More on RTC laws
http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet.pdf Laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons have not decreased homicide rates and may have contributed to increases in homicides. Although some have argued that laws making it easier to carry concealed weapons decrease violent crime rates, this conclusion is based on flawed research. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
religious fanatics new target: pregnant women
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/10/Columns/Moralists__new_target.shtml Moralists' new target: pregnant women By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, Times Perspective Columnist © St. Petersburg Times published August 10, 2003 When Regina McKnight delivered a stillborn baby in May 1999 after 81/2 months of pregnancy she did what many other mothers who lose a baby do: She grieved. McKnight named the dead infant Mercedes and asked to hold it. She wanted photographs and the baby's footprints as a remembrance and she sought the hospital chaplain. With an estimated 28,000 women a year suffering a stillborn delivery, McKnight's situation was hardly unique. Except for one thing: McKnight was arrested for it. McKnight, who is poor, black, and has an IQ of 72, was charged with homicide by child abuse for smoking crack cocaine during a pregnancy that ended in a stillbirth. After two trials in Horry County, S.C., McKnight, then 24 years old and a mother of three with no prior criminal record, was sentenced to 12 years in prison with no chance at parole. South Carolina should change its license plate motto from Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places to the far more apt Antepartum Police State. The state has tried persistently and for years to make women criminally liable for their pregnancies. More specifically, Charlie Condon, the state's former attorney general who is running for U.S. Senate, has been the architect of the state's attempts to punish pregnant women. He helped to formulate a program of drug testing pregnant women at a Charleston public hospital that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001. In Condon's program, pregnant women were searched for evidence of drug use without their consent, with test results turned over to police. At least one woman was arrested still bleeding from delivery. This shameful man has made a career of setting unborn children against the women carrying them. His attempts to get the law to recognize fetal rights as separate and distinct from the mother are just another swipe at Roe vs. Wade. It is the same approach used by the Bush administration in its recent expansion of a children's health insurance program, which grants health service benefits to the unborn, not their mothers. Abortion opponents hope that by establishing enough law that says unborn children have independent legal interests, it will lead inexorably to pregnant women being stripped of the right to control their bodies. Certainly women who want to give their developing baby the best chance at a healthy start should stay away from all illicit drugs. But the law shouldn't be allowed to treat women as little more than incubators - where the pregnancy police rush in whenever she veers from the prescribed regimen. We all know that avoidance of illegal drugs isn't the last word in healthy pregnancies. There are all sorts of ways women can harm their developing fetus, including by being exposed to too much stress, alcohol and caffeine, among a hefty list of other taboos. Cigarette smoking has been found so dangerous to fetal health that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids warns that smoking during pregnancy creates a more serious risk of spontaneous abortion . . . than using cocaine during pregnancy. Any one of these behaviors could be used as the basis for a child abuse charge in South Carolina, where the law covers any death to a child under age 11 that results from abuse or neglect. Keep smoking or stay in a job that you've been warned is too stressful and suffer a stillbirth, and you could be facing 20 years to life. Here, every stillbirth is a matter for police investigation, even though most are caused by conditions and diseases having nothing to do with what a woman ingests. South Carolina isn't the only place where scenery-chewing prosecutors hungry for publicity have tried to punish women for how they conduct their pregnancies. But only in South Carolina has a state high court approved the practice by including viable fetuses within the definition of child abuse laws. Interestingly, as hyperconcerned as the state seems to be with keeping pregnant women from drug use, it ranks dead last in the nation in state funding for drug treatment. McKnight's incarceration will cost the state about $300,000, hugely more expensive than providing her with treatment. This suggests the real motive isn't promoting public health but exacting a puritanical punishment for being unhealthy, promiscuous and poor. It is worth noting that no state legislature has so far passed a law specifically penalizing drug use by pregnant women. Because, when such bills come up, the medical establishment loudly declares them counterproductive to fetal and maternal health. Such laws are far more likely to drive women from prenatal care and hospital deliveries than to prevent drug use. In fact, 26 public health and medical groups, including the South Carolina Medical Association and the National Stillbirth Society, have joined in a brief asking the
