Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:20:18 -0400, Matthew and Julie Bos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Other Shoe Maru As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. Matthew Bos That was Robert but I would also say I knew this was coming, who didn't after seeing the photos? I am in no way justifying it, it just was going to happen. Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: Matthew and Julie Bos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:20 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Other Shoe Maru As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. The phrase is waiting for the other shoe to drop and the idea is that things are not finished here yet. Consider that the name Daniel Pearl still gets mentioned in the news quite often. xponent This Story Isn't Over Yet Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was Robert but I would also say I knew this was coming, who didn't after seeing the photos? I am in no way justifying it, it just was going to happen. Gary You've heard of Daniel Pearl, perhaps? What was his beheading in retaliation to? How hard is it to believe that Al Qaeda members might want to kill Americans for reasons that have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib? They've kind of done it before. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 08:09 AM 5/12/04, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was Robert but I would also say I knew this was coming, who didn't after seeing the photos? I am in no way justifying it, it just was going to happen. Gary You've heard of Daniel Pearl, perhaps? What was his beheading in retaliation to? How hard is it to believe that Al Qaeda members might want to kill Americans for reasons that have nothing to do with Abu Ghraib? They've kind of done it before. However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak Arabic, and the sound quality on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the news is so poor that I couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what language they were saying it in) say that they were doing this in retaliation for the prison abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak Arabic, and the sound quality on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the news is so poor that I couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what language they were saying it in) say that they were doing this in retaliation for the prison abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? I'm pretty sure they said it was in retaliation to the prison controversy. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak Arabic, and the sound quality on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the news is so poor that I couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what language they were saying it in) say that they were doing this in retaliation for the prison abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? -- Ronn! :) It wouldn't shock me if they did - but so what? Everything about that video was a carefully crafted propaganda statement (one done by idiots, but idiots who might be saved by the Western media's belief that only images that piss off Americans are verboten, while those that anger the rest of the world _at_ Americans are just fine). _Of course_ they would claim that - it's the obvious move. The question is, though, do you believe them? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: RE: What America Does with its Hegemony I dont think Bosnia or Rwanda were/would have been starting wars. Both were civil wars as I see them, in which one, with the full support of the UN, one could justify intervention to end them, not to start them. In Rwanda the tribal war was over. One side had won. After it won, it killed a significant fraction of the tribe that lost as well as those members of its own tribe that protested. So, there was no war to stop, just genocide. The UN would definately not support intervention, because it would violate the most important principal held by the member nations of the UN: the soverign nature of each state in the UN. In other words, the right of a nation to handle its own affairs in any way it seems fit is, practically, more important than stopping the evil of genocide. In Bosnia, it is true that there was some resistance to the Serbs, so you could say the war was still going on. But, the UN's position was crystal clear in the Dutchbat report...the UN was not to stop genocide. What is amazing about this report is that it chided Clinton for trying to work as an equal partner with the other nations of NATO instead of telling people what they would do. There was no way this would change at the UN. Supporting the supremacy of the Serbs was in the best interest of the government of Russia. Stopping the war and preventing genocide was clearly in the best interest of Western Europe. Yet, the US had to drag them into the only real solution kicking years after the mess started. At the time I thought Bosnia was a perfect opportunity for the EU to show its ability to take the lead in handling a crisis in its own back yard. It is clear that the countries of Europe had no stomach for it, and relied on the US to force a solution on them. Looking back, this seems to flow naturally from the tragedy of the commons. There should be, in my opinion (and I think Doug discusses this above) some sort of body to make these decisions. The UN is flawed, in many ways, but it does have the only claim to being a world government. But, the reality of world politics is that this will only happen when other soverign states are threatened. The first Gulf War is a great example of how this works. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq portented the possibility of Iraq taking over most of the oil production in the Middle East. If the US didn't stop it, there would be chance that Saudi Arabia and the UAE could stand for more than a few days. So, the US got the world's blessing to reverse the invasion, but only to reverse the invasion. They had to promise to leave Hussein in power in order to obtain the world's blessing. Bush Sr. took the gamble that Hussein would fall after a big defeat. It didn't happen. And even it would not start wars, it would reluctantly undertake interventions in countries that had gone beyond the limit of what was agreed by the world as being acceptable behaviour. That would not be an easy judgement, and lots of stalling and politics would go on, and lots of indecision, but thats how it should be. Rwanda, Bosnia and a few others would fall into the category of places that one would intervene in. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Perhaps, eventually, Iraq would have too, once all other avenues had been fully explored. France has a veto power and it specifically stated that there were no circumstances in which this would happen. Further, France and Russia worked hard between '98 and '01 to remove all restraints on Hussein. Gautam's senior thesis at Harvard gave a very good explaination for this. French comments have supported his thesis. Oversimplifying it, I would say it is nations strive to improve their relative position with the other nations of the world. Thus, since Hussein poses a difficult challange to the US, keeping Hussein in power weakens the US. If France gains commercial contracts with Hussein, France benefits. Thus, Hussein represents a benefit to France...and it is in France's best interest to keep Hussein in power. It is also in France's best interest for the US to check that power, since a nuclear armed Hussein would pose a danger to France. But, since France can count on Israel and the US to check these ambitions, it even behooves France to help Hussein become a nuclear power. Back to the Gulf War. Hussein started a new campaign of killing (which looked like the start of genocide) after recovering a bit from the first Gulf War. The US and GB intervened to stop it, maintaining a uneasy status quo. So, the Gulf War was more ongoing than the civil war in
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
Dan Minette wrote: I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider Consider what? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:23 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony I had an unfinished thought...sorry. I understand how that is nice in theory, but it doesn't really happen. The UN just gave its tacit approval to the genocide that is developing in Sudan. The UN insisted that its forces should not stop genocide in Bosnia. The UN refused to consider the genocide in Rwanda in any serious manner. They only way that it would have been stopped in time was for the US to make a plausible threat to immediately intervene with all due speed and all necessary means to stop it. The US would be called all sorts of names for this, of course, if the genocide were stopped early enough most of the rest of the world would have denied its existence...but the disgust of the rest of the world would have been the necessary price paid by the US to stop genocide. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out
William T Goodall wrote: So which of the ~1000 cults are you speaking from Nick? I'm Lutheran, but that's my church, not my faith. It is somewhat ironic, I think, that people who criticize religion fail to make distinctions among religion, church and faith. Of course, those words have multiple meanings. As an example, the kind of distinction I mean is the one found in the saying, Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell; faith is for people who've been there. And there's the church, which is the people of God, and the church that I attend. They are not the same. I don't think there's any church -- institution -- that is free of cult-like aspects. They're made of humans and that's one of the things we humans do. Nick Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=68 = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 07:45:13AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: The question is, though, do you believe them? A better question is, why did they do it? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 11:08 AM Subject: Re: What America Does with its Hegemony Dan wrote: wrong with overturning a genocidal dictator. I think the world needs a mechanism to deal with these crisis. This would obviously require the cooperation of many disparate nations and after the current debacle is more of a pipe dream than ever. What Bush has tried to do is to tell the world how things are going to be and I think that the lesson we are learning is that no matter how powerful we are, we're not going to get the Middle East or any other region of the world to tow the line based on our say so. To be fair to him, I think what he was trying to do was change the nature of the game. The thought was, just like Japan and Germany, people would be happy with a good representative government in Iraq. This happiness would make them very protective of that government, and in short order we'd have a shining example of what could be in the mid-East. This would be the first step in draining the swamp. In principal, it is a worthwhile goal. Our own Gautam has been trying to risk his life to help accomplish this goal. I think that the folks who pushed for this from way back are idealists...complete with the blindness to reality that some realists have. I fault the Bush administration for acting as if, once Hussein was overthrown, things would work out very straightforwardly. They were horrendously unprepared, and acted as a typical leadership team caught up in management by wishful thinking. They considered those who pointed out real difficulties nay-sayers and either ignored them or pushed them out. So, let my put forth a hypothetical. Lets assume this was done by an administration that had shown a real sucess rebuilding Afganistan, and had a very good team ready to work in reconstructing Iraq, and had laid out the real costs to the American people and gotten buy in. Lets suppose that Bush had not exaggerated the level of certainty for WMD from there are very strong indications...even French intelligence thinks so to total certainty. In this case, with proper preparation for sucess, would completing the Gulf War have been wrong?...especially since it faded into a often violated cease fire agreement instead of ending in '91. Our action in Bosnia was the culmination of a problem that had festered in eastern Europe for a decade or so. It wasn't just the 'cleansing' that was taking place at the time that prompted the action, but the fact that a series of atrocities had occurred over the years and it became obvious that the cycle of violence had to be ended. And the fact that the UN repeatedly insisted on not acting. As Gautam said, stopping the slaughter violated international law. This brings up the obvious question: what is the value in international law when it requires us to, when asked, stand aside so genocide can occure? Are we required to follow the wishes of the UN and allow genocide to take place, or are we morally compelled to stop genocide. (I will argue strongly that the third option, getting the UN to stop genocide is often not a real option.) While I'm asking questions, I should explictly give my own position here. The best thing to have happened was for NATO to intervene with all force necessary immediately...with Europe in the lead...with or without UN blessing. The next best thing was for the US to prod Europe into doing this. Rwanda is probably the most persuasive argument for a policing mechanism. There is very little political interest in these poor African nations and just as importantly there is little interest in the press. The AIDS epidemic is a festering wound and our lack of decisiveness to combat it is going to come back to bite us. Big time. So yes, we should have taken action in Rwanda and I think that if Clinton had tried to he could have made a huge difference there. Its a black mark on his record, and no one knows it more than he does. I agree that the US should have intervened. Do you agree, if it would have done so, it would have been dissed by a great deal of the world for imperealism? Should we have been willing to violate international law to save half a million human lives? Iraq was (and remains) a much more difficult problem. In basing our economy around oil we have accorded an importance to the nations of the Middle East that they would never have achieved otherwise. One of Bush's big mistakes, IMO, was to reverse the trend towards trying to develop alternatives to the oil that fuels this exaggerated importance. You might recall a post that JDG made about how we are much less vulnerable to inflation as the result of a fuel shortage than we were in the late '70s, reason being we are _less_ dependant on that fuel. Well, yes and no. Natural gas was always available. Oil imports are now a greater
