RE: Catholicism RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: - The political differences between Catholic Church leadership and most Protestant leadership these days are rather small, leaving them mostly on the same side of the political aisle. Well, the leadership of the Catholic Church leans very strongly towards the Democratic Party on many issues. I guess I'm thinking of things like abortion and gay rights. What kinds of issues does the Catholic Church lean Democrat on? _ Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew said: You are calling Jan Jane, like its somehow sub-optimal to be a women. Actually, he isn't. He's calling Jan Jane because Jan keeps calling Erik by variants of his name with additional or alternative letters. Nope, I only started that after the Jane buisness. Besides, no one ever acused me of not being in touch with my fem side anyway. But I think E-Reich (TLN)'s intent was to make fun of all the misspellings, and poke fun at me in a schoolgirl kind of way to boot. Hay it's not like the guy doesn't have a high IQ. Now, if he would just put it to use doing something other than trying to tick people off, he might be usefeul. It would be really something if he could show his intelect while doing something other than makeing himself a nuecence. Some people think it is their God given right to pick on other people. I am sure that if E-Reich (TLN) wasn't such a slob he would be one of those guys back in highschool who felt it was their duty to beat up anyone who they felt was smarter than them. In E-Reich (TLN)'s case maybe he is just responding to being the guy that got beat up all the time. After all if he realy is as smart as he keeps trying to get everyone to believe he probably did get beat up a lot. However, his inteligance doesn't seem to include self awareness of the sort that keeps one from becomeing what they hate. So with the advent of the internet E-Reich (TLN) is finaly able to ~be~ the bully himself. What a shame, what a waste. Unless of course all that talk is not actualy real inteligance. Maybe He's just good at words, and looking stuff up and remembering tidbits. That's not ~real~ inteligance after all is it? You know I bet that's it. I bet E-Reich (TLN) seemed like a smart guy way back in school, so he got beat up a lot, this gae him a complex about not being the alpha, so he persues an on-line, brain oriented social life. However, becouse he isn't really good understanding and creating, he once again feels like an underdog. So he uses his wordsmithing muscle to bully others so he can feel like the alpha. Hay E-Reich (TLN), why don't you just leave people allone you big bully!!! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
BULLY! Besides you want to talk about S/N ratio, You know, you keep talking about S/N and so I got to thinking, you know, I don't think it's others S/N, I think that your nyquist is just not high enough. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:39:22PM +, Richard Baker wrote: Erik said: You do go on like a doofus, don't you? I don't know if Andrew does, but I know I do! Occasionally, everyone does I think. But your S/N is quite high. So far as I have seen, his is very low. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: empire time: a bedtime story
Trent said: If there is a wormhole and one extrinsic observer experiences 10 years of subjective time and another extrinsic observer experiences 1000 years of subjective time then the wormhole must experience no less than 1000 years of subjective time. What you've written is somewhat confused. Suppose there are two wormhole clocks, Inside_1 and Inside_2, happily ticking away in the two mouths of the wormhole and two exterior clocks, Outside_1 and Outside_2, ticking in the vicinity of the wormhole mouths. (This idea of inside and outside the wormhole is only an approximation!) Suppose further I stand by Outside_1. If I look into the wormhole, I see Inside_1 ticking at the same rate as my clock, Outside_1. If I look right through the wormhole, I see Inside_1, Inside_2 and Outside_2 ticking at the same rate as my clock, Outside_1. Now, suppose I train a powerful telescope on the ship carrying the second mouth. I then see Outside_2 running slowly with respect to my clock. Suppose further that the ship has set up a system of mirrors that let me use my telescope to look back through the wormhole. Then I see Inside_2 running at the same rate as Outside_2, which is to say slowly with respect to the clock sitting right next to me. But if I look more carefully, I also see Inside_1 running slowly with respect to my clock. Even more surprisingly, if I look through my telescope and the mirrors back through the wormhole at my own clock, I see it running more slowly than I do if I look at the clock sitting right next to me! All of this might be surprising, but it's not in any way paradoxical. It's just a consequence of relativity. The clocks can't tick out of sync with their own reference frames, because it's their ticking that defines the reference frames! Everything is fine as long as the two reference frames are in uniform motion with respect to each other. When the ship turns around and heads home, the problem arises. There will come a point at which a temporal loop forms. It's conjectured by people much smarter than me that quantum effects will collapse the wormhole just as this happens, so that causality can't be violated and so your warning from the future scenario isn't possible. The Orion's Arm idea of empire time arises from this restriction on the movement of wormholes. They think that the times of all the wormholes get locked together by the restrictions becoming more and more severe as more wormholes get added to the system. I'm not sure whether this is actually the case, but I haven't thought about the problem in any great depth. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:35:59PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: I can just imagine the outrage if I ever said that one of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that the opinions of homosexuals should be respected A statement in that respect is implicit in your position of denying homosexual couples the right to marry. You just don't seem to have the courage to make it explicit. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:38:47AM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. That's unfair and untrue, Rob. Don't misunderestimate JDG. He would certainly not support the whitehouse against the church! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: It seems that you are almost arguing that the demonization of liberals by some conservatives somehow justifies treating conservatives on this list poorly or making them feel unwelcome. I disagree with this and would prefer the people of the list to feel open to expressing their points of view, regardless of their popularity.* I don't think Rob was arguing that. Regardless, the irony in applying your defense to JDG's specific case here is that JDG is proposing to force a viewpoint on the entire country that will make millions of people feel unwelcome. I did read your footnote, but it seems to me you are applying a biased standard here -- you are much more tolerant of some people making others feel unwelcome than you are of other groups feeling unwelcome. So, JDG can ramble on about how the rights of gay people should be restricted, but if someone dares to write something that makes JDG feel unwelcome to express that view here, well shame on them! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:17:44PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: Jeez Erik, you don't even know the guy. Andrew's a damn good fellow and not prone to noise. I can understand you not agreeing with him, but these knee-jerk retorts are just plain silliness on your part. And you don't read so well, Rob. Your S/N is also very low. I know you think you can fly under the radar forever, and perhaps you will, but I truly wonder how long it will be before you see how absolutely opaque you are to everyone. As long as we are being honest, Rob, you are definitely the most insincere sounding person on the list. I long ago stopped respecting your posted opinions after seeing all the insincere psychobabble nonsense you post. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Judging by comments from John and Gautam recently, they do feel excluded sometimes, and surrounded at others. Being the social animals we are it is difficult to carry on when pressured like this. I'm not making comparisons to other situations where even more intestinal fortitude would be required. Don't read too much into my comments. I'm not making them out to be superheroes. But I do think an appreciation of what it's like for the other guy is a bit more than moderately useful. True enough. Except, this is a purely voluntary list, and it's pretty sociable anyway. No matter how vehement the debate gets, and even if it gets a bit personal, there's still nothing at stake here. I don't know either John or Gautam personally - as far as I'm aware, I've never met either - but if I did, I'm sure I'd like them personally even though I disagree almost totally with their politics. If we can't really mix it up and take the gloves off when we start kicking our ideas back and forth - if we can't do that HERE, where CAN we do it? So what if sometimes someone feels a bit bruised or thinks they're the only defenders of Truth against a horde of the iniquitous? I feel that way pretty much all the time, in fact, as a liberal, Democratic Jew. Life sucks, the universe doesn't give a sh*t about you or your tender feelings, and this is all supposed to be just in fun anyway. Tom Beck I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: * Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain extreme views on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters feel *very* unwelcome here. Can I take a guess as to what these might be? Perhaps supporters of, say, the KKK, the Nazis' Final Solution, Al Qaeda, Wahabbisim.and supporters of continued martyrdom operations against Israeli Civilians? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 11:34 PM 2/28/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: You still haven't specified which incentives we are discussing here. What specifics, in your opinion, should differentiate marriage and civil union? I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided by The Fool, but I did mention that two key ones would be: 1) Reservation of the name marriage for heterosexual unions 2) Marriages having a preference, ceteris paribis, for unconnected adoptions of children. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 11:37 PM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Can you even listen to yourself here? we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational thought would reasonably expect This very clearly shows that this is not the child's expectations, but your expectations for that child. That's the thing about children (young children anyway), they don't have expectations outside of their limited experience with life. Which is why in legal proceedings we don't always just simply ask a child what they want.Rather, it can be the practice to reasonably deduce what is the child's best interest on behalf of the child. Ok, so you say it's ok for a same sex couple to adopt a child when it is the best option available to that child. If that is so, then why do you continue to insist that same sex couples have no reproductive or child raising potential? I have not said that homosexual couples have no child-raising potential. Indeed, I have specificly cited examples in which homosexual couples *should* adopt. Are homosexual couples better than raising couples than wolves? Yes, of course. (The same is true for absentee or abusive heterosexual parents too.Heck, the wolves might be better than abusive parents. :-) The two views are mutually exclusive. Again, I have said that they certainly have potential I just don't think that we should *incentivize* that potential. or at least we should not until it is demonstrated that we have such a shortage of absolutely wonderful heterosexual couples willing to adopt that we need to expand our pool of wonderful potential adopters by incentivizing such unions. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:39 AM Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:17:44PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: Jeez Erik, you don't even know the guy. Andrew's a damn good fellow and not prone to noise. I can understand you not agreeing with him, but these knee-jerk retorts are just plain silliness on your part. And you don't read so well, Rob. Your S/N is also very low. I know you think you can fly under the radar forever, and perhaps you will, but I truly wonder how long it will be before you see how absolutely opaque you are to everyone. As long as we are being honest, Rob, you are definitely the most insincere sounding person on the list. I long ago stopped respecting your posted opinions after seeing all the insincere psychobabble nonsense you post. Oh My God I feel a compulsive need to defend myself!! Quick, break out the seemingly consistent logic. We will defeat our enemies with scientific accuracy! xponent Your Morning Humor Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Jan Coffey wrote: I'm sorry if you take this personaly. I didn't take it personally. I just thought that engaging in fat jokes was even more childish than Erik's comment, and that it, in my mind at least, weakened your position and made you look bad. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Julia Thompson wrote: We had to put a shield over the TV controls to keep Sam from playing with the power switch on the big TV. I hate to be that guy, but we just told the kids No on touching the TV controls until it sunk in. Granted, the shield would have been less time consuming... :) Jim Parenting is more work than my regular job Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Robert Seeberger wrote: Rush is not an easy band to get into. But when you do, the music speaks for itself. Really? I loved Rush from the first time I listened. To me, they *defined* nerd rock in the early 80's. :) -Judas Priest Good metal, Their hits were head and shoulders above the rest of that crowd. Even though I wasn't really a fan, when I got a chance to see them in concert ~1989, I took it. And a good thing I did too, because it was some helluva show. Especially when you figure they were already in their 40's by then. 2.5 hours straight hours of butt-kickingly good stuff. It definitely converted me. -Boston Overrated arena rock band. And talk about having a patent on a sound! -Cheap Trick Better than most people think, but the uneven quality of their albums always held them back. Ever hear their stuff off the Heavy Metal soundtrack? It was some of their best stuff, IMO. Jim Tossing in a few cents Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Erik Reuter wrote: Jane's posts Mmm, the sweet smell of eighth grade taunting. Let's see, we've had fat jokes and calling the other guy a girl. Can making fun of one another's mom be far behind? :) Jim Your momma's so fat she stepped on a dollar and made change Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Matthew Bos wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: You like Slayer!? Neat. I have never had the response of neat whenever I say I listen to Slayer. New cool guitar orientated rock groups? The Darkness, and Los Lonely Boys. The Darkenss cracks me up. They're like the evil bastard child of Cinderella and Queen. :) Long hair no more Me either. Though I had a mullet rather than all long hair. And to clarify, I had a mullet before it became a reliable indicator of wife-beating tendencies. ;-) Jim For those about to rock, we Maru you ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] As an aside, I think that the demonization of the opposing party isn't something restricted to just conservatives. I've known many liberals for whom conservative and republican re the c-word and r-word; people who, if you told them you were conservative/republican, would immediately associate you with KKK member and Nazi. It's a two-way street. What with Shrubs Appointments of PicKKKering and Pryor, they aint far off. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
- Original Message - From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:08 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Jim For those about to rock, we Maru you That's got to be in the running for the best Maru ever! xponent The Annals Of Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 06:39:55 -0500 On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:17:44PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: Jeez Erik, you don't even know the guy. Andrew's a damn good fellow and not prone to noise. I can understand you not agreeing with him, but these knee-jerk retorts are just plain silliness on your part. And you don't read so well, Rob. Your S/N is also very low. I know you think you can fly under the radar forever, and perhaps you will, but I truly wonder how long it will be before you see how absolutely opaque you are to everyone. As long as we are being honest, Rob, you are definitely the most insincere sounding person on the list. I long ago stopped respecting your posted opinions after seeing all the insincere psychobabble nonsense you post. -- Erik Reuter First of all, let me say that after getting to know Robert a bit in the last few months, I think he's a pretty cool guy. In direct contrast to you of course; and I'm not too sure that he posts much insincere psychobabble nonsense. You on the other hand post SINCERE NONSENSE (minus the psychobabble). And it's so childish that I can't understand how you justify saying the things that you do. I should also like to say that after reading and gauging what the both of you produce on a regular basis, I have come to the conclusion that Robert is a lion and you, a boar. Which leads me to this dandy little quote from the Illiad: A boar does not wear out easily, but a lion will overpower it when the two face off over a trickling spring up in the mountains they both want to drink from. The boar pants hard, but the lion comes out on top I urge caution Erik. For Robert drinks from this spring regularly. And second time around he may not be so nice to the little piggy wiggy. -Travis Fight The Good Fight Edmunds _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:14:34 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah, but if you have ever seen how flies cluster about the brimming milk pails on a dairy farm in early summer... All the dairy farms I've hung out on were using milking machines, no pails, no access to vast quantities of milk for the flies Julia But the flies always buzz around for some reason. Milk or no. -Travis that's just the way the ball bounces Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote The question is whether a year or more ago, he and/or the Iraqi National Council provided the US with `intelligence' that was designed to influence the US to act against Saddam Hussein's government and do so in a way that benefited Iran more than the US, by causing senior US officials to misunderstand the situation before the US-Iraqi war began. If so, the Bush Administration got suckered. (Note that many have said that the Bush Administration were eager to go to war against Iraq; that is not the issue. The issue is the outcome, whether the outcome favors Iran more than the US government had planned a year ago. Put another way, over the next generation, who gains victory?) Does anyone know more about this than I? On 25 Feb 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040219-115614-3297r.htm Where Chalabi says: We are heroes in error, he said in Baghdad on Wednesday. As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. This does tell us that Chalabi is happy and suggests that he did not mind whether the intelligence was accurate. But the story does not go into the further question of whether the Bush Administration was influenced in order that the Iranians would benefit more than the Americans; or whether the Bush Administration was suckered by Iranian intelligence. The analyses I have seen suggest that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Moslem countries and that opposition to nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons was a `selling point', not a primary reason. In addition to intimidating other, the administration was also against dangerous weapons, but their destruction was to have been a happy side effect; it was not the main internal reason for the war.. (The Administration's failure to search `known sites' as soon as it had the change in the latter half of April 2003 is puzzling. That failure tends to diminish my claim that the the Administration was concerned about dangerous weapons.) Presuming either that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Moslem countries, as I think, or to destroy dangerous weapons, or to enforce a mandatory UN resolution, or, as enemies of the Adminstration claim, in order to delay the pricing of oil in Euros and to gain contracts in Iraq for US companies -- presuming any or all of these reasons, the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has gained. This is the issue. Moreover, the ill-planning for an extended guerilla war and for dealing with Iranian-organized Shi'ite groups makes more sense if one believes that senior members of the Bush Administration really did not expect such problems, even though others in the US government had warned of them. The outcome, so far not quite a year later, suggests that the Administration, a year ago, might well have been suckered by the intelligence operatives of an `Axis of Evil' country. Is this true? -- 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: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Robert Seeberger wrote: From: Jim Sharkey For those about to rock, we Maru you That's got to be in the running for the best Maru ever! Hey, thanks! I didn't even know there was a contest going on! ;-) Now if I only knoew the origins of the Maru, I'd feel worthy of this great honor... *shifty eyes* Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Julia Thompson wrote: But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like, for example, clones or twins] don't have a soul, so they should not have human rights :-))) What about twins that *are* produced by a mother and a father? :) Don't you watch Hollywood movies? For every group of _n_ identical twins, _n-1_ are Evil. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Michael Harney wrote: Actually, I think religion is necessary to keep less enlighted individuals honest and lawful. Like those in the Islamic countries? :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
At 12:38 AM 2/29/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently original in thought and also for being too original in thought. This paragraph is the key to a misunderstanding. None of my comments (re: running with the pack, dittophasia) were directed towards your arguments, the arguments you were making or any originality or lack thereof. So, if your remarks were not directed towards my arguments, should I presume then that they were directed towards me personally? ;-) It was the fact that you came out against Gay Marriage (at all) that my comments were directed towards. (re: gay best friend) What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. See, and this is the kind of dishonesty I have to put up with around here that positively infuriates me. What you are basically saying is that I am a hack. I was on this List for at least four years of the Clinton Administration.I don't recall many people being accused of: whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. I certainly don't recall any of the liberals on Brin-L *ever* being challenged to make a 15-point List of disagreements that they have with their Party, It's Leaders, and others generally associated with their opinions. Nevertheless, I understand that Brin-L is substantially biased to the Left-Wing, so I decided to play-along and I *made* such a List.I forget everything exactly that I said about it, but I think that I said something to the effect that President Bush sold-out on carbon emissions trading. But at any rate, I listed plenty of disagreements. And yet, even after going through all of that, which was just a little humiliating and degrading to me, I *still* get pure bulls*** like this from you about how I am a hack and how I am just running with the pack, like I am a mindless sheep or something. And to think that you claim to be one of the more reasonable left-wingers on this List. Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I am just going to deal with it. I suspect that the *real* reasons lie with your religious beliefs which like mine, are Catholic, yet unlike mine are very conservative. I don't begrudge you that, in fact I respect it, but we are somewhat protected from each others beliefs as a secondary effect of the Constitution. Are we not? And if the root of my beliefs was in conservative Catholicism, shouldn't I have been opposed to the US Supreme Court's decision rendering Texas' anti-sodomy laws Unconstitutional?Shouldn't I also oppose civil unions? And yet, I do not. Despite the fact that Scalia wrote a blistering dissent of th Texas decision, and that there are plenty of conservatives who are opposing the Musgrave Amendment on the grounds that it permits civil unios. But I forgot, I am just running with the pack on this one. Rah Rah Scalia, right? Just continue my friend. And if we don't agree, we will at least understand better. I wish that I could beleive you on that.Yet, from my very days on this List, I have been talking abortion, and I have always said that my goal is not necessarily to convince everyone here of the pro-life position, but to at least have most of the people here better *understand* pro-lifers, and why we take the positions we do. And yet, after all of these years, you still dragged out that hideous ridiculous nonsense about e-e-e-e-very sperm is sacred (which was written by Monty Python as a direct mockery of pro-lifers BTW) and acted as if it somehow had an iota of intellectual relevance in it. I can't tell you absolutely incredibly disappointing it was for me to see that you hadn't really begun to understand anything at all. Sigh. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Catholicism RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
At 11:49 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: At 12:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: - The political differences between Catholic Church leadership and most Protestant leadership these days are rather small, leaving them mostly on the same side of the political aisle. Well, the leadership of the Catholic Church leans very strongly towards the Democratic Party on many issues. The leadership of most evangelical Protestatns, of course, leans very strongly towards the Republican Party. Also, there's Catholic politicians like Ted Kennedy who is strongly pro-choice, drawing a line between his faith's doctrine and his political vote. Of course, there is a very reasonable argument to be made that Ted Kennedy is no longer Catholic, since assisting someone in the procurement of an abortion carries the penalty of automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church. It's unreasonable if one or the other never occurred. (As in Ted Kennedy being excommunicated would be very big news.) You misunderstand. The excommunication is automatic. The only question is whether or not Ted Kennedy's actions in the Senate can reasonably be considered as having aided and abetting the procurement of an abortion. For the most part, it is a question that Sen. Kennedy needs to answer in his own heart, hopefully before he passes away. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:26:43PM -0330, Travis Edmunds wrote: First of all, let me say that after getting to know Robert a bit in the last few months, I think he's a pretty cool guy. In direct contrast to you of course; and I'm not too sure that he posts much insincere psychobabble nonsense. You on the other hand post SINCERE NONSENSE (minus the psychobabble). Well, you're half right (2/3). Again, as long as we are being honest, the posts of yours that I have read have been a waste of my time. Not surprising you and Rob would enjoy each other's babble. Although it is disappointing that you make so little effort to discern sense from nonsense before posting your tripe, and that you draw conclusions from such a short baseline. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
At 06:00 PM 2/29/2004 + Robert J. Chassell wrote: This does tell us that Chalabi is happy and suggests that he did not mind whether the intelligence was accurate. While that is n degrees to cavalier. The world is better off today than it was one year ago today. We should make no apologies for that. The analyses I have seen suggest that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Muslim countries 1) The DPRK is not a Muslim country. 2) Baathist Iraq in many ways was not a Muslim country either. and that opposition to nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons was a `selling point', not a primary reason. It was chosen as the primary selling point among a host of primary reasons, all of which were sufficient by themselves to justify the invasion. After all, Iraq's possession of these weapons was considered to be a certainty, as was the illegality of Iraq's continued possession of these weapons. It was a very simple open-and-shut case. the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has gained. This is the issue. I totally disagree: 1) The US has gained the peaceful strategic removal of its forces from Saudi Arabia 2) The US has gained the liberation of 38 million people from utter oppression 3) The US has gained the strategic security of knowing that Iraq will never again attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, as it has in the past. 4) The US has eliminated a key source of funding for Palestinian terrorists. 5) The US has eliminated a key potential source of transit of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, as well as of nuclear technology, to our various enemies. 6) The US has gained, by the end of this year, the largest free elections among Arabs, *ever.* Meanwhile, Iran has: - been forced to come clean regarding three separate nuclear programs, about which the outside world has been unaware.This information was revealed by an Iranian dissident who only came forward after the war in Iraq.Coincidence?Perhaps, but I think not. -Iran has lost substanital democratic legitimacy after its abysmal recent Parliamentary elections. The establishment of free elections in neighboring Iraq, will surely prove to be a direct threat to the Iranian regime. JDG - The Tale of the Tape, Maru ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: List Criticims Re: Tyranny
