Re: What America Does with its Hegemony
JDG wrote: I'm continually amazed at our ability to talk past each other on this issue. Of course Bill Clinton would have fallen victim to using much of the same intelligence. That's because neither Administration was treating intelligence as a black box.They weren't saying I wonder if Iraq has some WMD's still left - perhaps I should consult some intelligence to find out.The existence of WMD's in Iraq was a GIVEN.We knew Iraq had WMD's because we had seen Iraq use them - and it seemed highly implausable that Iraq would spend twelve years dodging inspections and enduring sanctions if it had really, bona fide disarmed as the UN had mandated. One of the reasons we keep talking past each other is because you continue to use the phrase knew when in fact you should be saying we thought we knew. In fact we didn't know as recent events have demonstrated. Another is that you keep using events that occurred 20 years ago, prior to the fist war (and with the tacit approval of the Republican administration at the time) to justify the second war. Furthermore, we've seen time and again that the Bush administration exaggerated the threat and continued to use discredited information long after other administration officials had admitted that the information was false. Bush approached the situation in Iraq with tunnel vision once he had found his justification in 911. When he should have been concentrating on the overall anti-terror picture his mind was set on Iraq and little else. Moreover, we also knew that even if Iraq had no WMD's now that it surely was still trying to acquire them now - or else would immediately do so as soon as France and Russia had their way an ended sanctions on Iraq. While this may be true it in no way justifies invasion. It justified the inspections that were taking place prior to the war and which were proving effective. They were not the instant gratification Bush was hoping to achieve with the invasion, but they don't have the baggage that came with the invasion and they could conceivably been used to force other internal reforms. I know you'll probably scoff at that last, but it's my opinion that gradual changes are more effective and less disruptive than abrupt ones. At this point I think that the very best we can hope for is a state similar to Iran, with a hatred for Israel (the site of yet another Bush disaster) and western society in general and the U.S. in particular. The only purpose of pursuing the intelligence that ultimately proved to be faulty was to make it politically untenable for the French to continue to stand in our way. The reason it was used is because all humans are naturally susceptible to believe things which confirm what they know to be true. In this case, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton shared the same knowledge of the truth. I'm relatively certain that Clinton would never have brought in a fox to asses whether or not it was a good idea to raid the hen house. -- Doug Slow and steady wins the race maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
-- From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll see what happens when the Massachusetts Voters approve their constitutional amendment in two years in order to tell those tyrants on the MA Supreme Court exactly what the MA Constitution says. Ah, yes tyranny. The Catholic church has committed more act of despotic tyranny than every single current democracy combined. Just because _you_ would impose your tyrannical orthodoxy on all Americans, because of your despotic religion and EVIL deity, does not make judicial decisions that are not based on JDG_brand Homophobia, Hate, and Extremist Religious Dogma, Tyrannical. -The Pope is the Original Despotic Tyrant. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
1Cav and CW
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] mentioned http://www.stripesonline.com/article.asp?section=104article=22295 The leakage may be from smoke rounds ... From what I have heard, chemical warheads leak. The Germans, US, and Soviets all found this out. Presumably, the rounds do not leak immediately or hugely, so the problem did not halt initial production. But leakage was, I am told, one of the reasons that the US and USSR developed binary munitions. Another solution was to load the warheads shortly before use rather than load them at the factory. When you do this, the poison spends most of its time in larger tanks that are less likely to leak. It is handled by people with more expertise. If I remember rightly, United Nations inspectors said that the Iraqi military first made old fashioned munitions. As expected they leaked. Then it created systems to load warheads shortly before use. In the fall of 2002, United Nations inspectors in Iraq found some empty missile warheads that appeared to be designed for such loading. Also, I am told that in the mid 1990s, after first saying it did not do any such work, the Iraqi government said that it had developed some binary shells. The UN inspectors said that the number of shells manufactures was more than `some'; that the numbers were in production run quantities. I can well believe that some liquid filled warheads leak and that those filled with nerve gas are especially dangerous since so