Senator Nazi (4thReichKlan-Oklahoma)'s Remarks
Dave Johnson writes: http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_seetheforest_archive.html#10 8437619933006166 Inhofe's Outrage at Humanitarian Do-Gooders Senator Inhofe said he is outraged at the humanitarian go-gooders at the Iraq prison abuse hearings yesterday: q As I watch this outrage, this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners . . . I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment, Inhofe told fellow Armed Services Committee members investigating the treatment of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison. You know, they're not there for traffic violations, he said. In the cells where the primary abuse took place, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Several senators cited a Red Cross study concluding that as much as 90 percent of those detained in Iraq had been arrested by mistake. Inhofe, 69, was unimpressed. I am also outraged that we have so many humanitarian do-gooders right now crawling all over these prisons looking for human rights violations while our troops, our heroes, are fighting and dying, he said. . . . I'm also outraged by the press and the politicians and the political agendas that are being served by this. /q So why is he so outraged? Inhofe is another one who believes that GOD wants us in Iraq. After 9/11, Inhofe said, q One of the reason I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America, Inhofe huffed, is that the policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes that have been launched against them. /q He gave a Senate floor speech a while back, said that Israel is right in what it is doing because GOD gave that land to Israel: q From the Senate floor, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., preached what was essentially a sermon about Israel last December. The Bible says that Abram [Abraham] removed his tent, and came and dwelt in the plain of Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord, he said. Hebron is in the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, 'I am giving you this land' ... This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of God is true. As Inhofe's speech suggested, for elements of the Christian right, pro-Israel fervor has ascended to the realm of the sacred. Christian leaders Ralph Reed and Gary Bauer both say that their support of Israel -- and Israeli expansionism -- is partly rooted in biblical injunction. Bauer says, There are a variety of Old Testament scriptures in which God is saying to Abraham that the people of Israel will occupy all the land between the sea and the river, which he says means the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. There's a belief that this is covenant land, he adds. /q To make matters even worse, we're learning that Gen. Boykin is involved in this scandal. Why is this so bad? Boykin is this wingnut: q Boykin touched off a firestorm last October after giving speeches while in uniform in which he referred to the war on terrorism as a battle with Satan and said America had been targeted because we're a Christian nation. /q It still seems that we don't know the real reasons we're at war in Iraq. There is no question that Inhofe and Boykin's prominence in this scandal will fuel suspicions in the Arab world that this is a religious war, Christians against Islam, and, in fact, it is looking more and more like this may be part of the master plan. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 07:45:13AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: The question is, though, do you believe them? A better question is, why did they do it? Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and convince us to surrender. Or, even more (as we've seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, and that we are to blame because our enemies act like this. I think that they are mistaken in this and that it will not, in fact, erode American resolve, instead strengthening it (if the media does its job and shows the images), but hey, I could be wrong. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
'Christian' Journalism
NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagerty: http://betterangels.blogspot.com/2004/05/are-you-calling-me-liar.html Reporters should be thinking about big ideas and can get bogged down in detail, she says. I write stories with blanks and let the library staff fill them in. --- Hagarty is the NPR reporter who recently smeared John Kerry. Still waiting for the Popists to deny communion to pro-choice republicans. I won't hold my breath. -- As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:45 AM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and convince us to surrender. I really don't see it that way. I think that they are a lot brighter and a lot more subtle than this. I agree that showing the footage will not weaken the US's resolve. But, I don't think we are the primary audience for this. I think the rest of the world is. I'd argue that much of the basis for this is in blood feuds. Going back to the bible, an eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life was a call for moderation in a time of blood feud. It would make sense for them to promote the idea of a blood feud between a US controlled by the Zionist conspiricy and all the Mosilums. The rest of the West would be advised to move away from the US so as not to get caught up in this. Any country that followed Spains wonderful example would be downgraded on the who to hit list. Any country that denounced the US would be eliminated. Further, they would wish to promote themselves as defenders of the honor the the people of Iraq. Only they have the power and the will to attack those who shame the people of Iraq. Only by supporting this cause can the people of Iraq regain their honor. Since about half of the people of Iraq supported at least some attacks against coalition troops before things started heating up in the 2nd week of April, I'd argue that a majority does now. We are at a point where we need to see progress or risk losing the majority of the Iraqi people. I'd argue that this beheading needs to be seen in the context of how it affects that. As an aside, I'm sure you know that I'm making no excuses for what happened. It goes without saying that it is evil and revolting. However, the very last thing I want is for the killers to accomplish their goals. Or, even more (as we've seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, The only responsibility we had was to open the door to this type of revolting action having the potential for a positive effect for the murderers. Now, the fact that the two victims were Jewish may very well have been the overwhelming factor. But, since a number of hostages had been released before, and its been two years since Daniel Pearle, its also possible that AQ determined that the climate was not right for this particular type of killing advancing their cause. But, after the abuse scandle, they thought that the plusses now outweighed the minuses. The war with AQ et. al., is being fought on a number of different levels. I don't think it is irresponsible to say that a mistake on our part has afforded the enemy a particular advantage. That certainly doesn't justify the murder in any way at all. A linkage is not necessarily a justification. and that we are to blame because our enemies act like this. I think that they are mistaken in this and that it will not, in fact, erode American resolve, instead strengthening it (if the media does its job and shows the images), but hey, I could be wrong. The image is available on their website for anyone who wants to see it. I think that the media isn't showing the murder out of respect for the families...just like it stopped showing people jumping from the WTC. Further, when it showed the abuse, it blurred things out to show the idea, not the actual picture of a man being forced to masturbate in front of a womanetc. The pictures shown with the dogs in the New Yorker, for example, didn't show the bite wound...even though it was available. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The image is available on their website for anyone who wants to see it. I think that the media isn't showing the murder out of respect for the families...just like it stopped showing people jumping from the WTC. Dan M. Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. I would argue that there's a very simple rule to predict when the press will show a picture. If it's likely to inflame the American public against their enemies - the pictures don't get shown. If it's likely to inflame the enemies of the US against us - the news value of the pictures suddenly gets more important, as in the case of the prison photos. Why? It seems to me that the answer to that is very simple. Like (for example) a few people on this list, most members of the elite media don't, in their heart of hearts, believe that people outside the United States act against us in anything but retaliation for our own actions. Murdering Daniel Pearl wasn't because the people who did it were Islamist fanatics bent on the murder of Jews and Americans, but in retaliation for the acts of the United States (see Robert Fisk's articles at the time, for example). It's not that they think that the terrorists are right, it's that they think the terrorists have understanable grievances and that the best thing we can do is understand why they hate us and act differently so as to appease our enemies. Thus the photos of the torture - those create an important policy point. They (might) get the US to back away from Iraq and appease Islamist fanaticism - and that is pretty much what most members of the media think that we should do (note this is not condemnatory - there's a coherent argument to be made that this is, in fact, the correct policy. I don't agree with it, but it's not immoral or anything like that, it's just incorrect). So the photos get published. But showing people jumping from the World Trade Center - that's not about respect. That's because those photos are inflammatory - they are likely to remind Americans of the true horrors of what happened on September 11th (and you can already see people forgetting). So those photos become too horrible to show. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The image is available on their website for anyone who wants to see it. I think that the media isn't showing the murder out of respect for the families...just like it stopped showing people jumping from the WTC. Dan M. Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. I would argue that there's a very simple rule to predict when the press will show a picture. If it's likely to inflame the American public against their enemies - the pictures don't get shown. If it's likely to inflame the enemies of the US against us - the news value of the pictures suddenly gets more important, as in the case of the prison photos. Why? It seems to me that the answer to that is very simple. Like (for example) a few people on this list, most members of the elite media don't, in their heart of hearts, believe that people outside the United States act against us in anything but retaliation for our own actions. Murdering Daniel Pearl wasn't because the people who did it were Islamist fanatics bent on the murder of Jews and Americans, but in retaliation for the acts of the United States (see Robert Fisk's articles at the time, for example). It's not that they think that the terrorists are right, it's that they think the terrorists have understanable grievances and that the best thing we can do is understand why they hate us and act differently so as to appease our enemies. Thus the photos of the torture - those create an important policy point. They (might) get the US to back away from Iraq and appease Islamist fanaticism - and that is pretty much what most members of the media think that we should do (note this is not condemnatory - there's a coherent argument to be made that this is, in fact, the correct policy. I don't agree with it, but it's not immoral or anything like that, it's just incorrect). So the photos get published. But showing people jumping from the World Trade Center - that's not about respect. That's because those photos are inflammatory - they are likely to remind Americans of the true horrors of what happened on September 11th (and you can already see people forgetting). So those photos become too horrible to show. OK, let me walk through this arguement. First of all, I saw people jumping from the WTC a number of times on TV. Then, an announcment was made: we have been requested to stop showing these photos because of the feelings of the families of the people in the WTC. We thought about it, and decided they were right. My real guess is that they thought Americans would believe that and it was not worth the risk of alienating too many viewers. Second, in your discussion of the media elite, you have made it looked like a left wing monolith. I cannot agree with that. Are you arguing that Fox news has had a left wing pacifict agenda over the last year that permiated its news coverage? Don't you think the NY Post, or at least the Washington Times would be willing to publish those photos, if the only reason for not publishing them was a left wing agenda? Is every news outlet part of the leftist elite? Let me give another explaination. The most important question for any news outlet is what will improve our ratings. That can easily explain the importance of pushing a mike into the face of someone who has just lost a loved one in some horrid manner (murder, burned in a fire, etc.) and asking how do you feel. It is newsworthy because it sells soap. It shows why docudramas like COPs are so important. The prison abuse story has been sitting there, univestigated, for for a long time. Without pictures, Americans didn't want to believe it was anything more than a minor abberation. With no boost to circulation or ratings, why spend any time or money chasing down the story. With pictures, the story had sex appeal, and could push up ratings. Therefore it was a serious subject for journalism. The details were not shown because the risk of an FCC fine overrode any benefits that could be gained from sensationalism. I'm arguing that news must be viewed first and formost as a profit making business. The legs a story has is not based on its objective importance, but on its effect on ratings. Thus, we pick out one murder out of thousands as one worth following to the nth degree, while ignoring others. For example, the Peterson trial is still big news, with no objective reason why this is more important than any other double murder. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