Re: A dead end for the Democrats
Erik Reuter wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:19:20PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Well, first of all, Americans aren't the only one Bush was trying to persuade with his deceptive tactics. He had to convince other governments and their people as well. Are you saying that Americans could have been convinced by a humanitarian argument but other countries could not? Otherwise I don't see what point you are making. No, I'm saying that Americans were not the only ones that would not have been convinced to go to war by the humanitarian argument, not because Iraq was in need of humanitarian aid but because if we were going to make an effort to help people it would be more logical to help the people with the greatest need rather than the people with the (pulls number out of hat) 17th greatest need. Secondly, this conflict was never about the well being of the Iraqi people however much we try to point it that way after the fact. Baloney. The Iraqis are much better off now than they were under Saddam, even with the chaotic situation in Baghdad. And as long we keep working on building a fair government, building and rebuilding their infrastructure, and maintaining order, they will be even better still. Whatever reason was in mind of the people responsible for toppling Saddam, the result is good for Iraq. And long-term, it will be good for much of the Middle East. I don't dispute that at all, even the long term security though that's rather speculative at this point. But the fact that they are better off doesn't prove that that's why we initiated this conflict. There are too many other places, especially in the Africa, that are suffering far more than the Iraqi people were and to whom we pay little or no attention to for us to justify the war on those grounds. The fact that 9 is bigger than 2 doesn't change the fact that 5 is bigger than 1. But that is what you are arguing. Maybe more people could have been helped per dollar spent elsewhere, but that doesn't change the fact that a big improvement was made for a lot of people in Iraq. Bush may have deceived us about the evidence. If you think so, don't vote for him next year. But that STILL doesn't change the fact that toppling Saddam is a big improvement for Iraqis, and strategically, for the Middle East and even the US. To argue now that that we would have gotten more bang for our buck in Africa seems like a waste of time -- what do you hope to accomplish? We're obviously not on the same page here. I don't disagree that toppling Sadam is a great improvement. All I was trying to say was that the methods to convince Americans and the world to go to war were devious and that these methods should not be ignored in the public forum as the author of the article that you posted suggested they should. Unless you meant that we should now occupy some countries in Africa? I don't see how we can handle Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, and, did you have others in mind? Sierra Leone? Maybe if we had A LOT of help from other countries, but Bush doesn't seem capable of getting that sort of help. Are you saying that you would throw your support behind a democratic candidate who makes a promise to use American troops and the help of the UN and foreign allies to set up stable democracies in Africa? No. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Vatican's New Crusade
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8533 The Vatican's New Crusade Richard Blow is the former executive editor of George Magazine. He is author of American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr., and is writing a book about Harvard University. Back in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy had to reassure Americans that his first loyalty was to his country, not his church. In a speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, the presidential candidate declared, I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act... where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials. Kennedy's enduring speech reaffirmed for Americans the values of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. It's as relevant now as then, given that last week the Vatican issued a papal mandate instructing Catholic legislators, both around the world and in the United States, to vote against gay marriage whenever possible. The document, titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, calls on Catholics to treat men and women with homosexual tendencies with respect and compassion, and to avoid unjust discrimination. But avoiding discrimination does not mean according gays a right that straights have long enjoyed. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval of legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil. (Italics mine.) A Calgary bishop actually warned that, for proposing legislation in favor of gay marriage, Canadian prime minister Jean Chretien may burn in hell. It is striking that a church hierarchy, which for decades ignored or covered up the evil of child abuse, feels that it has the moral credibility to deliver such edicts. It is equally curious that old men who have never married and may never have had sex -- although increasingly one doubts this -- feel competent to judge the loving relationships of anyone who wishes to wed. And it is tempting to suggest that gay marriage might be an ideal solution for the Catholic priesthood, replete with men whose normal, healthy sexual desires have been abnormally redirected toward children. That, however, would be unfair to those heterosexual priests who battened upon the young and helpless. It is striking that a church hierarchy... feels that it has the moral credibility to deliver such edicts. But perhaps I am being too harsh. After all, it has been a difficult summer for the Catholic church. The Massachusetts attorney general announced that Catholic priests in that state had probably molested over 1,000 children. A Supreme Court decision affirmed the right of both straights and gays to enjoy oral and anal sex. Adding insult to sodomy, next came a television show, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which suggests not only that gays are perfectly normal, but that -- gasp! -- they have better taste than heterosexuals do. This week The Magdalene Sisters, a horrifying expose of Ireland's abusive and prison-like Catholic workhouses, opened in the United States to rave reviews. And one can pick up The New York Times Sunday Styles section to read about the Canadian wedding of 70-year-old Marvin Yost Schofer and 49-year-old James David Rosenthal. They met in 1978 and have been together for 25 years, and in their picture, they do not look evil to me. They look happy and kind of sweet. No, I take it back. To suggest that the Vatican's church has become a church of bigotry and buggery is not too harsh at all. American Catholics have long had a tradition of picking and choosing which elements of church dogma they choose to believe, and surely they will do the same regarding this latest declaration. For their part, American politicians are answerable to the voters, not the vicars. As John F. Kennedy said, I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and my church does not speak for me. Kennedy's words still ring true. Thank God. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The FastesT Qheuen Alive (short story)
In a message dated 8/10/2003 1:30:58 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Fastes Qheuen Alive Ya spend all that time with the spellchecker in the text---and fail to notice the missing T in the subject line. Poetic jurisprudence, I suppose. William aylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Doug Pensinger wrote: http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm Nevada 7th most dangerous Texas 14th New York 24th How does the District of Columbia stack up against the states? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Most definitely not! Anyone who wants to own a gun demonstrates a mental or emotional illness and has delusions of inadequacy. Furthermore, they are very likely to commit violent crimes because they can, even though they are just pussycats without the artificial enhancement of a gun. Regards, Ray. PS: Are the legs getting longer yet??? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Robert Seeberger wrote: But I did explore the site and found its conclusions bizarre and/or unexpected. frex? Doug terseless one line reply ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 10:42 pm, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.morganquitno.com/dang02.htm Nevada 7th most dangerous Texas 14th New York 24th This study is based on reported crimes. It might be that Nevada residents are simply more inclined to call the police, becouse they are more likely to get a favorable response. I would like to see a study based on muder alone. making (robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft ) equaly blanced is problematic IMO. I suggest that a Nevada or Texa resident is much more likely to report a robbery than a New York resident where roberies are daily occurences and the perpitrator is seldome found. -Murder is a crime which can not go unreported.- Homicides per 100,000, average per year from 1998-2000 Dallas TX - 20.42 New York NY - 8.77 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: leave the constitution alone
On Sun, Aug 10, 2003 at 11:47:54AM -0500, Horn, John wrote: Does anyone else see SCOTUS and reflexively substitute another word as they read...? SCOUTS? -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Fastes Qheuen Alive (short story)
The human's old story about the race between the tortoise and the hare was never very popular with the other sept of Jijo. In fact it was never really understood. A hare that took the time to sleep during a contest had too much personal hubris to be able to be a representative of one's race. Such an er would have been disqualified by its own kin. And a replacement would be found. Someone with a better sense of duty to er's clan. So stated the g'Kek Vebbin to the qheuen Face Maker. Repeatedly. Hoon are stronger, traeki are stinkier, and g'Kek are faster then the Qheuen, Vebbin would always stare. Then whenever she remembered to be polite, she added But no one can sculpt like a qheuen. Face Marker had a particular talent for carving and sculpting wood. No other qheuen had ever gotten such a unique name. No other qheuen had ever looked up while still in the pen to see a human face in the observation port, and then carve that face into the wooden floor. No qheuen could ever beat a g'Kek in a race. Face Maker became fixated on the idea of proving that statement