little poison injures or kills someone. I can also believe that the Iraqi military worked to protect its own people by developing late loading systems and by developing binary weapons. The United Nations inspectors have also said that sometimes the Iraqi military buried banned weapons in sand. This destroyed fighter jets but did not necessarily damage artillery rounds. (As far as I know, all this has been common knowledge for six or eight years; I cannot remember where I learned it. Doubtless, if you have a faster and more reliable Internet connection that I, you will want to check.) I do not know what the Iraqi military or other portion of the Iraqi government did with its chemical weapons. All we know is that the United States, under the Bush Administration, did NOT, as I wrote to the Brin List on 30 May 2003, send ... 2 or more troops to look at the various sites and to search for more sites. The troops would not have been able to do much except clear harmless sites and guard suspect sites -- but that would have been enough. And that could have been done over a few days in the middle of April [2003]. Remember, the goal would not have been to find a `smoking gun' but to have cleared some sites and to have provided guards for those sites that appeared dangerous to ordinary soldiers. On 31 May 2003, the BBC said http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/2951440.stm The Pentagon has a list of around 900 sites which may provide clues to Saddam Hussein's alleged chemical and biological arsenal. So far, around 200 locations have been searched, said Pentagon officials on Friday. which means the US military said that 700 sites were unvisited. As I wrote on Saturday, 31 May 2003 ... some 466000 coalition troops were involved [in that part of the war]. I am talking about shifting the task of fewer than 5% of the total troop number for a short time. Moreover, if the army had needed another 2 troops, Bush could have delayed the start a little longer to wait for them and their equipment to arrive. Most likely most of those 700 locations will be empty or clueless. ... But suppose one of those sites contained enough weaponized anthrax to fill a Johnson Baby powder container like those that that many grown up travelers carry? What if someone who is unfriendly to the US and has the right contacts gets hold of it before a US Army team comes by? For all we know, some of those unvisited, but suspected sites contained chemical weapons. Since they were not visited by the US, someone could have taken them without the US learning. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises As I slowly update it, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I rewrite a What's New segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bullying and Battering
At 03:14 PM 21/05/04 -0700, you wrote: While I was in the Bruderhof neighborhood... http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/Fight-or-Flight.htm There /is/ an alternative to the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out mentality. Two things: cathars god will know his own in Google brings up almost 400 web pages. At Longedoc in July 1209, a force of Crusaders arrived, and demanded that 222 Cathars be surrendered. The people said we would rather be flayed alive. An error by the defenders of Bezier let thousands of attackers in. Arnold Amorie, head of the Crusade, ordered that everyone, all Catholics and Cathars, be killed, even his own men, since God will know his own. 20,000 were killed. http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar Second, Bruderhof abuse in Google lists almost 3000 pages. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Iridium Flares
Robert Seeberger wrote: What Allen fortuitously saw was an Iridium flare, caused by one in a new fleet of satellites that have been put into Earth orbit over the past several years; satellites that can briefly appear to flare to incredible brilliance. I've seen them, though they're so quick that the big challenge is to make sure you're looking at the right part of the sky. 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: Bullying and Battering
On Sun, 23 May 2004 09:18:14 -0400, Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:14 PM 21/05/04 -0700, you wrote: While I was in the Bruderhof neighborhood... http://www.bruderhof.com/articles/Fight-or-Flight.htm http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar Second, Bruderhof abuse in Google lists almost 3000 pages. Keith Henson Try http://www.perefound.org/jr_cn.html or Google Bruderhof critics There are a variety of news sources both critical and supportive of the Bruderhof. The Bruderhof, self-proclaimed as the good guy, denounce their critics as the demonic enemies of faith and adopt a complex legal, public relations, and extra-legal strategy to quiet their those who disagree with them . The courts become the tool to punish those who disagree by costly litigation and SLAPP suits intended to intimidate critics. Alternatively, KIT apostates, self-proclaimed as the good guy, denounce the Bruderhof as a destructive cult and attempt to discredit them in the court of public opinion. In the escalating conflict of dialectical opposition, the exercise of free speech and academic freedom is held hostage. Gary Who has his own religious conflict to concern him ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bullying and Battering