Gautam Mukunda wrote: http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=68 My summary... don't try to talk to anyone after you've decided that they are part of an extremist group. Just kill them. I'm troubled by the implication that such a group of people is easily identified. This column, with the invented term Islamofascist, offers no explanation of how to identify one. All Islamic people? Or are there other criteria, such as Islamic terrorists, in which case the word Islamic is superfluous. I'm no fan of big media and there's no question in my mind that its habitual, cynical polarization of virtually everything is a force for evil in the world. But the talk in this column and others of what suits the media's purposes is naive. Big media is focused on its own power and money, which is not a partisan political agenda. I'm not sure that the two major U.S. political parties are very different from the media in that respect. I hear so much self-righteous talk about giving blame and not enough about forgetting about blame and taking responsibility. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hear so much self-righteous talk about giving blame and not enough about forgetting about blame and taking responsibility. Nick But this is absurd. I have no responsibility for the people who crashed planes into the WTC, and I have no responsibility for the ones who just beheaded one of my fellow Americans. I do have a moral responsibility because of their actions - to make sure that the people who did never, ever get the chance to do it again. But I have no responsibility _for_ their actions. They chose to do what they did. If you want self-righteous, Nick, it seems to me that the stance I take responsibility for these things even though everyone else is too self-righteous to do so meets that qualification pretty well. That stance allows those who hold it to demonstrate how much better they are than everyone who disagrees with them, while neatly making sure that they don't actually have to _do_ anything either. It is not self-righteous, but righteous - a different thing entirely - to recognize evil when it exists and fight it when you can. Self-righteous, it seems to me, might more accurately describe looking at evil and condemning the people who are fighting it as morally inferior to the ones who would rather do nothing about it. Michael Walzer made this point in _Dissent_ more eloquently than I, and I've posted that article on the list. But it seems to me that what you've said above is a way of separating yourself from, and looking down upon, your countrymen, not a morally valid position. Some people do, in fact, need to be killed. When those people attack you, talking about how self-righteous the people who attack them are isn't a contribution, it's vanity. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
This is just a quick reminder that the Wednesday Brin-L chat is scheduled for 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time, so it's starting now. There will probably be somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. See my instruction page for help getting there: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, let me walk through this arguement. First of all, I saw people jumping from the WTC a number of times on TV. Then, an announcment was made: we have been requested to stop showing these photos because of the feelings of the families of the people in the WTC. We thought about it, and decided they were right. My real guess is that they thought Americans would believe that and it was not worth the risk of alienating too many viewers. Second, in your discussion of the media elite, you have made it looked like a left wing monolith. I cannot agree with that. Are you arguing that Fox news has had a left wing pacifict agenda over the last year that permiated its news coverage? Don't you think the NY Post, or at least the Washington Times would be willing to publish those photos, if the only reason for not publishing them was a left wing agenda? Is every news outlet part of the leftist elite? No, but most of the major ones are. I think I've realized where the difference between you and me on the media really stems from, Dan. You think that they're good at their jobs, and I think they're inept. I agree with you (to some extent) that viewership and such are important. I disagree that they're _primary_, because if they were none of the networks would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they do, so clearly something else is going on. But more than that, the success of Fox News suggests (to me) the extent to which the media elite is completely out of touch with the American mainstream. This isn't surprising - read David Brook's articles in _The Atlantic_ on Red Blue America. But it does seem clear. Fox exploited a fairly obvious market niche (a news broadcast not skewed to the left) and met with remarkable success. But no one in the business except Roger Ailes saw it. I have a friend who works for ABC News who keeps referring to Ailes as a genius. I don't think so - I'm sure he's smart, but mainly he just didn't share the ideological blinders that she and almost all of her co-workers have. Let me quote from an ABC News institution, in fact - The Note: Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are conservative positions. They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow. The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies. It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending. It remains fixated on the unemployment rate. It believes President Bush is walking a fine line with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between tolerance and his right-wing base. It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base. Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!). The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race. [End quote] Now, that's not me talking. That's an employee of ABC News in an official writing, not even something published independently. Will the right-wing press publish the images? I think that they will (and have) put more emphasis on the images than their left-wing brethren. Because they work in an environment in which the dominant norms are entirely shaped by the press organs of the media elite, they won't go all the way - they will feel restrained by a sense of not getting too far away from the acceptable boundaries which
Hope another meteor doesn't hit before then . . .
Donald Savage Headquarters, WashingtonMay 12, 2004 (Phone: 202/358-1547) Gail Gallessich University of California, Santa Barbara (Phone: 805/893-7220) NOTE TO EDITORS: N04-069 NASA ANNOUNCES SITE OF GREAT DYING METEOR CRATER Researchers funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation have located the site of an impact crater. The crater is believed to be associated with the largest extinction event in Earth's history about 250 million years ago. The researchers will report their findings and reveal the site of the crater at 2 p.m. EDT, Thursday, May 13, 2004, during a press teleconference. Panelists are: -- Luann Becker, geologist, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif. -- Robert Poreda, geochemist, University of Rochester, N.Y. -- Kevin Pope, geologist, Geo Eco Arc Research, Aquasco, Md. -- Douglas H. Erwin, Senior Paleobiologist, National Museum of Natural History, Washington -- Michael New, astrobiology discipline scientist, NASA Headquarters, Washington; panel moderator Reporters may call in to the press conference to hear the presentation and participate in the question-and-answer session, while following the presentations on a Web site. The phone numbers for reporters to call into the press conference are: 1/888/790-1919 or 1/712/271-0046. The password is: Impact SSU The Web site for reporters to access the presentations: http://spacekids.hq.nasa.gov/astrobio Password: beckerImpact -end- * * * NASA press releases and other information are available automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message (not the subject line) users should type the words subscribe press-release (no quotes). The system will reply with a confirmation via E-mail of each subscription. A second automatic message will include additional information on the service. NASA releases also are available via CompuServe using the command GO NASA. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, address an E-mail message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], leave the subject blank, and type only unsubscribe press-release (no quotes) in the body of the message. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: Physics News Update 685
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 685 May 12, 2004 by Phillip F. Schewe, Ben Stein OUR UNIVERSE HAS A TOPOLOGY SCALE OF AT LEAST 24 Gpc, or about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with some repeating shape, around which light rays might wrap themselves over and over (wrap in the sense that, as in video games, something might disappear off the left side of the screen and reappear on the right side). A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana State, and Case Western looks for signs of such wrapped light in the form of pairs of circles, in opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background. If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the distance to the surface of last scattering (a distance that essentially constitutes the edge of the visible universe, and the place in deep space whence comes the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should show up in the microwave background. But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis. The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of 10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish, Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters, upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) THE BEST PACKING OF MMs, filling more than 77% of available volume, has been achieved in a computer simulation performed at Princeton. Actually the new results apply to any ellipsoid object, such as MM candy, fish eggs, or watermelons. The modern understanding of dense packing might be said to start in 1611, when Johannes Kepler suggested that the most efficient packing of spheres in a container occurred when the spheres were placed in a face-centered cubic arrangement---the way a grocer stacks oranges. Kepler's conjecture was proved in 1998 and the filling factor was worked out to be about 74%. Unlike spheres, which still look the same after you rotate them, ellipsoids' oblateness (they are squashed or stretched in at least one direction) give them orientational degrees of freedom that spheres don't have. Consequentially, ellipsoids can be packed more efficiently than spheres. Depending on the aspect ratio of the ellipsoid, the packing density can be anywhere between 74% and 77%. The Princeton research (contact Salvatore Torquato, 609-258-3341, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) has a number of practical implications: it shows that glassy states of matter, in which molecules lie in a disordered arrangement, can have densities almost as high as for crystals; it suggests that because of a high contact number (in the high-density packings ellipsoids can touch 14 of their neighbors) stronger ceramics can be designed); and it encourages researchers to investigate the effect of ellipsoidal shape on evolutionary optimization in fish eggs. (Donev et al., Physical Review Letters, upcoming article) TUNGSTEN INVERSE OPAL, created for the first time in a lab at the University of Toronto, is a type of photonic crystal, which in turn is a material that excludes (or nearly excludes) all light at certain wavelengths. In general, opalescence is an optical effect in which light reflected from some object appears milky or pearly, or shimmering with various colors. Inverse opalescence, then, is the opposite of this---it would be an effect of taking away or forbidding certain kinds of light---which is what a photonic crystals is supposed to do. (Inverse opals, if you were to look at them from the outside would be even shinier than their natural counterparts because they exclude more wavelengths of light.) Early photonic crystals were built by stacking tiny rods criss cross fashion (or by etching out material from a solid) to create a material which would bottle up radiation of some wavelengths (see, for example, http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1997/split/pnu348-3.htm). In the University of Toronto case, tiny silica beads are packed into a vessel. Later tungsten metal is introduced in the spaces between the beads and the beads themselves corroded away with acid. The remnant metallic lattice serves as an inverse opal. It does a fair job of excluding some kinds of light, and possibly even converting what would be waste heat in the form of infrared radiation into more useful wavelengths. Speaking at the Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO) next week in San Francisco, Georg von Freymann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) will report on the creation of his inverse opal material and on various absorption effect in the material.