false. Not always, of course. Just once would be enough. Not underwater. That wouldn't be fair. It'd have to be on neutral ground. Or even terrain that would normally favor a g'Kek. Solve it quickly, or give up on the idea, his human friend would say. If you don't, you'll soon have your brain running in circles. The qheuen are not the race known for the best abstract thought. But by far they are the race known for the best abstract visualizations. Although he didn't know it, Face Maker's human friend had provided the solution. Soon Face Maker was thinking of having his brain running in circles. For several weeks he had a group of qheuen friends set up a security perimeter. He wanted a hillside glade all to himself. Unobserved by either his friends or by any other race. His idea worked, but it was damn jeekee dangerous. Also worth it, in Face Maker's mind. To prove a g'Kek wrong. Not to stir up any racial hatred, but to give, perhaps, a new understanding and meaning to the human's story. A profound statement that there is more than one way for a being to 'fall asleep'. And the next time Vebbin used that same old tired refrain, Face Maker said Prove it. That got all four eyestalks turned. Wanna race me? * * * * * Everyone knew the glade. An open slope of grass, rocky in places, between two stands of boo. A well worn path wound its way down the slope, skirting the rocks at times and actually entering the stands of boo at least once on each side. Think you'll use the boo to help break your speed as you round the corners? Gonna bounce off of any rocks? Face Maker asked. Possibly. Why do you ask? I just wanted it stated that one can use the boo and the rocks as one see fit. And that each being can roll or run as he or she chooses. Vebbin rotated two eyestalks as if they were searching the sky. To quote a human, 'Well, duh.' Not one of the many observers at the top of the hill knew what in Infni this conversation was about. Only a few even thought that there might be a hidden level of meaning. No one at the bottom of the hill, of course, could hear anything. Except the exploser's firecracker that signaled the start of the race. The g,Kek naturally started down the path at once. But Face Maker surprised everyone there at the top of the hill by not heading down the path. He instead went as quickly as he could to the near stand of young boo and used a claw to snap down a boo no thicker than his claw. He then carried it back to the central rock that dominated the top of the hill and leaned it up against it. First the balance weight, Face Maker said as he picked up with his central mouth a now all to familiar stone.. He then proceeded to 'clamp' up the side of the rock and grab one end of the boo with two non sequential legs. Flex and twist and an occasional nip from the middle leg. Then as the boo started to take a round shape, Face Maker rotated his body to bring up one of his legs that was originally on the ground. Only a few of the crowd even bothered to even glance back down the hill to find the g'Kek. Vebbin's about a third of the way down, someone commented. I think she's only got two eyestalks looking back at us. Not a problem, Face Maker vented as he continued to chew and bend. She's not taking the direct route. Face Maker brought the boo down to meet his original claw and then continued to overlap onto the next claw. Then retracted an arm temporarily to bite off the excess boo. Easier to hold; less stress. He then used the stone in his mouth to push off from the rock. Someone started to rush up as Face Maker was teetering on edge. No-o-o! Don't help. That'd be cheating. Face Maker's head and moth were both moving in and out, until he finally achieved balance. The g'Kek's about halfway down. Face Maker flexed his forward legs a bit to bring in the front of the
Re: Most Dangerous States
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:37:22 -0700 (PDT) --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:44 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Homicides per 100,000, average per year from 1998-2000 Dallas TX - 20.42 New York NY - 8.77 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It is a spreadsheet. Are your MIME types set correctly? Why don't you post it? Well, it's more than half a meg, and that would really, really, *really* piss off digest users who would see it only as 594K of gibberish in their mailbox. It's also impossible, according to the list administrativa: Please don't even try to post huge files to the list. If you want to share a file of interest to everyone, put it on a web page and post the URL. The list server will EAT attachments, quietly, never to be seen again. (from: http://www.mccmedia.com/brin-l/admin.htm) Again, I'd be happy to send it to you offlist. :) Just let me know what format you'd prefer. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States, now 43 times