John D. Giorgis wrote: ... I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. He's saying he _suspects_ you _may_ have a double standard. He is not attacking you, however. I've seen enough examples on the list this month of people attacking each other to be able to say that with confidence. This is a problem with line-by-line responding. I did not accuse him of attacking me indeed, I said that to describe him as attacking me is probably a bit too harsh. I did, however, say that he was questioning my intellectual credentials, which the above clearly does. JDG Hey, I wrote the original, let me respond... I didn't actually mean it as a criticism of your intellectual credentials. The way I look at things, cheering is not an intellectual activity. It's perfectly possible to cheer or applaud something, even while deploring the unfair way it came about. From how you argue, I thought it was safe to assume that your emotions were also engaged in the issues. (Which is O.K.!) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:41 PM Subject: Bitter Melons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view. other posts on this topic to boot. 1) Your doing it again, and this time, you are smothering a perfectly reasonable discussion on this human reaction which needs a name, with a frivilous and debatable discussion on WWII. (yet again) Nah, one post cannot smother a reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that you have not been successful in persuading people to accept some of your main premises. Thus, there is no discussion on how and why those premises are true. Indeed, your postulates require the dismissal of a large body of information; which makes them empirically suspect. I was not refering to the anti-semetic macro-thread, but rather the point that most people seem to jump to knee-jerk asumptions ...(what this thread was originaly about.) But, your arguments really didn't support that. Take states rights, for example. Historically, it originated with the Southern apologist school of history arguing that the Civil war was fought over states rights. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. Recently it was point out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that the South supported the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states rights by the federal government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the argument over segregation, the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. One of the main apologists for segregation later admitted it was not a question of states right.Given this, it is very reasonable to be suspicious when states rights is brought up in American political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify as a knee jerk reaction. Since we've been covering Israel extensively, I'll only lightly touch of this. First, let me point out that everyone that I know of who has defended Israel on the list has also registered disagreement/disapproval of the policies of the government of Israel from time to time. This should indicate that not all criticism of Israel is considered anti-Semetic. Second, if you look at the unreasonable public criticism of Israel, you will see that there is an extremely high correlation with the expression of that criticism and other typical anti-Semetic expressions. Look at the folks who voted to call Zionism as a form of racism (ignoring much more xenophobic places like Japan, or France or Germany) and you will see many of them have embraced historical anti-Semetic big lies, like blood libel, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and denying the existence of the Holocaust. I don't see how it is reasonable to call the noting of these strong correlations as knee jerk reactions. The fact that some people of the same ethnicity were at war with you does not give you the right to force them into concentration camps. Sorry, but that is exactly like. Why do you keep on insisting what didn't happen happened? Who tried to wipe out Israel, a number of Arabs _including_ Palestinians who later lived in refugee camps. Who pushed the Palestinians who remained in Israel to leave? Mostly the Arabs who suggested that loyalty meant that the needed to leave. What happened to the Palestinians who stayed? They became citizens of Israel. Who set up the refugee camps? Egypt and Jordan. Who kept them in the camps for the first 20 years? The Egyptians and the Jordanians and the other Arabs who refused to let the refugees settle elsewhere in their lands. The reasonable criticism one could level at Israel was the failure to work hard enough to improve the conditions in the camps while they were under their control. But, that is not exactly like a program to kill all Palestinians. We did the same thing to the Japanese in WWII as well, didn't we? What we did to the Japanese-Americans was different from both what Israel is doing and what the Nazis did. It is exactly like neither. What we did to the Japanese-Americans was intern them. If you look at the original concentration camps you will see that what was done there was significantly worse than what the US did to the Japanese-Americans, and not nearly as bad as what the Germans did to the Jews: http://www.anglo-boer.co.za/concentration.html In early March 1901 Lord Kitchener decided to break the stalemate that the extremely costly war had settled into. It was costing the British taxpayer ÂŁ2,5 million a month. He decided to sweep the country bare of everything that can give sustenance to the Boers i.e. cattle, sheep, horses, women and
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
In a message dated 2/28/2004 6:23:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Their argument being that biology dictates that you are born with either tab A or slot B.* Biology designed tab A to fit into slot B, and biology didn't design two tab As or two slot Bs to fit together, therefore that takes precedence over everything else, or, IOW, those who engage in SS activity are trying to escape biology by attempting to fit parts together which were not designed by biology to fit together. bob z; biology designs things for sure [or to be more precise natural selection designs things] but it does not do this in a rational way. it does not look forward for instance. so some things happen that are not designed. sexuality is certainly designed to produce offspring but that design is limited in its specificity. to be brief there is no arguement from nature that would indicate that homosexuality is somehow bad or unnaturual. it cannot become the dominant mode of sexual expression because it does obviously reduce the chance of its genes being passed on but within limits it can persist ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, your arguments really didn't support that. Take states rights, for example. Historically, it originated with the Southern apologist school of history arguing that the Civil war was fought over states rights. There are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. Recently it was point out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that the South supported the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states rights by the federal government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the argument over segregation, the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. One of the main apologists for segregation later admitted it was not a question of states right.Given this, it is very reasonable to be suspicious when states rights is brought up in American political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify as a knee jerk reaction. Hi Dan. I did make the point about the Fugitive Slave Act. To be totally fair to the state's rights argument, however, the concept of state's rights is central to the American constitional structure and probably one of the most important elements in the success of the American experiment. I think it's an entirely legitimate argument, and started out that way in real tensions based on legitimate principles between the Democratic-Republicans (in favor of state's rights, as a first approximation) and the Federalists (in favor of a strong federal government). The problem with the state's rights argument isn't that it is invalid on its face, or that everyone making that argument was doing it for convenience sake - it's that, starting in the early 1800s, it was co-opted by pro-slavery forces, which would eventually become the dominant voice using the state's rights argument. But one of the strongest arguments used against the Fugitive Slave Act was, of course...state's rights. So while I think it was fair to look with suspicion at people who made the claim that they were important in the 1950s, or even the 1970s, I don't think it would be fair to do so today. Had the claim of state's rights _always_ been about race, it would be, but it didn't start out that way - it was perverted by people who were using a legitimate argument for illegitimate purposes. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:40 AM 2/29/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: * Disclaimer: Within reason. I admit that there are probably certain extreme views on certain topics that would cause me to want to make their supporters feel *very* unwelcome here. Can I take a guess as to what these might be? Perhaps supporters of, say, the KKK, the Nazis' Final Solution, Al Qaeda, Wahabbisim.and supporters of continued martyrdom operations against Israeli Civilians? Yes, probably, depending upon what exactly was being said by them. It'd be nice to be able to advocate totally free speech of any kind on the list, but I fear that would ultimately reduce the list to chaos. The ACLU might give me an F, I suppose, but I think any discussion *on this list* on those topics with those types of supporters would serve little purpose but to lower the S/N ratio of the list to zero. Who am I to decide where to draw that line between acceptable/unacceptable discussion? Nobody. But I'm generally content to leave the line-setting to the list owners and to group opinion. John, do you disagree with that list, or find it hypocritical of me to be drawing the line at a point of topics that I find personally most offensive? -Bryon _ Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Race to the Bottom