At 03:36 PM 5/23/04, Gary Denton wrote: Gary Who has his own religious conflict to concern him Internal or external? Wanna share? Or just vent? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bullying and Battering
Texas is attempting to declare Unitarian Universalists not a religion. This seems insane considering the over 200 year history but things have been insane for a bit now. I don't think it will get anywhere but with the Supreme Court the way it is... Gary On Sun, 23 May 2004 17:01:27 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:36 PM 5/23/04, Gary Denton wrote: Gary Who has his own religious conflict to concern him Internal or external? Wanna share? Or just vent? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
General Zinni
General Zinni on 60 minutes tonight. Accusing top Pentagon officials of dereliction of duty, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option. The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course, he tells Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, May 23 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. Also in his upcoming book, Battle Ready, written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption, he writes. Zinni explains to Kroft, I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002983.php Tom Clancy, Conservative Republican Tom Clancy? OK, I should be happy, when a GOP President can't even get Tom Clancy to support him he is going down. Gary Executive Inaction Maru -- #1 on Google for Liberal News Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: General Zinni
It is on right now. At 05:55 PM 5/23/04, Gary Denton wrote: General Zinni on 60 minutes tonight. Accusing top Pentagon officials of dereliction of duty, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni says staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option. The course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course, he tells Steve Kroft in an interview to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, May 23 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. Also in his upcoming book, Battle Ready, written with Tom Clancy, Zinni writes of the poor planning in harsh terms. In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption, he writes. Zinni explains to Kroft, I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002983.php Tom Clancy, Conservative Republican Tom Clancy? OK, I should be happy, when a GOP President can't even get Tom Clancy to support him he is going down. Gary Executive Inaction Maru Top Posting Is Still Evil Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Unitarians not a religion
Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snippage Uhhh. under exactly what basis is tax-exempt status a, quote, right? Second, It is a right to have all religions treated equally and not make some classified as not a religion. Third, I was using disenfranchise to mean to deprive of the rights of a citizen. That is more than voting rights. The equal exercise of rights of religious worship is one of those rights. To grant some religions and not others tax exempt status is to devalue those rights. The right to spend money untaxed is a right that has been granted to religious institutions in this country. To have religious donations not go as far for non-approved religions is a discrimination on the basis of religion. While it is not of the same magnitude as requiring the wearing of special markings, this is a diminishment of religious rights not seen since the founding of our country. I think that declaring the Unitarians as 'not a church' is wrong; it's true that some organizations do not deserve that appellation IMO, but I'm guessing that the Moonies and Scientologists, frex, won't be losing their status anytime soon. It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/abortion.reut/ ...In a pastoral letter to the 125,000 parishioners in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Bishop Michael Sheridan also warned that politicians opposed to church teachings on such issues and those who vote for them jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the church and so jeopardize their salvation, the bishop wrote in a letter published this week in the diocesan monthly newspaper, the Herald. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences, he added... ...Archbishops (Sean Patrick) O'Malley and (Theodore) McCarrick have all said that while they are opposed to abortion and think that not only Catholic politicians but all politicians should be against abortion they would not turn someone away if they come up (for communion), Reese [Thomas Reese, editor of America Magazine, a national Catholic publication] said. Reese said one of the problems of denying communion is that it puts the abortion issue in the context of religion rather than as a human rights issue. I think that this kind of thing is counter-productive for the pro-life movement. It's branding abortion as a Catholic issue ... rather than a human rights issue, he said. Politician response: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/religion/article/0,1299,DRMN_61_2888053,00.html