- Original Message - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States, now 43 times Robert Seeberger wrote: ... Evaluating the 43 times fallacy ...a study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine (v. 314, n. 24, p. 1557-60) which concluded that a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to be used to kill a member of the household than to kill a criminal intruder. Most of the criticisms are valid, but there are a couple of flaws. (I've snipped all but the flaws.) ... How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. But this isn't fair either, since the intent of the criminal is unknown. The factor of 1000 is used as if all of these were prevented homicides. A large fraction were probably prevented burglaries, which should not be counted as high as human life. (Possessing a gun would have to foil MANY burglaries for that to be worth a sizable risk of killing a family member!) ... Reverse causation is a significant factor that does not lend itself to quantitative evaluation, although it surely accounts for a substantial number of additional homicides in the home. A person, such as a drug dealer, who is in fear for his life, will be more likely to have a firearm in his home than will an ordinary person. Put another way, if a person fears death he might arm himself and at the same time be at greater risk of being murdered. Thus Kellermann's correlation is strongly skewed away from normal defensive uses of firearms. His conclusion is thus no more valid than a finding that because fat people are more likely to have diet foods in their refrigerators we can conclude that diet foods cause obesity, or that because so many people die in hospitals we should conclude that hospitals cause premature death. Reverse causation thus further lowers the 0.006 value, but by an unknown amount. This is often called a confounding variable, one factor that increases the likelihood of both the cause (explanatory) and the effect (response) variables in a study. They seem to be proposing fear of death by homicide as a confounding variable, but it is not stated very clearly. One can successfully argue for some connection here. Certainly people at high risk of being killed by homicide tend to know this. And if one is afraid of homicide, one is more likely to shoot people without carefully verifying they are strangers, leading to more accidental killings of family members. But it doesn't seem to me to be a very strong effect, and it could well be countered by people in an armed household knowing enough not to do things like climb in the window when you forget your keys, rather than knock and wake everybody up. I wish I'd seen this one first: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html xponent The Mood Struck Me Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
Jan Coffey wrote: I wrote: No, I didn't forget, I just didn't think it had any relevance in the current discussion. If anything, since California's rate is about the same as Texas and it is listed as less dangerous than Nevada, it falsifies Jan's implication that Nevada and Texas are much safer (or much more polite). I didn't say that, I said that ~I~ felt safer. But as long as we are at it, it wouldn't have falsified it if that had been what I meant. California has the strictst gun laws and yet there are 37 safer states even by their standards. Europe is no shining example either. You said: The way we have criminalized the carrying of a gun shifts that power instead to criminals and makes our society more susceptible to those who would do harm. unless you live in Texas or Nevada. and C) everyone should have a gun. Why? Because if that criminal knew that everyone was likely to be packing, they would not have done what they did. Texas and Nevada have it right. Make the gun be concealed. That way no one knows who is armed and who isn't. It proactively fights crime. The other alternative is to be a society of victims. and Then why do Texas and Nevada have less violent crime? It's clear to me that you are implying Texas and Nevada are much safer because they allow concealed weapons. The last is a statement of fact that you have yet to verify with data. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Guns in the Home
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/Guns_in_Home.pdf Many people who own guns keep them primarily for hunting or recreation; many keep them for self defense. This is particularly the case among handgun owners.3 Although many gun owners keep a gun in the home for protection, studies have shown that guns are rarely used for this purpose4 and that the risks of keeping a gun in the home outweigh the benefits. In fact, in homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.5 The risk of a family members suicide is increased by nearly 5 times in homes with guns; the risk of suicide is higher still for adolescents and young adults.6 Having a gun in the home also increases the risk that incidents of domestic violence will result in homicide. Family and intimate assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than nonfirearm-related assaults.7 So what your sayig is, that if you are in a family where domestic violence is more likely to occure, don't buy a gun becouse someone might end up dead? If you beat you wife, don't buy a gun becouse she might kill you with it. If you are prone to deep depression don't buy a gun becouse it will make suicide easier. What is the usual case? Is it gun toting wife beaters killing their wife, or gun toting beaten wives defending themseleves? It makes a difference. Are these numbers counting suicide by gun or all suicides? If it's all suicided is it taking into acount the likelyhood of attempted suicide? Is this saying that guns are more effective means of suicide or somehow the existence of the gun in the home is causing more people to commit suicide? Was there a control study on the likelyhood of homicide, suicide, etc. for other housholde items? Was the rate higher for housholds with stake knives? to those that only had case knives? Baseball Bats? wide screen TV? low flow toilets? staked washer and dryers? Icecream? rat poison? insectiside? lawn mowers? fire places? oven mits? suround sound? florecent lighting? dogs? cars with and without political bumperstikers? Has anyone done a statistical study on the number of homes which were invaded where the residents were harmed and unharmed and the relation of an easily accesible gun? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist [L3]