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse . I disagree that they're _primary_, because if they were none of the networks would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they do, so clearly something else is going on. Why do you say that? The news is not in prime time, yet it commands decent ratings. The main news channels rating would easily put them in the prime time top 25...which would be enough for renewing any show. Viewers of prime time news (NBC and ABC from what I've seen) is between 8.5 and 9.0 million. Seems like a good deal to me. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
At 01:32 PM 5/12/04, Nick Arnett wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=68 My summary... don't try to talk to anyone after you've decided that they are part of an extremist group. Just kill them. I'm troubled by the implication that such a group of people is easily identified. I'd say that there are at least five who are easy to so label. At 09:45 AM 5/12/04, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak Arabic, and the sound quality on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the news is so poor that I couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what language they were saying it in) say that they were doing this in retaliation for the prison abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? -- Ronn! :) It wouldn't shock me if they did - but so what? Everything about that video was a carefully crafted propaganda statement (one done by idiots, but idiots who might be saved by the Western media's belief that only images that piss off Americans are verboten, while those that anger the rest of the world _at_ Americans are just fine). _Of course_ they would claim that - it's the obvious move. The question is, though, do you believe them? Actually, it doesn't matter a flying fig whether I believe them or not, or whether they believe themselves or not. The proper response is found above at the end of the fourth line from the top. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam, grinding the Everybody but me hates America axe, wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The image is available on their website for anyone who wants to see it. I think that the media isn't showing the murder out of respect for the families...just like it stopped showing people jumping from the WTC. Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. I would argue that there's a very simple rule to predict when the press will show a picture. If it's likely to inflame the American public against their enemies - the pictures don't get shown. If it's likely to inflame the enemies of the US against us - the news value of the pictures suddenly gets more important, as in the case of the prison photos. Why? It seems to me that the answer to that is very simple. Like (for example) a few people on this list, most members of the elite media don't, in their heart of hearts, believe that people outside the United States act against us in anything but retaliation for our own actions. Murdering Daniel Pearl wasn't because the people who did it were Islamist fanatics bent on the murder of Jews and Americans, but in retaliation for the acts of the United States (see Robert Fisk's articles at the time, for example). It's not that they think that the terrorists are right, it's that they think the terrorists have understanable grievances and that the best thing we can do is understand why they hate us and act differently so as to appease our enemies. Thus the photos of the torture - those create an important policy point. They (might) get the US to back away from Iraq and appease Islamist fanaticism - and that is pretty much what most members of the media think that we should do (note this is not condemnatory - there's a coherent argument to be made that this is, in fact, the correct policy. I don't agree with it, but it's not immoral or anything like that, it's just incorrect). So the photos get published. But showing people jumping from the World Trade Center - that's not about respect. That's because those photos are inflammatory - they are likely to remind Americans of the true horrors of what happened on September 11th (and you can already see people forgetting). So those photos become too horrible to show. Every time I see a statement that the reason that a person or organization did (or didn't do) something, I know that I'm about to hear someone grind their axe. I reject that idea that there is a reason that we went to Iraq, that there is a reason that some goobers abused prisoners, that there is a reason that some other goobers beheaded Nick Berg. There are lots of reasons that all of those things happen. Some of them are vile. Some are either justifiable or without justification depending on your point of view. Disclaimer: I do not support terrorism, prisoner abuse, beheadings or pre-emptive wars. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . I disagree that they're _primary_, because if they were none of the networks would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they do, so clearly something else is going on. Why do you say that? The news is not in prime time, yet it commands decent ratings. The main news channels rating would easily put them in the prime time top 25...which would be enough for renewing any show. Viewers of prime time news (NBC and ABC from what I've seen) is between 8.5 and 9.0 million. Seems like a good deal to me. Dan M. The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hear so much self-righteous talk about giving blame and not enough about forgetting about blame and taking responsibility. Nick But this is absurd. I have no responsibility for the people who crashed planes into the WTC, and I have no responsibility for the ones who just beheaded one of my fellow Americans. I do have a moral responsibility You chose to apply that to yourself, I didn't. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were responsible for 9/11 and I'm genuinely curious as to what line of thought led you there. because of their actions - to make sure that the people who did never, ever get the chance to do it again. But I have no responsibility _for_ their actions. They chose to do what they did. I'm asking myself what my responsibility is, given that these things happened. For example, I think that as a voter, I have my share of responsibility for anything my country does, good or not. If we're feeding the hungry out of a sense of guilt, that's as inappropriate as abusing Iraqis out of a feeling of blame. I'm doing my best to reject liberal guilt along with conservative blame, in other words (rejecting conservative guilt and liberal blame come easily to me). I wonder, seriously, if that's what you were hearing. My problem with the media is that it focuses on who is right and who is wrong, who is winning and who is losing. That's not the purpose of a free press in liberal democracy; I think it arose and continues only by virtue of a historical quirk, a time in which technology opened up extremely limited distribution channels for media. I think it's naive to believe that big media doesn't ultimately align itself with corporate power, rather than any political agenda. Self-righteous, it seems to me, might more accurately describe looking at evil and condemning the people who are fighting it as morally inferior to the ones who would rather do nothing about it. I think your definition is correct. Is that what you heard me saying? It's certainly not what I said when I think it counted the most, to my niece's husband when he got back from the front lines. I told him that I had a hard time supporting the war, but I am very grateful that there are young men like him who are willing to serve. He was among the first Marines into Bagdad and Tikrit, for what it's worth. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. That was true in the 60s, but ever since 60 Minutes showed that news can be profitable, news has become a very important profit center. The network news organizations had far more freedom when they were a fixed necessary (to meet FCC regs) expense than the present situation, in which they are expected to match or exceed the profitability of the rest of Disney, GE, etc. You might find the classic The Media Monopoly, by Ben Bagdikian, to be a real eye-opener, given the misconception above. He saw where things were headed, and the forces driving them, a long time ago. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You chose to apply that to yourself, I didn't. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were responsible for 9/11 and I'm genuinely curious as to what line of thought led you there. Well Nick, if you keep saying ignoring responsibility, what am I supposed to think? I'm asking myself what my responsibility is, given that these things happened. For example, I think that as a voter, I have my share of responsibility for anything my country does, good or not. If we're feeding the hungry out of a sense of guilt, that's as inappropriate as abusing Iraqis out of a feeling of blame. No, it's not. That's moral vanity again. The hungry don't care why you feed them, they care about getting fed. That's what hunger does to someone. Worrying about the motives that cause people to do something like feeding the hungry is the luxury of someone who does not need to be fed. My problem with the media is that it focuses on who is right and who is wrong, who is winning and who is losing. These are very important things in wartime. That's not the purpose of a free press in liberal democracy; I think it arose and continues only by virtue of a historical quirk, a time in which technology opened up extremely limited distribution channels for media. Why not? What is the purpose of a free press in liberal democracy if it's not to discuss right and wrong, if it's not to figure out who is winning wars and who is losing them? I think it's naive to believe that big media doesn't ultimately align itself with corporate power, rather than any political agenda. I think that's Marxist reductionism. There are many things more important in this world than economics as long as you're comfortable - which reporters overwhelmingly are. I always want to ask people who say that, for God's sake, have you ever _met_ someone who works for the New York Times? Maureen Dowd, for reasons that entirely pass understanding, has the most valuable printed real estate in the world. If corporate power can't get rid of her, what the hell is it good for? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was true in the 60s, but ever since 60 Minutes showed that news can be profitable, news has become a very important profit center. The network news organizations had far more freedom when they were a fixed necessary (to meet FCC regs) expense than the present situation, in which they are expected to match or exceed the profitability of the rest of Disney, GE, etc. News in general is a profit center (to the extent you can call Dateline NBC news, I guess). The main network newscasts - which I referred to - do not. Peter Jennings is expensive, and not many people watch him at 6:30pm. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: I think I've realized where the difference between you and me on the media really stems from, Dan. You think that they're good at their jobs, and I think they're inept. Inept, but still able to coordinate the release or restriction of certain videos (Berg, 911 jumpers, etc)? I suppose it depends on what ineptitude you're calling them on. We agree that most of mass media is corrupt, but I think we disagree as to the source of that corruption. It is not, as you make pains to insist, that they are leftist dupes. It is that they are greed Fox exploited a fairly obvious market niche (a news broadcast not skewed to the left) That's like saying that white is a color not skewed towards the black. I'm sure that it would be possible to create a news network to the right of Fox, but I think that people would catch on the first time that swastika logo showed up. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are conservative positions. ABC, CBS, NBC, et al, are entertainment businesses that have entertainment programs structured around the events of the day. Broadcast news is hardly much more than a reality-based TV show. They don't sit around figuring out what stories to cover (and how) based on how they'll support their supposed liberal agenda. I've worked in a broadcast news organization that had its share of conservatives, liberals and people on all sorts of political dimensions. I'm sure that any individual story reflected the biases and experience of the reporter, but I'm equally sure that the overall mix did not. As for your earlier claim that TV news didn't show the 911 jumpers or the Berg murder because it didn't support their biases, I think not. What's more, I don't think America needs any more whipping-up. More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow. Oddly enough, we agree here. The fluid narrative is part of TV's need to keep you watching through the next commercial set: We'll be right back with continuing coverage of the latest bloodshed, but first... As for the rest, people watch contests: football, baseball, basketball, horse racing, etc. TV news gives you both sides of the story, no matter how many sides there may be. It is not a sign of media bias that TV presents everything as black and white, but it is a sign of black-and-white thinking that you and others persist in the liberal media witch hunt. The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. They're not alone in that. Most of the rest of the world kept its distance. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies. Perhaps it (this monolithic vast left-wing conspiracy you imagine to lurk behind media) *does* understand, but doesn't organize its programming around any particular small constituency. Now, that's not me talking. That's an employee of ABC News in an official writing, not even something published independently. The media -- left, right, center -- *loves* to talk about itself, and since it has a bias towards controversy, what better than a hit piece on itself? I think that the Democratic Party (for example) is going to have to figure out how to operate in an environment where every story is not pre-spun to their benefit, as it has been for the last 30-40 years. Yeah, all that crap about Clinton and his blow jobs was pre-spun so nicely And as for the right exploiting the mistakes of the liberal media, well, Nobody ever went broke understimating the taste of the American people. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Let me quote from an ABC News institution, in fact - The Note: Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are conservative positions. They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories. More systematically, the press believes that fluid narratives in coverage are better than static storylines; that new things are more interesting than old things; that close races are preferable to loose ones; and that incumbents are destined for dethroning, somehow. The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush's justifications for the Iraq war -- in any of its WMD, imminent threat, or evil-doer formulations. It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies. It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy by stimulating summer spending. It remains fixated on the unemployment rate. It believes President Bush is walking a fine line with regards to the gay marriage issue, choosing between tolerance and his right-wing base. It still has a hard time understanding how, despite the drumbeat of conservative grass-top complaints about overspending and deficits, President Bush's base remains extremely and loyally devoted to him -- and it looks for every opportunity to find cracks in that base. Of course, the swirling Joe Wilson and National Guard stories play right to the press's scandal bias -- not to mention the bias towards process stories (grand juries produce ENDLESS process!). The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race. [End quote] Now, that's not me talking. That's an employee of ABC News in an official writing, not even something published independently. Here's where your entire argument falls apart. First you are arguing that this person you quote is a part of the 'left-wing media elite'. But the person you quote is just repeating all of the pre-spun right-wing talking points I read every day from every single right-wing source, and fox news and MSNBC and all the right-wing web logs, and newsgroups. Every single thing he says is the exact same propaganda I read every day, fed for you and other right-wing hacks and partisans to spread. And you are trying to pass this right-wing propaganda you quote as coming from a biased left-wing media elite. Your constant use of false dichotomies and post hoc ergo propter hoc argumentation is rather...unenlightening. I read this kind of right-wing propaganda every day. Just because you are spouting it doesn't make it any more true. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . I disagree that they're _primary_, because if they were none of the networks would have an evening news broadcast. Yet they do, so clearly something else is going on. Why do you say that? The news is not in prime time, yet it commands decent ratings. The main news channels rating would easily put them in the prime time top 25...which would be enough for renewing any show. Viewers of prime time news (NBC and ABC from what I've seen) is between 8.5 and 9.0 million. Seems like a good deal to me. Dan M. The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. As opposed to Sugar-Daddy Moon's Washington Times, or the NYPost? Sugar-Daddy Moon has spent over two billion dollars on his right-wing propaganda newspaper, because it loses 40 million dollars a year. The NYPost also loses something in that range. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as for the right exploiting the mistakes of the liberal media, well, Nobody ever went broke understimating the taste of the American people. Dave I might get to the rest later, but, as I repeatedly point out to Tom, that sort of contempt for the public is why, in the long run, I and people like me are going to win. I _like_ the American people, and I respect them, and so do most people who believe what I believe. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:48 PM Subject: Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl No, it's not. That's moral vanity again. The hungry don't care why you feed them, they care about getting fed. That's what hunger does to someone. Worrying about the motives that cause people to do something like feeding the hungry is the luxury of someone who does not need to be fed. But the person who is the founder of this teaching (in Nick's tradition at least) was a marginalized Jewish peasant who's family and friends, in all likelihood, often went hungry. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:27:50PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I might get to the rest later, but, as I repeatedly point out to Tom, that sort of contempt for the public is why, in the long run, I and people like me are going to win. I _like_ the American people, and I Aren't the media American people? Aren't liberals? Aren't environmentalists? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Well Nick, if you keep saying ignoring responsibility, what am I supposed to think? I don't know what you're supposed to do... but my comments were in reply to that column you posted, not anything you wrote. And it was a very general observation. It's your choice about whether the generalization means anything for you. No, it's not. That's moral vanity again. The hungry don't care why you feed them, they care about getting fed. That's what hunger does to someone. Worrying about the motives that cause people to do something like feeding the hungry is the luxury of someone who does not need to be fed. What does worry have to do with responsibility? I associate worry with guilt, not responsibility, with how the past might have been different, rather than what I can do to make the future better. My problem with the media is that it focuses on who is right and who is wrong, who is winning and who is losing. These are very important things in wartime. In politics? Do you think it is important for the media to polarize war issues along party lines, which is what I see them doing. They're not focused on the issues and choosing the best among a bunch of lousy options, they're focused, as usual, on left v. right and who is winning that war, as if the country would be better off if one of them did win. Why not? What is the purpose of a free press in liberal democracy if it's not to discuss right and wrong, if it's not to figure out who is winning wars and who is losing them? To make the best decisions, to create a better future, to overcome the past, and so forth. Who wins is one part of that; to focus on it is the *definition* of cynicism, in my opinion. I think it's naive to believe that big media doesn't ultimately align itself with corporate power, rather than any political agenda. I think that's Marxist reductionism. There are many things more important in this world than economics as long as you're comfortable - which reporters overwhelmingly are. I always want to ask people who say that, for God's sake, have you ever _met_ someone who works for the New York Times? Maureen Dowd, for reasons that entirely pass understanding, has the most valuable printed real estate in the world. If corporate power can't get rid of her, what the hell is it good for? Have I *met* them? I've *been* them! Did you forget that I was a reporter for years? For UPI, ABC, CBS, Rolling Stone, various business publications. I've even been directly lied to in the West Wing briefing room (a badge of honor, I tend to imagine)! I know them better then almost everyone -- I've *been* them! As for their comfort, I would hazard that few go into journalism because they are well-adjusted comfortable folks. They are far more often troubled missionary types who want to make the world a better place (and fail, repeatedly)... and many become burn-outs who forget their idealism in order to make it in a profit-driven business that weeds out those whose work doesn't contribute to the delivery of eyeballs to advertisers. You conflated power with economics, which wasn't what I meant. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Huntsville Forbes #8 Best Place 2004