http://zeitblog.zeitgeist.com/archives/000155.html Lay off the Kool-aid Tom... Tom Friedman, the Pulitzer prize winning Op-Ed page columnist for the New York Times used to be such a smart guy. I think all the thin air he's been breathing with all that travel he does has given him brain-damage. Seriously. For the last several months off and on, he's been addressing the question of out-sourcing, or in its new politically-correct(?) moniker: off-shoring. Friedman, and other know-nothing apologists for the thieves who steal from the US treasury and US Taxpayers, yet take advantage of US military and economic protection that makes outsourcing profitable , prattle on and on about how outsourcing is a natural result of free trade, and that Americans will just have to retrain themselves for higher-skill jobs in order to compete and just let these jobs go because others can do them better and cheaper. In his latest gem, he ends brown-nosing to the supply-siders like this: What am I saying here? That it's more important for young Indians to have jobs than Americans? Never. But I am saying that there is more to outsourcing than just economics. There's also geopolitics. It is inevitable in a networked world that our economy is going to shed certain low-wage, low-prestige jobs. To the extent that they go to places like India or Pakistan — where they are viewed as high-wage, high-prestige jobs — we make not only a more prosperous world, but a safer world for our own 20-year-olds. Wow... who knew that electrical engineering jobs, biopharma jobs, software development jobs, accounting jobs, radiology jobs -- all of which were done here by people with advanced degrees; people who, with the sweat of their creativity, built the the US high-technology economy -- and all the others that are endlessly flowing to (mainly) India, China and Russia they were really doing low paid, low prestige jobs!!! Gee, I'll have to let my unemployed friends, many of whom have PhD's know that they were really just low-wage, low-prestige slackers. They sure were suckers to spend all those years in school, huh? I guess it must be tough to be a very rich, well respected author who has no actual understanding of economics, or trade, or what it takes to run a business, or be part of a community. You really drank all the kool-aid, didn't ya' Tom..? Amazing. Tom, go back home to Minnesota with your millions and retire. Pretty please? You're not doing anyone any good... you just don't get it, do you? There ARE no other skills Americans can train themselves for. Why bother? There is no bottom to the bottom any more. Outsourcing/Off-shoring is not about skill -- it's only about cost. As soon as a skill becomes valuable enough to command a salary that impacts some CEOs bonus, it will be outsourced. Let's repeat that: Outsourcing/Off-shoring is not about skill -- it's only about cost. No amount of hard work, no amount of skill, no amount of creativity will save a single US job when a company decides that they can pay an Indian worker $25/day or a Chinese worker $2.00/day with no benefits, and get the US taxpayer to foot the bill for guarantying the world trade mechanisms (read: the $450B+++ in military force-projection, economic and diplomatic infrastructure) that allow them to do it. You see, its not about the skills, its only about the money. Community be damned. Country be damned. Real people living real lives who built this economy be damned. All that's important is that CEOs milk their companies and the taxpayer. Or, wasn't that obvious enough...? I've been a software developer since the late 1970s when I was running my own business in high-school. I was a VP in technology on Wall St. for many years, and even helped jump-start this whole Internet thing by putting JPMorgan Co. on the Internet back in early 1991 -- JPMorgan was the very first bank in the world on the Internet -- and helping to fund the development of a little program called Mosaic (which later became Netscape). I've run my own consulting business. I am the founder of a start-up. God help me. I am 41, I've got 25 years in this business and I know lots and lots and lots of people. I have never seen such pessimism from so many smart, smart people before. Why are they so blue? Its simple: They know that no matter how hard they work, no matter how many degrees they have, no matter how much have contributed/created in the past, and no matter how much they are capable of creating in the future -- it doesn't matter one bit. They're all toast. Because you see, its not about training, or capability, or creativity, or past contributions, or future potential... its only about cost. And there's no way they can win. Ask any employer who's fired their IT people. they'll tell you: It doesn't matter what their American staff was capable of creating or achieving. They just don't want Americans, no matter what. Its all about a race to the bottom; a race to see who can get
Re: Catholicism RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
John D. Giorgis wrote: At 12:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: - The political differences between Catholic Church leadership and most Protestant leadership these days are rather small, leaving them mostly on the same side of the political aisle. Well, the leadership of the Catholic Church leans very strongly towards the Democratic Party on many issues. The leadership of most evangelical Protestatns, of course, leans very strongly towards the Republican Party. There are plenty of non-evangelical Protestants that ally themselves with the Democrats. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: We had to put a shield over the TV controls to keep Sam from playing with the power switch on the big TV. I hate to be that guy, but we just told the kids No on touching the TV controls until it sunk in. Granted, the shield would have been less time consuming... :) Jim Parenting is more work than my regular job Maru Yeah. And who's supposed to guard the TV and make sure he's not doing rapid toggling of the power switch without being scolded? :) A year ago, I would have agreed with you whole-heartedly. When you've got 2 babies to deal with in addition of the toddler, you start doing things you wouldn't have done otherwise. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Travis Edmunds wrote: I urge caution Erik. For Robert drinks from this spring regularly. And second time around he may not be so nice to the little piggy wiggy. Little piggy wiggy? Please. If Erik is a pig, he's Some Pig! Julia wondering how many people will miss the reference ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Agence France-Presse claims US Kidnapped Aristide
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8833298%255E1702,00.html US troops 'made Aristide leave' From correspondents in Paris March 1, 2004 HAITIAN leader Jean Bertrand Aristide was taken away from his home by US soldiers, it was claimed today. A man who said he was a caretaker for the now exiled president told France's RTL radio station the troops forced Aristide out. The American army came to take him away at two in the morning, the man said. The Americans forced him out with weapons. It was American soldiers. They came with a helicopter and they took the security guards. (Aristide) was not happy. He did not want to be taken away. He did not want to leave. He was not able to fight against the Americans. The RTL journalist who carried out the interview described the man as a frightened old man, crouched in a corner who said he was the caretaker of the residence. Aristide fled Haiti today in the face of an armed revolt. The United States has ordered Marines to the Caribbean state to help restore order. Agence France-Presse ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Dan Minette wrote: Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The Civil War was *waged* over slavery. Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so arguably it was *fought* over that. A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Julia Thompson wrote: If Erik is a pig, he's Some Pig! I'd even argue he's Terrific! Jim That was an easy one Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
John wrote: I haven't had the time to go through all 1,049 marital benefits provided by The Fool, but I did mention that two key ones would be: 1) Reservation of the name marriage for heterosexual unions 2) Marriages having a preference, ceteris paribis, for unconnected adoptions of children. Wow, if that's really all you can think of off the top of your head, it's precious little for the associated hoopla. 1) marriage is just a word and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to keep a person from calling a civil union a marriage if they want to. Think about it. If you point to a couple, gay or straight, are you likely to ask Are they civily unionized? Really, all things considered, ammending the constitution to reserve a word for a certian segment of the population seems a bit silly. and 2) traditional marriages would probably retain preference even if SSMs were allowed (whether or not that is justifiable) mostly because of the factors you mentioned in your FMA post. What really bothers me on this issue (and also on the under God discussions) is that yours is the politics of exclusion in a country that by it's very definition (in the DoI) is supposed to be inclusive. The U.S. doesn't have a perfect record WRT inclusion, but it's record is one of progress towards that ideal, and really it's one of the cornerstones of the country's greatness. The marriage amendment would be a huge step backwards, IMO. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
I wrote the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has gained. This is the issue. and John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded I totally disagree: 1) The US has gained the peaceful strategic removal of its forces from Saudi Arabia That is true. However, unfortunately that is also a score for Al Qaeda, for which a key goal was to get the US to pull out. 2) The US has gained the liberation of 38 million people from utter oppression That is true, at least for the moment, and I think this is a good reason for the US invasion. (I have recommended this since I first learned about Saddam Hussein round about 1969, before he gained full power in Iraq.) 3) The US has gained the strategic security of knowing that Iraq will never again attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, as it has in the past. This is true for the moment. The question at hand, however, is whether we think it will be true in 10 or 20 years. The point about the success of an Iranian intelligence operation against the US is that the Iranians -- and not those we favor -- may be gaining power in Iraq. 4) The US has eliminated a key source of funding for Palestinian terrorists. Again, this is true for the moment, but also again, the question is whether Iranian influence will mean that a different set of terrorists receive funding. Please remember, the Iranians have backed Shi'ite terrorists. 5) The US has eliminated a key potential source of transit of chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, as well as of nuclear technology, to our various enemies. Yes. One question is whether a country that has admitted it violated its treaty obligations regarding nuclear technology has or is gaining power in Iraq. A second question is whether the UN inspections that the Bush Administration now favors will do the job. 6) The US has gained, by the end of this year, the largest free elections among Arabs, *ever.