This item is available on the Middle East Forum website, at http://www.meforum.org/article/548 Confessions of an Anti-Sanctions Activist by Charles M. Brown Middle East Quarterly Summer 2003 On May 22, 2003, the United Nations (U.N.) lifted the sanctions regime it had imposed on Iraq twelve years earlier. The end of the economic embargo invites a review of the peace activism that was aimed at bringing down the Iraq sanctions while Saddam Hussein ruled. Anti-sanctions groups sought to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. In fact, they became--whether wittingly or unwittingly--mouthpieces for Saddam in the United States. I should know: I have the dubious distinction of having been one of them. My own interest in Iraq goes back to Desert Storm, when as a nineteen-year-old Army reservist fresh out of a semi-rural high school, I was very nearly deployed to Saudi Arabia as a medic. This aroused my curiosity about Iraq. After I did some work in several homeless shelters run by Catholic Worker activists, I gravitated toward their allied movement against sanctions. For three years I was dedicated to the anti-sanctions cause. I traveled to Iraq in 1998 in order to see sanctions firsthand, and upon my return to the United States, I made two national speaking tours on the college activist circuit, in 1998 and 1999. (At the time, I was completing my undergraduate degree in Middle East studies at Western Washington University.) I intended to use the knowledge I acquired in my academic work to aid my real job as an anti-sanctions activist. But I got derailed when I realized that in order to return to Iraq with the group I represented--the Chicago-based Voices in the Wilderness--I and other group members could not speak publicly about issues that would embarrass the Iraqi regime. These included its horrendous human rights record, its involvement with weapons of mass destruction, and the dictatorial nature of the regime. We were allowed to speak only of one thing: the deprivations suffered by ordinary Iraqis under the sanctions regime. This one-dimensional depiction of life in Saddam's Iraq was pure Baath propaganda, and I (as well as other group members) knew it. As I came to see this as a complicity and collaboration with one of the most abusive dictatorships in the world, I tried to get the rest of my group to acknowledge that our close relationship with the regime damaged our credibility. I failed to persuade them, so I quit. Unfortunately, it seems that my former colleagues have regarded this decision as a kind of political defection, and it has cost me several friendships, which were apparently contingent on my continued willingness to toe the (Baathist) line. Since then, I have returned to university with the objective of becoming a professional historian of Baathist Iraq. I am no longer a political activist, and it will likely be some time before I assume that role again, if I ever do. In this article, I wish to look back at this rather peculiar aspect of the American peace movement and offer an honest and firsthand account of how it worked from the inside. The Pedigree My group, Voices in the Wilderness (henceforth, Voices), was founded in 1996. Its name is an allusion to the biblical prophet Isaiah, who cried out for justice in a wilderness of injustice (Isaiah, 40:3). The name clearly embodied the group's view of Iraqi sanctions: they were acts of injustice perpetrated by the United States government upon the people of Iraq. Someone had to cry out for justice--understood to be the unconditional lifting of sanctions--and Voices members saw themselves as modern-day Isaiahs, calling America to its conscience. Voices preached by its actions--more particularly, by conducting regular trips to Iraq to deliver medical and other supplies, all in violation of the U.N. sanctions regime as well as several U.S. laws and presidential executive orders. The quantity of aid we brought to Iraq was always a paltry, symbolic amount, but the real emphasis of Voices was to have group members witness the detrimental effects of sanctions for themselves, by visiting Iraqi hospitals, schools, and other areas--always in the presence of official minders of the Iraqi regime. These orchestrated trips provided the grist for group members, who returned home to educate their communities on the horrors of the U.S.-imposed sanctions. In my case, the propaganda fed to me in Iraq by regime spokespersons was my primary source of information on sanctions, which I then imparted to audiences all across the United States. The same was true of my colleagues. The story of Voices is one of a simplistic utopian vision of peace being applied to an intractable humanitarian and political catastrophe. This may be a trait that cuts across the entire peace movement, but Voices had its own unique characteristics, which reflected its distinct pedigree within the larger peace movement.
Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
At 12:26 PM 8/10/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True. However, this current subthread started with the following: I swear I've seen a big stone one of Lincoln, sitting down. You mean that it WON'T come to the defense of Liberty when a rabbi writes the word on its forehead? So? He got confused, since, in the legend, the rabbi makes a clay figure and animates it, he does not do it to an existing statue. He had the right idea but applied it wrongly. In the words of that great philosopher, Foghorn Leghorn: It's a joke, son. A joke, I say. -- Ronn! :~) Humor...it is a difficult concept. --Lt. Saavik (Kirstie Alley) to Admiral Kirk (William Shatner) in _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn_ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Most Dangerous States In a message dated 8/11/2003 1:14:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That would only hold true if the criminals were aware of who did and who did not own guns ahead of time. I think the gist of the argument is that legal gun ownership deters crime in general and there are stats that support this. But nothing is ever going to grind crime to a halt. I think this type of discussion tends to get people thinking about the extremes as opposed to the general tenor of the realities of life. There are many many millions of guns in the US, yet only a few thousand or so deaths in a given year. A small percentage of deaths by any cause. Its a mountain made out of a molehill. Except the mountain is usually not fatal and the molehill is fatal. Detering crime is good but the cost may overwhelm the benefit if even a statistically small number of innocent individuals (in particular the owner or a family member is killed). After all the death rate in the mole hill is %100. If we had effective gun control then the death rate would go down for both the criminals and the victims. Then why not have mandatory swimming lessons for everyone? (I think you know what comes next. I'm gonna pull a Dan!) You are mangling the metaphor. The molehill is not 100% fatal. Many people are shot each year and survive. And that's what I meant about people only seeing the extremes of the debate. xponent Aiming For Objectivity Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:57 PM 8/8/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: The United States should NOT have action figures of a sitting president. No, an _action_ figure should be portrayed as standing. -- Ronn! :) I swear I've seen a big stone one of Lincoln, sitting down. You mean that it WON'T come to the defense of Liberty when a rabbi writes the word on its forehead? ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
leave the constitution alone
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=1317ncid=742e=11u=/0308 07/228/4x3bg.html LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE Thu Aug 7, 7:21 PM ET By Cynthia Tucker This was as unnecessary as it was utterly predictable: Shoring up his appeal among ultraconservative constituents, President Bush ( - ) recently dismissed gay marriage, saying his administration is moving to codify a legal definition of marriage as restricted to a man and a woman. That prejudice has already been enshrined in law, in former Georgia congressman Bob Barr's odious Defense of Marriage Act. So what is the president talking about? A constitutional amendment? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has endorsed an amendment banning same-sex unions, and a Colorado legislator has reintroduced a marriage amendment bill in the House. Let's hope this is just political blather for the campaign trail. The last thing the nation needs is for its religious conservatives to hijack the U.S. Constitution. Among the fundamental differences between the United States and Iran is the separation of church and state that allows people of different religious views to live together in peace. How is America to denounce the theocracy of the Taliban and Iran's mullahs, who dictate what citizens wear, read and watch, if we allow our own mullahs to dictate our civil code? No matter how you feel about the subject of gay marriage, you ought to be disturbed by the prospect of amending the Constitution to suit a particular theological point of view. There are some Christians who would be offended and whose religious views would be restricted by a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As a member of the United Church of Christ, I would find my own religious views unfairly maligned by a constitutional prohibition against gay marriage. The UCC, which has struggled with issues of sexuality for decades, has gone further than many denominations in welcoming openly gay and lesbian church members and clergy. While the issue remains contentious inside the UCC, some