I'm proud to see that Huntsville, Alabama is ranked number 8 in Forbes' Best Places for Business. Not bad at all, considering that it has the smallest population in the top 25 list, at only 354,000 people. Other Brineller homes are also on the list, including Houston at number 15, and Austin at number 3. http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/05/04bestplacesland.html Best Places For Business Edited by Kurt Badenhausen, 05.07.04, 7:00 AM ET The best metro areas to launch a business or a career often revolve around universities that offer a diverse, educated work force and, especially when they are far from big cities, relatively low costs. Such regions--Raleigh, Austin and Ann Arbor among them--are also attractive places to live, judging by the patterns of migration. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: News in general is a profit center (to the extent you can call Dateline NBC news, I guess). The main network newscasts - which I referred to - do not. Peter Jennings is expensive, and not many people watch him at 6:30pm. Nonsense. The network news operations, which are business units, are quite profitable. It doesn't even make sense to talk about the profitability of the evening newscast, since news-gathering expenses are shared by the rest of the news operations. The way that big media is organized, news is a very profitable business. That becomes painfully clear to the people in those divisions when profits drop. I'm *not* criticizing capitalism here. I'm criticizing an oligopoly that (legally) abuses liberal democratic freedoms. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
The Fool wrote: The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. I'm astounded that this perception persists... but since the media treat the media as a virtually taboo subject for real journalism, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. They are very profitable. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:50 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse News in general is a profit center (to the extent you can call Dateline NBC news, I guess). The main network newscasts - which I referred to - do not. Peter Jennings is expensive, and not many people watch him at 6:30pm. How expensive is he? He can't cost a million a show, can he? His news program, from the last Nielson's I got, would easily be in the top 25 prime time shows. I won't argue that his demographics are as good as Friends, but I'll research exactly how good/bad they are. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And as for the right exploiting the mistakes of the liberal media, well, Nobody ever went broke understimating the taste of the American people. Dave I might get to the rest later, but, as I repeatedly point out to Tom, that sort of contempt for the public is why, in the long run, I and people like me are going to win. I _like_ the American people, and I respect them, and so do most people who believe what I believe. You mean the Rednecks and the Christian Fascists? They sure do respect other peoples rights. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~Guatum Actually Wrote~: The Fool wrote: The conventional wisdom on the main network news broadcasts is that they lose money significantly. That may be incorrect (I'm not a media expert) but my impression is that they are treated as loss-leaders. The demographics of their audience are _extremely_ old, and advertisers generally pay much lower rates for elderly eyeballs. I'm astounded that this perception persists... but since the media treat the media as a virtually taboo subject for real journalism, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. They are very profitable. --- Still need to fix Content-Type: multipart/mixed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Inept, but still able to coordinate the release or restriction of certain videos (Berg, 911 jumpers, etc)? I suppose it depends on what ineptitude you're calling them on. It's not about conspiracy, it's about groupthink. We agree that most of mass media is corrupt, but I think we disagree as to the source of that corruption. It is not, as you make pains to insist, that they are leftist dupes. It is that they are greed Where did I say corrupt? I don't think they're corrupt. I think they honestly believe certain things which I happen to disagree with. That doesn't have anything to do with corrupt. Fox exploited a fairly obvious market niche (a news broadcast not skewed to the left) That's like saying that white is a color not skewed towards the black. I'm sure that it would be possible to create a news network to the right of Fox, but I think that people would catch on the first time that swastika logo showed up. You know, the argument that people who disagree with you on the right are Nazis is so pathetic it's not even worth my time to answer. ABC, CBS, NBC, et al, are entertainment businesses that have entertainment programs structured around the events of the day. Broadcast news is hardly much more than a reality-based TV show. They don't sit around figuring out what stories to cover (and how) based on how they'll support their supposed liberal agenda. I've worked in a broadcast news organization that had its share of conservatives, liberals and people on all sorts of political dimensions. I'm sure that any individual story reflected the biases and experience of the reporter, but I'm equally sure that the overall mix did not. Which organization? And do you mean conservative by your standards, or by the standards of the American public as a whole. Because I bet they're not the same. I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a libertarian. As for your earlier claim that TV news didn't show the 911 jumpers or the Berg murder because it didn't support their biases, I think not. What's more, I don't think America needs any more whipping-up. But that's your opinion, isn't it? I happen to disagree. I think too many Americans are forgetting exactly what happened, and we need to remember who our enemies are. It is not a sign of media bias that TV presents everything as black and white, but it is a sign of black-and-white thinking that you and others persist in the liberal media witch hunt. Or it could be that the witches are really out there... They're not alone in that. Most of the rest of the world kept its distance. So what? It does not understand how educated, sensible people could possibly be wary of multilateral institutions or friendly, sophisticated European allies. Perhaps it (this monolithic vast left-wing conspiracy you imagine to lurk behind media) *does* understand, but doesn't organize its programming around any particular small constituency. No conspiracy. Just a lot people who think alike. Those biases affect their coverage. How many evangelical Christians do you think report for the New York Times? For CNN? Does that bias their coverage? A very high proportion of the population of the US - something over a third - is evangelical Christians. I'd be shocked if the equivalent proportion is 5% among elite news organizations. Something around 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative. What do you think that proportion is at the Washington Post - 10%? I'd be surprised if it's even 5%, actually. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it's not. That's moral vanity again. The hungry don't care why you feed them, they care about getting fed. That's what hunger does to someone. Worrying about the motives that cause people to do something like feeding the hungry is the luxury of someone who does not need to be fed. But the person who is the founder of this teaching (in Nick's tradition at least) was a marginalized Jewish peasant who's family and friends, in all likelihood, often went hungry. You're right. This mythical yeshua was *very* concerned about motives, and other reasons for doing things (and racial purity). Indeed consider what he says to some people who would follow him when he turns them away. Their motives aren't pure enough for him. Or when a foreigner comes to him for help. Or when he has crowds following him and he deceives them through complicated parables in order that they _Not_ understand what he was teaching, because their motives were not pure enough. This Yeshua was ALL about motives. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aren't the media American people? Aren't liberals? Aren't environmentalists? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated someone who works for ABC News - and, for that matter, someone who works for The Nature Conservancy (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that could be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) They're my (political) opponents. Not my enemies. They're all important and I wouldn't want any of them to vanish from the American political spectrum. I might want them to be less powerful, but that's a big difference. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the person who is the founder of this teaching (in Nick's tradition at least) was a marginalized Jewish peasant who's family and friends, in all likelihood, often went hungry. Dan M. True enough. But the important thing is the food. My parents are from India, and I've spent enough time there to understand hunger - real hunger - at least at a distance. The important thing is the food. My great-grandfather used to stand at his front door every evening, and as people went by he would ask them if they had eaten a good meal that day. If not, they were invited in for dinner - no matter who they were, what they were wearing, it didn't matter. They would not go hungry. Why did he do it? I have no idea - he died before I was born. But to this day people are alive because he fed them, and that's what matters. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated someone who works for ABC News - and, for that matter, someone who works for The Nature Conservancy (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that could be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) Note for the humor-impaired - the last sentence in the passage quoted above was a joke... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 04:54:11PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated Uh uh. That wasn't the implied question. Do you LIKE them (collectively? I don't care who you've dated...)? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me. You said you like American people, but I don't see it in your writing. You appear to like some, but not others. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
-- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can tell you what John Stossel once told me - that a sign of how far to the left TV news is is that people think he's a conservative - when he is, of course, a libertarian. --- There you go again with the 2 dimensional French political axis. The reality is there are right-wing libertarians, and left-wing libertarians, but the libertarian party tends toward being right-wing radicals (much further beyond even reptiliKlan radicals). - I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth. Why would I be attacked for telling the truth? Paul O'Neill, 60 Minutes ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