http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z36122168 The pronouncement by a Colorado Springs bishop that Catholics who vote for abortion-rights supporters should be denied communion provoked a widespread reaction among major candidates Friday: silence... ...Like Salazar[D], Schaffer[R] and Coors[R] are Catholic. Democratic Senate candidate Mike Miles, a Colorado Springs educator, is not. But many of his supporters are, and he addressed the subject forcefully Friday. The notion of clerics or some other religious leaders really controlling a political situation is anathema to democracy, he said. Right now, we have people fighting to build a democracy in Iraq, and we don't want to see religious clerics controlling their political system . . . I don't think that's too great a stretch or a false analogy to draw parallels, he said. Grand Junction Mayor James Spehar, one of nine candidates in the crowded 3rd District congressional race, likewise objected to Sheridan's comments. As a lifelong Catholic, I think this is unfortunate, he said... ...State Rep. Michael Garcia, D-Aurora, also a Catholic, wondered, Why are we just limiting communion to just these issues? Garcia suggested expanding the list to ostracizing politicians who don't support a stronger safety net of social programs for the poor, who don't want to relax immigration laws and those who don't want debt relief for Third World countries. Here's another one, Garcia said: the death penalty, which Catholics oppose. If that were the case, I would suspect Bishop Sheridan would find few if any politicians in Colorado or throughout the nation who could live up to every single one of Jesus Christ's teachings, he said. And if he were to extend that to the parishioners, he would find very few parishioners in his pews to take communion. Letters to the papers run the gamut, but I agree with this one:
Re: America the Theocracy
Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm just catching up on thousands of Brin-L messages that I was too busy to read at the time. I won't comment on most of them, but this one caught my attention. Debbi said: Hasn't it been established by careful, rational debate on Brin-L that all religion is Evil? I believe so. Last year sometime wasn't it? Nope. Not done. You may disagree, but proof positive (and negative) didn't happen. It probably wasn't clear enough, but I was being ironic with my comment which is third-level quoted here. (I was being somewhat more serious elsewhere in the thread!) grin And *I* was tongue-in-beaking myself, in that particular reply! (A serious response would have been more like 'I do not recall such evidence being presented, nor any concensus of the List being reached' etc. etc. etc.) Debbi Humour Across The Water, Water...Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Expect less, be happier...?'
Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [GaryD:] Perhaps this subscription to the gourami fish theory of mating relates to your lowered expectations? snort of amusement Exactly the opposite -- I want an equal! Don't we all... Just out of curiosity though, how exactly would one qualify as your equal? Oh, a Jean-Luc Picard type would do nicely... ;) You meant, seriously... Well, he needs to be intelligent, kind, have a sense of humor, like animals, and have a very strong will/personality. The latter is required because I'm rather strong-willed myself, and without meaning to, I'd just walk over him if he didn't speak up. shrug Not flattering, that last, but true nevertheless. Hence my 'gourami fish' interpretation. [Of course, in RL certain health issues have intervened. Sucks, but them's the breaks.] why would I settle for a guy I'd have to stifle myself for? To maintain an element of control? -Travis dominance can be such a great thing Edmunds Hmm, have you and Gary N been talking? evil grin Again seriously, role-playing can be awfully...fun. But having to constantly curb your expression of knowledge or opinions is not only a form of lying, it leads to resentment and even a low-grade contempt. *Not* what I want in a relationship. Debbi My Momma Tole Me That If I Wanted To Know How To Handle A Man, Learn To Ride A Mule! Maru `;D __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RedneckKlan Bigotry in their own words
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_05_16_atrios_archive.html#10852377971588 7070 Republican Bigots Gotta love'em. Briefing Room gives us an ad transcript from the Republican primary in NC-5. HOST: This episode of Congressional Jeopardy is paid for by Vernon Robinson for Congress . Today's topic -- homosexual rights! This feminist voted to create special rights for homosexuals and took money from the radical gayPACs. CONTESTANT 1: [Rings in] Alright, it's a, who is Senator Hillary Clinton? [BUZZER] HOST: Oh no, I'm sorry. We were looking for Senator Virginia Foxx. Virginia Foxx did that. As a Wake Forest Trustee, this bankrupt businessman let two lesbians get married in broad daylight in the campus church. CONTESTANT 2: [Rings in] That's Jay Helvey. Who is Jay Helvey? HOST: You are correct! This other bankrupt businessman brags that he's a tolerant Republican - a code word for gay-friendly. As an Appalachian State Trustee, he let the school sponsor a transvestite drag show. CONTESTANT 3: [Rings in] Ugh. Who is Ed Broyhill? HOST: That's right! When the United Way attacked the Boy Scouts for their ban on gay scoutmasters, this courageous conservative successfully defended the Boy Scouts. CONTESTANT 4: [Rings in] Vernon Robinson. Everybody knows that. Who is City Councilman Vernon Robinson? [BELL] HOST: Yes, the real conservative! Vernon Robinson: I'm Vernon Robinson and I approved this message because I will fight for our conservative values in Congress just as I have at City Hall. As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay marriage update