* Yes, this is good. Especially if the US makes sure that the voters are not bought and that they have good choices, and that the choices have enough funding to overcome the funding of various other candidates. I presume you have looked into what happened when women first gained the vote in Spain (in the 1930s, if I remember my dates rightly). (Many women voted for candidates who hurt their gender, because the new voters took advice from existing leaders, and the opposition did not have the funds to convey an alternate view.) Meanwhile, Iran has: - been forced to come clean regarding three separate nuclear programs, about which the outside world has been unaware.This information was revealed by an Iranian dissident who only came forward after the war in Iraq.Coincidence?Perhaps, but I think not. Yes, I agree, this is good. It is like the Libyan agreement. It means that the policy of intimidation worked, either to intimidate Libya and Iran or to increase the confidence of the Bush Administration, so the Bush Administration could come out in favor of UN action. I think this is a good outcome. But the main question still stands: to gain this, did the US give a great deal to Iran? -Iran has lost substanital democratic legitimacy after its abysmal recent Parliamentary elections. The establishment of free elections in neighboring Iraq, will surely prove to be a direct threat to the Iranian regime. That is only the case if the elections in Iraq are seen by everyone in the area as permanently free and as a good way to solve disputes among clans and religious groups. An unfortunate alternative possibility is that the elections will be seen as a way to increase Shi'ite and Kurdish power, over the Sunnis. An even worse alternative possibility is that Sunnis in Iraq and elsewhere will see this as a `one man, one vote, once' type of election in which their enemies, the Shi'ites, gain power. (They may see this and subsequent elections as being like the elections in the old Soviet Union or in old Iraq -- as a tribute to virtue that does not act either as a way to change the people who make up the government, or as a peaceful dispute resolution mechanism.) I hope the elections are run well, especially the choice of and funding for various candidates, the opportunity for them to convey a message, and everything else that goes with elections. Elections are a mechanism for political change that does not require conspiracy -- they, when done right, are a big deal in a region that historically has either had fake elections in which actual changes of government either required conspiracy or external military intervention, or did not have elections. Coming back to the point, you have not said anything about Chalabi, excepting that what he said is `n degrees to cavalier', with which I agree. Also you have not argued against the claim that currently the Iranians are in a better position (over the
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Julia wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The Civil War was *waged* over slavery. Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so arguably it was *fought* over that. A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. But that's personal loyalty, not really a stand in favor of states' rights, don't you think? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 19:04:30 -0500 (EST), Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: If Erik is a pig, he's Some Pig! I'd even argue he's Terrific! Jim That was an easy one Maru Aye, not much of a tangled web... -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Administration suckered?
I wrote The analyses I have seen suggest that the US invaded Iraq in order to intimidate other Muslim countries and John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] responded 1) The DPRK is not a Muslim country. That is true, North Korea is not Muslem. Good point. If, as I think, the main purpose of the invasion was to intimidate others, it was to intimidate more than the Muslem countries. 2) Baathist Iraq in many ways was not a Muslim country either. This is less likely. Certainly, the early Baathist dictatorship was for secular modernization, but it does not look that they succeeded all that well. Currently, the three major groups in Iraq are the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shia. The Sunnis and the Shia are two religious groups. They are divided into various clans. From what I read, a major issue at the moment is whether the next government will be required to, and be able to, enforce actions to prevent one religious group, the Shi'ites, from taking (mostly justified, as far as I can see, but unpolitic) revenge against a second religious group, the Sunnis. The Sunni clan heads have to decide * whether to support the guerilla war against the US and what is expected to be a Shi'ite government (on account that the Shi'ite are the majority), and discourage Shi'ite actions against them this way, or * whether to cooperate with the US and the Shi'ite so as to discourage Shi'ite actions against them in a different way. (Under the Ottomans, the Sunni ruled the three major Ottoman provinces that make up modern Iraq. More recently, under Saddam Hussein, the Sunni also ruled. As far as I know, the desire for revenge against them by the Kurds and the Shi'ites is fully justified. However, acts of revenge would not necessarily be any more politic or conducive to a tolerant civil society than the acts of revenge would have been that the South African `Truth and Reconciliation Commission' defused.) The point is, whether or not the early Baathists wanted secular modernization, the country is now, in good part, Moslem, albeit enemies. A question at hand is whether Iran, ruled by Shi'ite Moslems, is gaining power amongst its co-religionists in Iraq? If so, the second question is whether this is in part a consequence of an Iranian intelligence operation against the US government that succeeded for the Iranians? -- 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: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like, for example, clones or twins] don't have a soul, so they should not have human rights :-))) What about twins that *are* produced by a mother and a father? :) Don't you watch Hollywood movies? For every group of _n_ identical twins, _n-1_ are Evil. Yes, but you can have twins without them being identical. Like the Wonder Twins. That was what I was asking about. Julia wondering if the Olsen twins are the exception to that rule ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
Doug Pensinger wrote: Julia wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Its true that you can find some historian on any side of an issue. That doesn't mean that there is not a good way to determine what is likely, unlikely, and very very unlikely. For example, its quite unlikely that the Civil War was fought over states rights. The Civil War was *waged* over slavery. Some of those doing the fighting were fighting for states' rights, so arguably it was *fought* over that. A lot of those in the South put their state above the nation. Lee wouldn't fight for the Union because his Virginia was part of the Confederacy. And this putting the state before the nation was probably one of the major factors that lost the war for the South. But that's personal loyalty, not really a stand in favor of states' rights, don't you think? That's what some of the folks were fighting for in their own minds. If you'd asked one of them if the subject of the war was slavery or states rights, they'd have said states rights. But if you'd just asked one, he'd probably have said his state. Defending his homeland or something. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Julia Thompson wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: Don't you watch Hollywood movies? For every group of _n_ identical twins, _n-1_ are Evil. wondering if the Olsen twins are the exception to that rule. Only in that they are *both* evil. :-D Jim Hated Full House Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Yes, probably, depending upon what exactly was being said by them. It'd be nice to be able to advocate totally free speech of any kind on the list, but I fear that would ultimately reduce the list to chaos. The ACLU might give me an F, I suppose, but I think any discussion *on this list* on those topics with those types of supporters would serve little purpose but to lower the S/N ratio of the list to zero. The ACLU wouldn't care about a purely private opinion. They want to protect everyone's right to free speech from government interference. This is a voluntary list, so as long as no one is advocating violence, they don't care what you think or say. -- Tom Beck my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomfodw/ I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Jim Sharkey wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Alberto Monteiro wrote: Don't you watch Hollywood movies? For every group of _n_ identical twins, _n-1_ are Evil. wondering if the Olsen twins are the exception to that rule. Only in that they are *both* evil. :-D Jim Hated Full House Maru That's what I meant. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny At 12:38 AM 2/29/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently original in thought and also for being too original in thought. This paragraph is the key to a misunderstanding. None of my comments (re: running with the pack, dittophasia) were directed towards your arguments, the arguments you were making or any originality or lack thereof. So, if your remarks were not directed towards my arguments, should I presume then that they were directed towards me personally? ;-) Not in the way I think you mean here.G I think there are three areas towards which a criticism might be directed in a forum such as this. What one says. What one does. What one is. I'm certainly not critisizing what you are or who you are. It was the fact that you came out against Gay Marriage (at all) that my comments were directed towards. (re: gay best friend) What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. See, and this is the kind of dishonesty I have to put up with around here that positively infuriates me. What you are basically saying is that I am a hack. No, and to be honest I resent the idea that you think my opinion of you is so low. I was on this List for at least four years of the Clinton Administration.I don't recall many people being accused of: whatever side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. I certainly don't recall any of the liberals on Brin-L *ever* being challenged to make a 15-point List of disagreements that they have with their Party, It's Leaders, and others generally associated with their opinions. No, but on the other hand you also saw voluntary criticism of that administration. Nevertheless, I understand that Brin-L is substantially biased to the Left-Wing, so I decided to play-along and I *made* such a List.I forget everything exactly that I said about it, but I think that I said something to the effect that President Bush sold-out on carbon emissions trading. But at any rate, I listed plenty of disagreements. Thats fair, and I *do* remember that. I prefaced my latest statement thusly for a reason: What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is I'm not always sure where you are coming from with certainty. The only way to find out is to go to the source. And yet, even after going through all of that, which was just a little humiliating and degrading to me, I think you deserve some validation on that account. That doesn't make you right or wrong in any particular circumstance, but I can and do sympathise with how it effects you. I *still* get pure bulls*** like this from you about how I am a hack and how I am just running with the pack, like I am a mindless sheep or something. There are times when I think you are wrong, but I never think you are mindless. And to think that you claim to be one of the more reasonable left-wingers on this List. I said that? Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I am just going to deal with it. Well.Brin-L *is* what it is, but that doesn't mean you have to take any crap off anyone. Pretty much like right now, you seem to be thinking you are not taking any crap off of me. G I suspect that the *real* reasons lie with your religious beliefs which like mine, are Catholic, yet unlike mine are very conservative. I don't begrudge you that, in fact I respect it, but we are somewhat protected from each others beliefs as a secondary effect of the Constitution. Are we not? And if the root of my beliefs was in conservative Catholicism, shouldn't I have been opposed to the US Supreme Court's decision rendering Texas' anti-sodomy laws Unconstitutional?Shouldn't I also oppose civil unions? And yet, I do not. Despite the fact that Scalia wrote a blistering dissent of th Texas decision, and that there are plenty of conservatives who are opposing the Musgrave Amendment on the grounds that it permits civil unios. Actually its not Scalia that I think you admire. And I don't expect that you follow any old horse just because it has conservative branded on it. But I forgot, I am just running with the pack on this one. Rah Rah Scalia, right? Just continue my friend. And if we don't agree, we will at least understand better. I wish that I could beleive you on that.Yet, from my
Mars: A Water World? Evidence Mounts
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/opportunity_evidence_040229.html Evidence that suggests Mars was once a water-rich world is mounting as scientists scrutinize data from the Mars Exploration rover, Opportunity, busily at work in a small crater at Meridiani Planum. That information may well be leading to a biological bombshell of a finding that the red planet has been, and could well be now, an extraterrestrial home for life. There is a palpable buzz here at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California that something wonderful is about to happen in the exploration of Mars. There is no doubt that the Opportunity Mars rover is relaying a mother lode of geological data. Using an array of tools carried by the golf cart-sized robot -- from spectrometers, a rock grinder, cameras and powerful microscopic imager -- scientists are carefully piecing together a compelling historical portrait of a wet and wild world. Where Opportunity now roves, some scientists here suggest, could have been underneath a huge ocean or lake. But what has truly been uncovered by the robot at Meridiani Planum is under judicious and tight-lipped review. Those findings and their implications are headed for a major press conference, rumored to occur early next week -- but given unanimity among rover scientists and agreement on how and who should unveil the dramatic findings. Turns out, even on Mars, a political and ego outcrop hangs over science. Scientific bulls-eye It is clear that Opportunity's Earth-to-Mars hole in one -- bouncing into a small crater complete with rock outcrop -- has also proven to be a scientific bulls-eye. The robot is wheeling about the crater that is some 70 feet (22 meters) across and 10 feet (3 meters) deep. It is also apparent that there is a backlog of scientific measurements that Mars rover scientists working Opportunity have pocketed and kept close to their lab coats. For one, the rover found the site laden with hematite -- a mineral that typically, but not always -- forms in the presence of water. Then there are the puzzling spherules found in the soil and embedded in rock. They too might be water-related, but also could be produced by the actions of a meteor impact or a spewing volcano. A few spheres have been sliced in half and their insides imaged. Patches of these spherules, or berries as some call them, have undergone spectrometer exam to discern their mineral and chemistry makeup. Close-up photos of soil and rock have also shown thread-like features and even an oddly shaped object that looks like Rotini pasta. Brew of dissolved salts There is speculation that the soil underneath the wheels of both Spirit and Opportunity rovers contains small amounts of water mixed with salt in a brine. That brew of dissolved salts keeps the mixture well below the freezing point of pure water, permitting it to exist in liquid form. Opportunity has revisited select spots in the outcrop, drawn there, in part, to look for cross-beds -- sedimentary deposits that are formed in beach, river and sand-dune environments. Using its Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT), the rover has carried out several cleaning and grinding sessions on exposed rock outcrop. Cross-beds are patterns of curving lines or traces found within the strata of sandstone and other sedimentary rocks. Cross-bedding indicates the general direction and force of the wind or water that originally laid down the sediments. Right around the corner Opportunity's research is a work in progress, said Ray Arvidson, deputy principal investigator for the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) project from Washington University in St. Louis. Data is being gathered to present a coherent story, he said during a press briefing last Thursday. That story is right around the corner, Arvidson told SPACE.com . But we need to finish this work in progress, finish the set of experiments, get the data down from the spacecraft, processed and analyzed. Then I think that the story will be known, he said. Arvidson said multiple working hypotheses are still at play. Water is involved, but only on some of the hypotheses. Until coordinated experiments on the outcrop are completed, what the right hypothesis is remains unknown, he added. Severing the umbilical cord Mars exploration using the rovers has allowed on-the-spot discovery driven science, said MER Deputy Project Scientist Albert Haldeman. He likened the Mars robot work now underway to deep ocean research using remotely operated submersibles. It turns out that the best way to explore rocks [on Mars] is go look at craters. Mobility buys us the ability to do that. It was the right fit for looking at rocks, Haldeman told SPACE.com . The discovery from the Microscopic Imager and seeing those spherulesÂ…and finding a larger population of spherules and seeing them in the rocks and the outcropÂ…that progression of discovery influences our thinking. Haldeman said the next step will be severing the umbilical cord between
Re: Race to the Bottom
Out of curiosity, and without wanting to get into the whole is it good/is it bad/is it fair thing: What is it that the people who complain about off-shoring (which is quite different to out-sourcing BTW) want done about it. Isn't America built on Free Enterprise? Are you going to tell these companies that they CAN'T take out a contract with an Indian company to provide help desk support services. Where do you draw the line? Can Wal-Mart buy toys from China? Can a tech-company outsource help desk to an American company? Can it outsource to an American company with worldwide offices? I think it would be great if we could stop the brain-drain which threatens the development of future technological advances, but I'm not sure how it can be done. Cheers Russell C. This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
LOTR wins 11 Oscars
Tying Titanic and Ben Hur. xponent One Small Step For A Film Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: LOTR wins 11 Oscars
In a message dated 2/29/2004 10:10:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tying Titanic and Ben Hur. xponent One Small Step For A Film Maru rob Now win 12 by showing everyone how dolphins can pilot a spaceship. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:40:57AM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: It seems that you are almost arguing that the demonization of liberals by some conservatives somehow justifies treating conservatives on this list poorly or making them feel unwelcome. I disagree with this and would prefer the people of the list to feel open to expressing their points of view, regardless of their popularity.* I don't think Rob was arguing that. Regardless, the irony in applying I was actually addressing Tom's reply to Rob. your defense to JDG's specific case here is that JDG is proposing to force a viewpoint on the entire country that will make millions of people feel unwelcome. I did read your footnote, but it seems to me you are applying a biased standard here -- you are much more tolerant of some people making others feel unwelcome than you are of other groups feeling unwelcome. So, JDG can ramble on about how the rights of gay people should be restricted, but if someone dares to write something that makes JDG feel unwelcome to express that view here, well shame on them! When writing what I did, I had a broader view in mind of conservatives here in general (or anyone else with unpopular views here) rather than with JDG specifically in mind. Perhaps it is a biased standard, but I see it a bit differently. First let me clarify that I'm not arguing that JDG's (or anyone else's) arguments should not be criticized or addressed vehemently if desired/necessary, but rather that I'm generally against rude or insulting posts intended to get a person to shut up or unsubscribe to the list. (The latter is what I thought Tom was possibly advocating, though reading subsequent posts by him, I think that wasn't really his point). I suppose you see the latter as tit-for-tat, goose/gander, etc. My own take is that in a good debate, if I listen to and better understand the opposition's arguments, it will help me to better address/counter them, as well as test the mettle of my own arguments. This all hearkens back to your discussion with Julia over confrontation style, I suppose. -bryon _ Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Race to the Bottom