-- From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But the person who is the founder of this teaching (in Nick's tradition at least) was a marginalized Jewish peasant who's family and friends, in all likelihood, often went hungry. Dan M. True enough. But the important thing is the food. My parents are from India, and I've spent enough time there to understand hunger - real hunger - at least at a distance. The important thing is the food. My great-grandfather used to stand at his front door every evening, and as people went by he would ask them if they had eaten a good meal that day. If not, they were invited in for dinner - no matter who they were, what they were wearing, it didn't matter. They would not go hungry. Why did he do it? I have no idea - he died before I was born. But to this day people are alive because he fed them, and that's what matters. Touching. But then why do support right-wing policies? That's not what right-wingers are all about. The republicans don't care if people are starving somewhere. They care about gutting policies that help the poor, like food stamps. They care about the profits of multi-national drug companies, not helping people dieing of aids in africa, or india. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 12:04 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: As much as he has a right to be angry, I blame the guy with the knife and his masked buddies. But then again I do gloss over the big issues... At 12:20 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Other Shoe Maru As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. Sorry for the Me too post, but it is a rare moment when I am absolutely and totally in agreement with Matt, and I couldn't pass it up. I would point out that almost nobody has pointed out that the above subject-header is wrong. It should read: Beheading Avenges Release of Photgraphs of Prison Abuse.It strikes me as very likely that if CBS's Sixty Minutes II does not leak the photos of the abuse that this doesn't happen. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 12:10 PM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Will the right-wing press publish the images? I think that they will (and have) put more emphasis on the images than their left-wing brethren. For the record, ABC Nightly News last night showed a very extensive clip of the video, only ending the clip at the point in which one of the murderers suddenly whipped out a large knife. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 12:44 PM 5/12/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and convince us to surrender. Or, even more (as we've seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, The only responsibility we had was to open the door to this type of revolting action having the potential for a positive effect for the murderers. Dan, I think that you utterly missed Gautam's point.At least one Brin-L'er has already called this the other shoe - i.e. that this was at least partially our fault.Thus, it seem clear that at least one goal of these murderer's is to weaken American resolve by causing some subset of Americans to believe that we have brought this horrible death of an American upon ourselves, and that as such our cause is no longer worthy, and that as such our troops should come home immediately. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Changing the Topic Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 10:46 AM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. I would argue that there's a very simple rule to predict when the press will show a picture. One interesting test case for any rule describing when the media shows a picture is that the rule must explain why the media refuses to show pictures of aborted human fetuses/babies.If showing a picture is about bringing home the reality of a killing - then surely these pictures should be shown at some point in time. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Nature Conservancy Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
At 04:54 PM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: The Nature Conservancy (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental groups. The recent expose in the Washington Post notwithstanding? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh uh. That wasn't the implied question. Do you LIKE them (collectively? I don't care who you've dated...)? It certainly doesn't sound like it to me. You said you like American people, but I don't see it in your writing. You appear to like some, but not others. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ I have no idea what you mean. I may disagree with some of them, but there's no American whom I wouldn't defend. There are some who are mistaken. Some who actively wish to harm those things which I would give anything to defend. But that doesn't make them any less my countrymen. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:28:31PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I have no idea what you mean. I may disagree with And I have no idea what you mean about Tom. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:16:12PM -0400, JDG wrote: I think that you utterly missed Gautam's point. At least one Brin-L'er has already called this the other shoe - i.e. that this was at least partially our fault. Thus, it seem clear that at least one goal of these murderer's is to weaken American resolve by causing some subset of Americans to believe that we have brought this horrible death of an American upon ourselves, and that as such our cause is no longer worthy, and that as such our troops should come home immediately. Or perhaps YOU totally missed Dan's point. It seems to me that the Bush human-rights violations 'R' us administration has so completely bungled everything in Iraq after the shock and awe part that they have made it (arguably) strategically correct for al Qaeda to do barbaric things to win over more Islamic (esp. Iraqi) support to their cause. Making a strategic mistake isn't the same thing as causing something to happen, but the responsibility for the mistake is clear. The Bush administration made a clear pattern of infringing human rights ever since 9/11, and it was bound to catch up to them sooner or later. When mistakes are paid, people pay the consequences. The hell of it is that the people most responsible, Bush and Rumsfeld, appear to be getting away with it. They may say they take responsibility, but it is really others who are paying the price for their mistakes. I originally supported overthrowing Saddam for humanitarian reasons, but it was a close decision and I had expected Colin Powell and the State department to play a big role in Iraq after the initial military push. If I had known that Bush and Rumsfeld would be overseeing post-war Iraq while marginalizing the State department, I would not have supported the invasion. While the Iraqis are probably better off now, the costs were too high. It is becoming increasingly clear that we should have followed Dan's plan of delaying the invasion until the time was right (which increasingly looks like it would not have been until a competent administration took over the White House...) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] No conspiracy. Just a lot people who think alike. Those biases affect their coverage. How many evangelical Christians do you think report for the New York Times? For CNN? Does that bias their coverage? A very high proportion of the population of the US - something over a third - is evangelical Christians. I'd be shocked if the equivalent proportion is 5% among elite news organizations. Something around 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative. What do you think that proportion is at the Washington Post - 10%? I'd be surprised if it's even 5%, actually. So, the people who are trained to investigate and understand things, by the best universities in the country, given lots of time and money to do so, and undiluted access to real information, and the people actually making the decisions, end up having a left-wing bias (in your eyes at least) Couldn't be that they are actually onto something could it? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Images of abortions... Was RE: Chging Topic/ Beheading
John wrote One interesting test case for any rule describing when the media shows a picture is that the rule must explain why the media refuses to show pictures of aborted human fetuses/babies.If showing a picture is about bringing home the reality of a killing - then surely these pictures should be shown at some point in time. JDG This topic is kind of a sore subject for me. A few months ago, while in Columbus with my 10 year old daughter, I noticed a large panel truck in front of us. On every side of this truck, was a 10 foot tall picture of an aborted fetus. I was so stunned that I didn't have the presence of mind to attempt to distract my daughter. Unfortunately, she noticed the pictures and realized that they were dead babies and was quite upset. Of course it was an anti-abortion campaign. Perhaps I am a hypocrite, I support free speech, and I am anti-abortion, but the pictures on the truck for this campaign are WAY, WAY over the line. If they were only going to be seen by adults, that is one thing, but to throw them out into the public knowing that children will see them is quite another. I see from searching for these pictures that several cities have ongoing lawsuits attempting to stop these trucks. I did call the local police department and complain and the dispatcher said that they had no less than 500 calls in the last hour but there was nothing that they could do. Here is a link to some pictures I found of these trucks. Defiantly avoid these pictures if this type of thing disturbs you. Truck pictures... http://tinyurl.com/yvaw3 Attempts to stop them http://tinyurl.com/2lqq2 Gary ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the people who are trained to investigate and understand things, by the best universities in the country, given lots of time and money to do so, and undiluted access to real information, and the people actually making the decisions, end up having a left-wing bias (in your eyes at least) Couldn't be that they are actually onto something could it? Andrew You know, that sort of left-wing self-congratulation is the single best weapon conservatives have. Also the most irritating trait of the left. One could easily reverse the question. So, those people who have proven their abilities in the real world by managing organizations, employing people, creating wealth, or protecting their countries (i.e. people in business and the military) who have to face real responsibilities and make real decisions, not just ace standardized tests, get put through private schools by accomplished parents, and comment from the sidelines on things done by others, end up having a right-wing bias. Couldn't be that they are actually onto something could it? You could also ask it differently...people from those best universities in the country are, disproportionately, the children of the wealthy and privileged. You liberals always talk about how people back their class interests. So those people with inherited (not earned) wealth and privilege tend to support the left...maybe that should tell us something. One person who works with me (an immigrant) says that his objection to the left is that it's made up of a bunch of people whose parents succeeded in American society, then want to pull the ladder up underneath them - through things like high taxes, government regulation, and, in fact, the expanded power of the government in general (which is far more likely to be a tool of the rich against the poor than the other way around). You could look at specific policies, too. Wal Mart is the best thing to happen to the American poor in my lifetime, period. Which company is most hated by the American left, with the possible exception of Halliburton? Hmmm. I wonder why? Could it be because Wal Mart, with its $39 DVD players, is just so declasse? Just a thought. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What are they Smoking at the Labor Department?
