. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Worst Opening Sentences Contest 2003
As our intrepid young hero first looked about his new school's lodgings, his
eyes darted about to take in the undersized and pitted desktop, the single
chair with only three out of four footpads, the totally inadequate drawer space,
the non existent but brochure promised overhead bookshelf, the bed that
slightly sagged in the middle, the bare unadorned and paint chipped walls, and
instantly concluded that this, indeed, was a stark and dormy sight.
I sent in something like this about three years ago. {Though this rendering
may be of a better form.]
never heard back from them.
Sould one resend the same basic idea over and over again?
William Taylor
-
Sometimes you have to
take the Bulwer by the Homer,
and deflate the situation.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: W, the revisionist historian
Damon wrote: There's many words one can use to describe Hitler, but a devout Catholic is not one of them. Hitler was closer to newageism than to monotheism. The theological part of nazism was very pagan-oriented. Even the Aryan and Swastika things are a deturpation of Hinduism, and not of Judeo-Christianism. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Listref] Childhood obesity - changing the culture
Deborah Harrell wrote: ...Naomi Neufeld, a pediatric endocrinologist in Los Angeles, recalls that in 1986, when she had just started a non-profit weight-control program called KidShape, obesity was considered primarily a cosmetic problem that occurred infrequently among children. Today she regularly sees 40-pound two-year-olds, 90-pound seven-year-olds and 150-pound ten-year-olds. This trend has particularly calamitous effects: high blood pressure, abnormal lipid levels, breathing and sleep disorders and psychological issues take their toll on all the morbidly obese. And Type 2 diabetes is ravaging overweight adolescents, especially those in minority ethnic groups more genetically disposed to the disease... Debbi Grow Your Own! (Veggies Herbs) Maru What do you do with a kid who won't eat cake or ice cream, but who loves toast made with sugar-free whole-wheat bread? :) And who prefers to drink water rather than apple juice? Julia yes, Sammy *is* that weird, but he also prefers meat to veggies, and it's damn near *impossible* to get anything green into him right now ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
Maybe you think so. I lived two blocks north of the World Trade Center site for a year. Let's just say that I have less than no sympathy for any such view. Let's see how many New Yorkers think we're not at war. How many of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. How many diplomats dealing with daily security threats. How many people in Homeland Security seeing the threats we face every week. I would say most New Yorkers do not consider themselves to be at war at least not with Iraq. I think many people do not see any direct connection between the war on terror and our invasion. The notion that the response to terrorism is a war is at best a weak analogy sort of the war on cancer. I am not saying that the war has increased the chances of another attack in the US. I think our actions in Iraq and the success of the international community have had an effect on terrorist attacks. No one can claim anymore that we are paper targets. But the question is how long will this effect last. .com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/19/2003 9:35:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 I think statements indicating that the administration is obviously telling the truth and that anyone not agreeing this is either what? stupid? venal? totally naive? totally cynical? As to the charges about Africa. In all reports I have seen the Niger incident is the thing people are talking about. The notion that the British have other evidence has not been mentioned. If this evidence exists why hasn't it been revealed? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
nd becouse of that you are mixing facts as if they were related when they are not. 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. I am arguing that Bush and his cronies are trying to make it so that they will be in control of the country. They view this as their god given right. They view the constitution and the rule of law as inconvienances. So focus on that. See there you go again. the American people are willing to pay. They are willing to fight this war because they believe it to be just and the right thing to do. I am not arguing that we should not do the right and necessary thing and pay the money. But you can't do this and still have a huge tax cut. you have to show how out -expenses- make a tax cut unresponsible. It's a hard sell though. trickle down seems to work, poular opiioin is for the war, and for tax cuts. People have been sold a bill of goods. When they begin to see what is happening to services on a state or local level they may change their minds. Think about it. We cannot spend 400 billion dollars a year without paying for it. = _ 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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