individual pastors have performed marriage (or commitment) ceremonies for gay members. (The UCC has no governing hierarchy, leaving such matters to individual congregations.) By contrast, conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention are adamantly opposed to gay marriage. At its annual meeting in June, the convention passed a resolution not only denouncing same-sex marriage but also pledging to campaign against attempts to legalize them. What business does the Constitution have deciding that one church is right while the other is wrong? Where would that end? Should the Constitution also ban the ordination of women? Should it decree that all shops should close on the Sabbath and that the Sabbath be observed only on Sundays? Absolutely not. Nor is the Constitution going to order any church to accept gay marriage if that violates its doctrine. No priest or preacher ever has to marry a couple he objects to. Ministers currently make those distinctions. Priests frequently deny the sacrament of marriage to divorced Catholics, and conservative Protestant ministers sometimes refuse to marry couples who have lived together before marriage or who have already conceived a child. That's as it should be. The promise and the dilemma presented by the Bible both lie in its openness to myriad interpretations. The nation's founding document should not be used on behalf of any theological or sectarian view. Instead, it should defend the right of each person to interpret the Bible as he or she wishes. Or to ignore the Bible altogether. Countless agnostics and atheists marry without benefit of religious authority. Wiccans marry, as do Druids, Raelians, Rastafarians and Hare Krishnas. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to marry in civil ceremonies as well? Or in churches that welcome them? Granted, the nation is probably a generation away from general acceptance of that notion. The culture wars are heating up instead of cooling. Meanwhile, the nation need not be torn asunder by an inflammatory debate over the U.S. Constitution. Let the pope and the preachers, the bishops, the rabbis and the imams slug it out. Leave the Constitution alone. Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history. -- Pat Robertson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dubya with Kung Fu Grip
Jon Gabriel wrote: And now... an action figure. http://makeashorterlink.com/?M11532885 Jon GSV Just Can't Make This Stuff Up I kept thinking that it MUST be made up. But I still submitted the following review, which seemed to be a good line of attack: This is unprecedented, and reduces the dignity of the office of President. The United States should NOT have action figures of a sitting president. Period. ---David I want the figure, and the plane, and the Evil Saddam Hussein Underground Fortress, ... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Listref] Obesity - some encouraging news
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I read something in the past week or so in some newspaper or another (gotta be either the Austin American-Statesman or the Wall Street Journal) that it's marginally better to be fat and fit than thin and unfit. I think the list from best to worst then goes: thin and fit fat and fit thin and unfit fat and unfit snip little nitpick More than marginally better, actually. And once you're over 65 or so, it's better to have an extra 10-15 pounds on-board as metabolic reserve, for recovering from severe illnesses like double pneumonia, or major surgery. I also think it's better for osteoporosis, as adipose cells produce some estrogen (which does affect bones positively). Debbi who won't have to worry about lack of padding over her seatbones either ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Most Dangerous States
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:44 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Homicides per 100,000, average per year from 1998-2000 Dallas TX - 20.42 New York NY - 8.77 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502tabs.xls If you are going to link to a site, it has to actualy exist. Sounds like an interesting article. too bad it can't be read. It is a spreadsheet. Are your MIME types set correctly? Why don't you post it? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important Chomsky is one of the most important thinkers of our time but it his contributions to linguistics not his political views that have influence. Ironically his contribution (that humans are born with an inate ablilty to create and use language - a language learning module if you will) This very concept is now being chalanged. Not the spoken ability, but the assumption made by chomsky et. al. that writen ability is also inate is now under an increasing amount of attack. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