http://nypost.com/business/23936.htm WHAT ARE THEY SMOKING AT THE LABOR DEPT.? By JOHN CRUDELE May 11, 2004 -- DON'T get too excited about all those new jobs that were supposed to have been created in April. I'm not going to waste a lot of my precious space on this, but the bottom line is that most of the 288,000 jobs that the Labor Department says were created last month may not really exist. They could be figments of statisticians' optimism. Anyone who plodded through my column last Thursday knows I predicted that job growth in April would be better than the 160,000 to 170,000 jobs that the pros were anticipating. But I also said, quite emphatically I hope, that the stronger growth would be an illusion - the result of the Labor Department's computers making happy predictions about seasonal job creation that could neither be verified nor justified. I'll explain one aspect. Back in the March employment report, the government added 153,000 positions to its revised total of 337,000 new jobs because it thought (but couldn't prove) loads of new companies were being created in this economy. That estimate comes from the Labor Department's birth/death model. You can look up these numbers on the Department's Web site. As staggering as the assumption about new companies was in March, the Labor Department got even more brazen in April. Last Friday, it was disclosed that these imaginary jobs had been increased by 117,000 to 270,000 for the latest month - because, I guess, the stat jockeys got a vision from the gods of spring. Without those extra 117,000 make-believe jobs, the total growth for April would have been just 171,000 - sub-par for an economy that's supposed to be growing at more than 4 percent a year, but right on the pros' targets. Take away all 270,000 make-believe jobs and, well, you have the sort of pessimism that the political pollsters are seeing. If I was the suspicious type (and if I thought Washington was smart enough), I'd suspect a nasty motive behind the sudden surge in these mystery jobs. But for now, let's just acknowledge their existence. Also keep in mind that the government doesn't distinguish between good companies being created and, say, a guy doing consulting work out of his basement because he can't find real work. What does this new job announcement mean in the real world? It means there will be more pressure on the financial markets, as we've seen for a while but especially since last Thursday. It also means that the Federal Reserve now has the excuse it needs to raise interest rates in June (as I've said before would happen) and will probably start regretting that move by the end of the summer. And President Bush will probably give in to temptation and start crowing about the economy, going against the mood, as captured by pollsters. This will make him look as out of touch with reality as his father did. If evil could be branded, its emblem would be the Wal-Mart logo. -Inthesetimes article ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Nature Conservancy Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:54 PM 5/12/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: The Nature Conservancy (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental groups. The recent expose in the Washington Post notwithstanding? JDG Didn't read it (as I recall, wasn't it interrupted by September 11th...) but I did forward the link to my friend who worked there, and she described it as interesting, so it can't have been _that_ bad... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
28 senior-level federal employees have bogus college degrees
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4951979/ Some federal workers have fake degrees GAO says dozens of employees have bogus diplomas The Associated Press Updated: 10:38 a.m. ET May 11, 2004 WASHINGTON - At least 28 senior-level federal employees in eight agencies have bogus college degrees, including three managers at the office that oversees nuclear weapons safety, congressional investigators have found. The problem is likely even bigger, mainly because the government has no uniform way to check whether employees' alma maters are diploma mills that require little, if any, academic work, the General Accounting Office reported. The findings by the investigative arm of Congress were to be presented to a Senate committee Tuesday. An earlier GAO report revealed how easy it is to buy a degree from a diploma mill; this one shows high-level federal workers securing such degrees at taxpayer expense. The tally was $169,471 at just two of the schools. The colleges in question often use names similar to those of accredited schools and offer degrees largely on a person's life experience. Some simply sell degrees for a flat fee. Among those with bogus degrees in the GAO review were three workers with emergency operations roles and security clearances at the National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the Department of Energy. One of those workers paid $5,000 for a master's degree from LaSalle University, an unaccredited school, the report said. He attended no classes, took no tests and told the GAO his degree was a joke. Under law, the federal government may only pay tuition for academic degree training at schools sanctioned by a recognized accrediting body. In contacting representatives of three diploma mills, an undercover GAO investigator found they would not permit enrolling in individual courses. Yet they were willing to change their billing practices to receive federal money, dividing the flat fee they charged by the number of courses a student needed to appear as if a per-course fee was charged. The number of bogus degrees and the amount of tax dollars spent on them are likely understated across the government because of incomplete records and verifications, the GAO said. Three unaccredited schools Pacific Western University, California Coast University and Kennedy-Western University provided data showing that 463 of their students were federal employees. Most of those listed were in the Department of Defense. The report did not name employees. The investigation took place from July 2003 through February. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee planned hearings Tuesday and Wednesday on diploma mills and the taxpayer's role in subsidizing them. -- Cheney Wows Sept. 11 Commission By Drinking Glass Of Water While Bush Speaks -Onion ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:00 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse --- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated someone who works for ABC News - and, for that matter, someone who works for The Nature Conservancy (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that could be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) Note for the humor-impaired - the last sentence in the passage quoted above was a joke... Well..there really wouldn't be anything wrong with it being the truth. What's wrong with overlooking ones differences with others if there is a strong attraction? xponent Just A Thought Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fox news: Iraq Torture Scandal: 'morally superior racism'
The Idiocy of right-wing torture apologists is truly sickening: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119529,00.html Was one worse than the other? Where was the outrage, after Fallujah, from members of Congress and other self-appointed mullahs of morality? Do we expect American soldiers to be morally superior to the people who are trying to kill them, and at the same time win a war in which there are no rules of conduct for one side? Does that somehow smack of ... racism? - I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted Co-Conspirators of America and to the Republicans for which I can't stand one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud Indefensible with Liberty and Justice Forget it. -Life in Hell (Matt Groening) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mark Steyn on Nicolas Berg and Daniel Pearl
On 12 May 2004, at 9:41 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 01:32 PM 5/12/04, Nick Arnett wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=68 My summary... don't try to talk to anyone after you've decided that they are part of an extremist group. Just kill them. I'm troubled by the implication that such a group of people is easily identified. I'd say that there are at least five who are easy to so label. At 09:45 AM 5/12/04, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, didn't they allegedly (I don't speak Arabic, and the sound quality on the piece of video I have seen replayed on the news is so poor that I couldn't tell what anyone was saying, no matter what language they were saying it in) say that they were doing this in retaliation for the prison abuses? Or did I get that wrong, too? -- Ronn! :) It wouldn't shock me if they did - but so what? Everything about that video was a carefully crafted propaganda statement (one done by idiots, but idiots who might be saved by the Western media's belief that only images that piss off Americans are verboten, while those that anger the rest of the world _at_ Americans are just fine). _Of course_ they would claim that - it's the obvious move. The question is, though, do you believe them? Actually, it doesn't matter a flying fig whether I believe them or not, or whether they believe themselves or not. The proper response is found above at the end of the fourth line from the top. To some extent this is the reaction they want. Provocation, escalation and the undermining of the standards of those they oppose. Maybe enforced rehabilitation with basket weaving and picnics on the lawn would be more efficacious :) And armed guards... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Our products just aren't engineered for security. - Brian Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development team. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
right-wingers favorite company wal-mart fined for Clean Water Act violations
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=1896u=/nm/20040512/us_nm/envi ronment_walmart_dc_6printer=1 Wal-Mart to Pay $3.1 Mln Settlement Wed May 12, 3:30 PM ET By Deborah Charles WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT - news) has agreed to pay a $3.1 million fine to settle charges of violations of the federal Clean Water Act at store construction sites across the country, the U.S. government said on Wednesday. The fine was the largest civil penalty ever against a company for storm water runoff violations. Officials said they hoped the settlement with the world's biggest retailer would set an example for smaller companies. - If evil could be branded, its emblem would be the Wal-Mart logo. -Inthesetimes article ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:16 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse At 12:44 PM 5/12/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: Isn't it obvious? The same reason that they butchered Daniel Pearl. They think that doing something like that is going to scare us - shake our resolve and convince us to surrender. Or, even more (as we've seen) convince us that this is somehow _our fault_, The only responsibility we had was to open the door to this type of revolting action having the potential for a positive effect for the murderers. Dan, I think that you utterly missed Gautam's point.At least one Brin-L'er has already called this the other shoe - i.e. that this was at least partially our fault.Thus, it seem clear that at least one goal of these murderer's is to weaken American resolve by causing some subset of Americans to believe that we have brought this horrible death of an American upon ourselves, and that as such our cause is no longer worthy, and that as such our troops should come home immediately. Okay.so you are the second person to misunderstand. My comment was meant to imply that there is likely more to come. There is at least one American soldier and three Italians still being held hostage in Iraq and there is great concern over their safety. As for the rest, I agree with Gautam that this kind of atrocity is likely to cause many Americans to dig in their heels. xponent Axis Of Lack Of Clarity On My Part I Suppose Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
--- Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well..there really wouldn't be anything wrong with it being the truth. What's wrong with overlooking ones differences with others if there is a strong attraction? xponent Just A Thought Maru rob Well, sure, but as I explained in a rather painful conversation with one of my best friends a year ago - attractive is more than cute. Cute helps. Cute can be key. But that's not _all_ there is to it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:17 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse At 12:04 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: As much as he has a right to be angry, I blame the guy with the knife and his masked buddies. But then again I do gloss over the big issues... At 12:20 AM 5/12/2004 -0400 Matthew and Julie Bos wrote: On 5/11/04 8:58 PM, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Other Shoe Maru As much as I like tag lines, this one gets me. These people can kill a man on video, and you can go ahead and justify it. Great. At least I can get a taste of what I am going to read tomorrow in the New York Times. Sorry for the Me too post, but it is a rare moment when I am absolutely and totally in agreement with Matt, and I couldn't pass it up. Explained in another post, but I understand where you are coming from and would be in agreement with you if *that* was the meaning I wanted to convey. I would point out that almost nobody has pointed out that the above subject-header is wrong. It should read: Beheading Avenges Release of Photgraphs of Prison Abuse.It strikes me as very likely that if CBS's Sixty Minutes II does not leak the photos of the abuse that this doesn't happen. With the mentality and meme-set we are having to deal with over there, don't you think any excuse would do for the killers? xponent Freaking Cowards Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: right-wingers favorite company Wal-Mart fined for Clean Water Act violations
On 5/12/04 11:08 PM, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The fine was the largest civil penalty ever against a company for storm water runoff violations. Officials said they hoped the settlement with the world's biggest retailer would set an example for smaller companies. I read this as first we screw the big guys, then we will go after the little guy. To plagiarize the diamond industry Because precedence is forever. With this ruling in their back pocket the EPA can fine anybody who is putting up a building with a parking lot. I will now have to add to my list of structures that have lawsuits attached to every proposed construction...nuclear power plants, petroleum refineries, and Wall Marts. If evil could be branded, its emblem would be the Wal-Mart logo. You don't get out much do you? Matthew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
On 5/12/04 6:07 AM, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The phrase is waiting for the other shoe to drop and the idea is that things are not finished here yet. To me it means an inevitable event. Something that can't be stopped or suppressed. Or see the following: http://www.quinion.com/words/qa/qa-wai1.htm I may have jumped off the deep end with equating what you said with justification. But in essence it is darn close and it still makes me angry. Just don't take it personally, it just rubbed me the wrong way. Matthew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure. And I don't hate any of them. I've dated someone who works for ABC News - and, for that matter, someone who works for The Nature Conservancy (admittedly, by far the best of the environmental groups. Someone who worked for Greenpeace, that could be a problem. It would depend on how cute she was.) Note for the humor-impaired - the last sentence in the passage quoted above was a joke... Hm. You just reminded me of the job I didn't take one summer during college with an environmental organization. Might have been Greenpeace. I don't remember now. Would I have been cute enough? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