The purpose of science is not to help us understand reality; it is not about the truth. Indeed, one of my favorite statements about science is the most important development in the history of science is when it was decided that it wasn't about the truth. I would argue that most scientists believe that their models are about reality. Truth is a somewhat trickier notion. It implies finality while science is always more tentative. Indeed, you find in a working group of scientists, a wide variety of metaphysical positions. To first order, they are all perfectly consistant with science. I've noticed that it is very easy for scientists to happily argue metaphysics over coffee and then drop their differences when they actually work. My own experience is that scientists do not worry much about metaphysics. They believe or assume that the world that they study is real. The notion of modelling and predicting of what scientists do but most would find it difficult to work if they did not believe in the reality of the things they were studying The reason for this is that there is a general acceptance of the proposition that science is not about knowing what is real and true. I would argue that most scientists (not philosophers) would disagree with this. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/19/2003 7:13:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what would you have istead, state capitalism? How about a rationale tax policy? One that stimulates the economy by putting money in the hands that those who will spend it. How about a rationale understanding of how much we have to spend to do the things we have to do. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
In a message dated 7/20/2003 11:34:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Well that has never been my arguement on this issue. I believe it a complex moral issue with no clear correct answer. The issue of when we assign human rights to a fetus is very complex. I in fact respect but do not agree with your view. 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. I was being flip and for this I apologize but Gautam's arguement struck me as similar to ones you have made in which you see political actions of republicans as motivated by only moral and ethical concerns and every political action of democrats as being cynical and/or immoral. So accept my apology; I was pissed at Gautam and should not have dragged your name into this. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and knowledge
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Science and knowledge The purpose of science is not to help us understand reality; it is not about the truth. Indeed, one of my favorite statements about science is the most important development in the history of science is when it was decided that it wasn't about the truth. I would argue that most scientists believe that their models are about reality. Truth is a somewhat trickier notion. It implies finality while science is always more tentative. But, if this is true, then why did this statement achieve general acceptance among the professional scientists on sci.physics? There are a lot of different scientists with a lot of different viewpoints, who all agreed that science was about making models concerning observation. It had nothing to say about the validity of observation. It was the alternate thinkers who insisted that science must describe reality. Indeed, you find in a working group of scientists, a wide variety of metaphysical positions. To first order, they are all perfectly consistant with science. I've noticed that it is very easy for scientists to happily argue metaphysics over coffee and then drop their differences when they actually work. My own experience is that scientists do not worry much about metaphysics. They believe or assume that the world that they study is real. Thinking about this, its probably because we hang with different types of scientists. Biologists and biochemists can live with a 19th century classical view of science. People who have to deal with modern physics professionally cannot. Lets take a straightforward very well established theory of physics: QED. We see finiate charges. However, each one of these particles polarizes the vacume, creating additional observed charge. The only way to obtain the actual values for measured charge that we see is to have the origional electron and protons have just the right infinite value for charge to make everything work out. This is called renormalization. The answer to whether these particles really have infinite charges is shut up and calculate. The notion of modelling and predicting of what scientists do but most would find it difficult to work if they did not believe in the reality of the things they were studying But, the physicists who made progress didn't worry about the reality. Those that did, got little done. I think that the dividing line is probably whether or not people have to deal with the questions of things like virtual particles, instead of actual particles doing all the interactions...with each real particle having a whole string of virtual particles hanging off of it in momentum space (the theory that best matched my experimental data), or QED, or the standard model, or quarks and glue, etc. Its also worth noting that QED is not really very esoteric. It is the basis for chemistry. IIRC, we already have enough computational to do first principals calculations for simple chemistry. So, we should be able to directly tie renormalization to chemistry, with each step calculated and proven. Finally, what happens when there are two models, with very different descriptions of reality, that both describe observations equally well. Are both real? Is neither real? The reason for this is that there is a general acceptance of the proposition that science is not about knowing what is real and true. I would argue that most scientists (not philosophers) would disagree with this. I know when this was stated on sci.physics, there was not a single professional that disagreed with that statement. Everyone agreed that science models what we observe. Now, it is also true that few scientists believe that observations have nothing to do with reality. Most idealists, for example, think there is a correlation between observation and reality. And, idealists do have a respected place among physicists: Wheeler was one. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