At 01:57 AM 5/23/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: So you wouldn't care about losing all the legal rights and responsibilities that come with marriage, if they were denied to you? I would be mildly annoyed, for sure.But I would find ways to make due. My central point, however, is that this situation would have absolutely zero bearing on whether or not I considered myself married. In my mind, my personal marriage will be a personal event - not a legal event. My take on this as a fairly long-term MA resident: I just don't think the amendment will be approved. When the vote comes up, I don't think your activist judge argument is going to sway many people at all Well, obviously we will see about that. I would point out, though, that I don't consider myself as having an activist judge argument in favor of the Constitutional Amendment. Rather, I have an activist judge conclusion that these judges have done a very terrible thing if they have legalized gay marriages for a narrow window of two years because despite the Legislature and People of Massachusetts moving with all due alacrity they cannot affirm that the Constitution of Massachusetts means exactly what they have held it to mean for the past however many years - i.e. that the Massachusetts Legislature may decide to create gary marriages, but is not required to do so - in any possible shorter time frame. At any rate, I think that fact that almost no politician of any significance has yet endorsed gay marriages speaks volumes about the views of the general electorate on this issue. Again, we shall see John D. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bishop Sheridan is wrong. I believe his pastoral letter is both theologically incorrect, and as a practical matter is counter-productive to his own goals. With that being said, for those who do not believe that the Catholic Church should be permitted to speak out against pro-choice politicians: -Do you believe that the Catholic Church is permitted to speak out against White Supremacist politicians? -Do you believe that the Catholic Church should have spoken out against National Socialist polticians in Germany?Do you believe that the Catholic Church did speak out enough against those politicians? -If yes, can you explain why the Caholic Church is permitted and morally obligated to speak out against politicans who abuse the rights of one class of persons but not politicians who abuse the rights of another class of persons? JDG - Tough Questions, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming'
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313 Leading environmentalist urges radical rethink on climate change Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says. His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call. Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was among the first researchers to sound the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect. He was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989. He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001. On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm. He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2, can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its opposition. In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he is concerned by two climatic events in particular: the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels significantly, and the episode of extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of global warming. These are ominous warning signs, he says, that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in ignorance of this. Important among the reasons is the denial of climate change in the US, where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed. He compares the situation to that in Europe in 1938, with the Second World War looming, and nobody knowing what to do. The attachment of the Greens to renewables is well-intentioned but misguided, he says, like the Left's 1938 attachment to disarmament when he too was a left-winger. He writes today: I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. His appeal, which in effect is asking the Greens to make a bargain with the devil, is likely to fall on deaf ears, at least at present. Lovelock is right to demand a drastic response to climate change, Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said last night. He's right to question previous assumptions. But he's wrong to think nuclear power is any part of the answer. Nuclear creates enormous problems, waste we don't know what to do with; radioactive emissions; unavoidable risk of accident and terrorist attack. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: Climate change and radioactive waste both pose deadly long-term threats, and we have a moral duty to minimise the effects of both, not to choose between them. xponent Sea Change Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Pew Survey Finds Moderates, Liberals Dominate News Outlets