The Fool wrote: Let's see India, China, or Russia belly up to the bar and pay their fair share of the hundreds-of-billions of dollars per year being stolen from the US Taxpayer to make outsourcing possible. What does 'belly up to the bar' mean? And I am not sure what you mean by the rest of the sentence after that phrase either. Could you please elaborate? Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: Orson Scott Card's take on Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html By Orson Scott Card February 15, 2004 Homosexual Marriage and Civilization A little dialogue from Lewis Carroll: When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master -- that's all. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has not yet declared that day shall now be construed to include that which was formerly known as night, but it might as well. By declaring that homosexual couples are denied their constitutional rights by being forbidden to marry, it is treading on the same ground. Do you want to know whose constitutional rights are being violated? Everybody's. Because no constitution in the United States has ever granted the courts the right to make vast, sweeping changes in the law to reform society. Regardless of their opinion of homosexual marriage, every American who believes in democracy should be outraged that any court should take it upon itself to dictate such a social innovation without recourse to democratic process. And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for hate speech. The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a homophobe and therefore mentally ill. Which is the modern Jacobin equivalent of crying, Off with their heads! We will once again be performing a potentially devastating social experiment on ourselves without any attempt to predict the consequences and find out if the American people actually want them. But anyone who has any understanding of how America -- or any civilization -- works, of the forces already at play, will realize that this new diktat of the courts will not have any of the intended effects, while the unintended effects are likely to be devastating. Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone. In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man. Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all. Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not. So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage. In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of marriage to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth. Just because homosexual partners wish to be called married and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as married, does not mean that their Humpty-Dumpty-ish wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization. However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were. Marrying Is Hard to Do. Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men. Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do. But a man and a woman come together as strangers and their natural impulses remain at odds throughout their lives, requiring constant compromise, suppression of natural desires, and an unending effort to learn how to get through the intersexual swamp. And yet, throughout the history of human society -- even in societies that tolerated relatively open homosexuality at some stages of life -- it was always expected that children would be born into and raised by families consisting of a father and mother. And in those families where one or both parents were missing, usually because of death, either stepparents, adoptive parents, or society in general would step in to provide, not just nurturing, but also the appropriate
A friendly neighborhood visit from the Hazmat team...
Yesterday evening, one of my neighbors (about 5 houses down) made quite an interesting discovery... She was cleaning out her garage, and found a hockey-puck sized container wedged in a crevice behind a workbench. She carried it about halfway across her yard before looking at it more closely and seeing it was marked Ra226 and had a radiation hazard symbol on it! She set the container down - gingerly! - and called 911. First came the fire dept, and then the hazmat team, replete with nuclear bunny suits. Last came NIET - Massachusett's Nuclear Incident Evaluation Team, to decide if they needed to quarantine her house. (Thankfully, they did not). Fortunately, the radiation was well contained, and only showed up on their instruments on direct contact, but not from 6 inches or 1 foot away. No one knew what the purpose of the Radium was, or why it was in her garage. She guessed that for a prior homeowner, it had rolled off the workbench into the crevice and been lost/forgotten. They theorized that at some point back in the 50's-60's the material was legal and had some sort of home use. Anyone have any ideas what that might be? -bryon _ Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
BULLY! --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 11:17:44PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: Jeez Erik, you don't even know the guy. Andrew's a damn good fellow and not prone to noise. I can understand you not agreeing with him, but these knee-jerk retorts are just plain silliness on your part. And you don't read so well, Rob. Your S/N is also very low. I know you think you can fly under the radar forever, and perhaps you will, but I truly wonder how long it will be before you see how absolutely opaque you are to everyone. As long as we are being honest, Rob, you are definitely the most insincere sounding person on the list. I long ago stopped respecting your posted opinions after seeing all the insincere psychobabble nonsense you post. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:14:34 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah, but if you have ever seen how flies cluster about the brimming milk pails on a dairy farm in early summer... All the dairy farms I've hung out on were using milking machines, no pails, no access to vast quantities of milk for the flies Julia But the flies always buzz around for some reason. Milk or no. We are so very sorry, there is nothing we can do, but swat them. Cluster flies maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
BULLY! --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:26:43PM -0330, Travis Edmunds wrote: First of all, let me say that after getting to know Robert a bit in the last few months, I think he's a pretty cool guy. In direct contrast to you of course; and I'm not too sure that he posts much insincere psychobabble nonsense. You on the other hand post SINCERE NONSENSE (minus the psychobabble). Well, you're half right (2/3). Again, as long as we are being honest, the posts of yours that I have read have been a waste of my time. Not surprising you and Rob would enjoy each other's babble. Although it is disappointing that you make so little effort to discern sense from nonsense before posting your tripe, and that you draw conclusions from such a short baseline. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: I urge caution Erik. For Robert drinks from this spring regularly. And second time around he may not be so nice to the little piggy wiggy. Little piggy wiggy? Please. If Erik is a pig, he's Some Pig! Hay, I thought we were stoping the fat jokes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Race to the Bottom
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Out of curiosity, and without wanting to get into the whole is it good/is it bad/is it fair thing: What is it that the people who complain about off-shoring (which is quite different to out-sourcing BTW) want done about it. For one, I want heavy penalties levied against companies that off-shore work. Call it an intelectual property terrif if you like. Second, I want the government to establish work programs with that money so that people put out of work by off-shoring are able to have some kind of job available to them. Isn't America built on Free Enterprise? Are you going to tell these companies that they CAN'T take out a contract with an Indian company to provide help desk support services. Where do you draw the line? Can Wal-Mart buy toys from China? Can a tech-company outsource help desk to an American company? Can it outsource to an American company with worldwide offices? A country based on total free enterprise isn't neccessarily a good thing. Moreover, even in the past, our nation had tarrifs so that cheap foriegn imports wouldn't put American businessmen out of business. For one, we can extend the concept of tarrifs so that they protect not only business men, but workers as well. I think it would be great if we could stop the brain-drain which threatens the development of future technological advances, but I'm not sure how it can be done. I think that would require corperate responsability laws restricting (not forbidding, just restricting) all outsourcing (outsourcing of anykind weakens the strength of unionizing... to avoid corperate abuse, regulations protecting workers in those outsource companies should be enatced), placing tarrifs on off-shore work, and basically, make it more cost effective for companies to hire or outsource within the country rather than off-shore. The only other option I see is turning the economy into socialist one, or else the worker/consumer base may collapse entirely, killing our ecconomy completely. We have only seen the begining of off-shoring of Amerian jobs. It will only get worse if something is not done. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] BULLY! Now was this Bully! meant in the sense that you think Eric is someone who picks on people he thinks are weaker than him, or in the sense of strong agreement as was the expression used by President Theodore Roosevelt? :-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