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184 Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today. While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as moderate, a far higher number are liberal than in the general population. At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives. This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative. The survey of 547 media professionals, completed this spring, is part of an important study released today by The Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Committee of Concerned Journalists, which mainly concerns more general issues related to newsrooms (an E P summary will appear Monday). While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%. The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a values gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. The new survey finds that less than 15% of those who work at news outlets believe that. About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society -- but about 80% of journalists feel that way. When the question of which news organizations actually tilted left or right, there was one clear candidate: Fox News. Fully 69% of national journalists, and 42% of those at the local level, called Fox News especially conservative. Next up was The New York Times, which about one in five labeled especially liberal. Not surprisingly, views of how the press has treated President Bush break down along partisan lines. More than two out of three liberals feel the press has not been tough enough on Bush, while half the conservatives feel the media has been too tough. Still, a little over half of national journalists (53%) give national media coverage of the administration an A or B rating. While the sample of 547 interviewees is not large, Pew says that this selection represents a cross-section of news organizations and of the people working at all levels of those organizations. Newspapers were identified and circulation ranked using the 2003 Editor Publisher International Year Book. In an essay accompanying the survey, the directors of the sponsoring groups -- Bill Kovach, Tom Rosenstiel and Amy Mitchell --declare that broad conclusions about the political findings should be tempered by analyzing some of the details in the findings. For example, they identify strong libertarian leanings among jouurnalists, including doubts about the role of big government. xponent Numbers Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Bishop Sheridan Re: Unitarians not a religion At 04:34 PM 5/23/2004 -0700 Deborah Harrell wrote: It is my understanding that part of the tax-exempt status of religions is tied to the avoidance of direct political action. Is that at all correct? If so, there is a bit of a tempest brewing locally. Bishop Sheridan has stated that not only politicians, but those who vote for them, should be refused Communion if they support/do not oppose certain issues: Let me begin by saying that I believe that Bishop Sheridan is wrong. I believe his pastoral letter is both theologically incorrect, and as a practical matter is counter-productive to his own goals. With that being said, for those who do not believe that the Catholic Church should be permitted to speak out against pro-choice politicians: -Do you believe that the Catholic Church is permitted to speak out against White Supremacist politicians? -Do you believe that the Catholic Church should have spoken out against National Socialist polticians in Germany?Do you believe that the Catholic Church did speak out enough against those politicians? -If yes, can you explain why the Caholic Church is permitted and morally obligated to speak out against politicans who abuse the rights of one class of persons but not politicians who abuse the rights of another class of persons? The Catholic Church should be able (and is) to speak out on any subject it desires. But threatening to refuse communion and/or excommunication goes far beyond free speech. It is coercion. xponent Axis Deer Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bruderhof, was Re: Bullying and Battering
Gary Denton wrote: ... Second, Bruderhof abuse in Google lists almost 3000 pages. Keith Henson ... Try http://www.perefound.org/jr_cn.html or Google Bruderhof critics There are a variety of news sources both critical and supportive of the Bruderhof. The main Bruderhof in Rifton, NY is about 4 miles away from my house. They are good neighbors, but I'm certainly prepared to believe that being in their group is no picnic. Some members do study at SUNY New Paltz where I teach. I could be wrong about this, because the blue headscarves of the women stand out more, but my impression is that there are a few students at a time who come (8 miles away) to attend college. All the ones I know of are female, and study Education. I presume that they wind up teaching at a private school in a Bruderhof. ---David Not the life for me... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
