Re: Enterprise Cancelled
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:35:21 -0500, Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In contrast with the first one, which didn'thave any action, either . . . I dunno why this one gets so much flak. I personally liked it. Me too. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US has more nuclear weapons in Europe than thought
I must confess to abject ignorance and confusion here: Could someone please explain exactly how, when the mainland nuclear forces of the US were sufficient to mutually deter Soviet Russia, that same nuclear force must be also stationed in Europe? I mean, if Russia couldn't knock out our nukes, then how is it realistic to think that terrorists have a decent chance of doing the same thing and take measures like diversifying against it? It seems a bit useless, and needlessly dangerous to stash so many nukes in Europe as well. More than likely these nuclear weapons are of a different type, usually referred to as Tactical Nuclear Weapons (compared to the ones stateside, which were strategic). The main differences are in employment and yield. Typically tactical nukes will have a lower yield (in the low Kt range), have different delivery systems (such as through rockets, artillery shells, bombs...at one point land mines and recoiless rifles!), and are meant to be used against different targets (such as troop concentrations, assembly areas, bottlenecks, logistics nexii, etc). The US in the post-Vietnam era changed their nuclear policy with regards to a potential conflict with the Soviet Union. After the deployment of Soviet nukes, US policy was to fight a conventional war for as long as possible before resorting to nuclear weapons. The post-Vietnam doctrine was one called Flexible Response. Basically, it gave the battlefield commanders greater discretion over when and how to deploy tac nukes in a potential war with the Soviets. Ultimately, this too served as a nuclear deterrence, since the Soviets could never be sure if NATO would strike at their troop concentrations prior to an invasion. As far as needless and useless? I don't know. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: UM's PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf. C ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US has more nuclear weapons in Europe than thought
I must confess to abject ignorance and confusion here: Could someone please explain exactly how, when the mainland nuclear forces of the US were sufficient to mutually deter Soviet Russia, that same nuclear force must be also stationed in Europe? I mean, if Russia couldn't knock out our nukes, then how is it realistic to think that terrorists have a decent chance of doing the same thing and take measures like diversifying against it? It seems a bit useless, and needlessly dangerous to stash so many nukes in Europe as well. ~Maru This keeps up and I'll start to think terrorists really *are* omnipotent. Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050209070333.aov1fd6u.html The United States is keeping some 480 nuclear weapons in air bases in Europe -- twice as many as analysts had previously estimated -- to deter attacks from terrorists or rogue nations, The New York Times said Wednesday, quoting a new study by a private group. The short-range nuclear bombs are stored under US control, under tight security and regulated by secret military agreements at eight bases in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey, said the daily which obtained the report from the Natural Resources Defense Council. An unnamed senior US military official in Europe told the daily that the number of nuclear weapons in Europe had been "significantly reduced" in recent years and currently stood at "around 200." However, Hans Kristensen, a nuclear arms specialist and the author of the council's 102-page report titled "US Nuclear Weapons in Europe," said recent declassified documents, commercial satellite imagery and other documents he analyzed pointed to the higher number. Other US officials said there were no plans to reduce the US nuclear arsenal in Europe and that the issue had caused strain among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) political and military leaders. "Some allies and US military see a lot of value in going to zero," the senior military official in Europe said. "That said, some allies and US military see value in at least keeping some capability." The newspaper's account of the council's report and findings conincide with a NATO meeting Wednesday and Thursday in Nice, France. US Secretaries of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and of State, Condoleezza Rice are attending the meeting which France is hosting for the first time. xponent BOOM Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US has more nuclear weapons in Europe than thought
http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050209070333.aov1fd6u.html The United States is keeping some 480 nuclear weapons in air bases in Europe -- twice as many as analysts had previously estimated -- to deter attacks from terrorists or rogue nations, The New York Times said Wednesday, quoting a new study by a private group. The short-range nuclear bombs are stored under US control, under tight security and regulated by secret military agreements at eight bases in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey, said the daily which obtained the report from the Natural Resources Defense Council. An unnamed senior US military official in Europe told the daily that the number of nuclear weapons in Europe had been "significantly reduced" in recent years and currently stood at "around 200." However, Hans Kristensen, a nuclear arms specialist and the author of the council's 102-page report titled "US Nuclear Weapons in Europe," said recent declassified documents, commercial satellite imagery and other documents he analyzed pointed to the higher number. Other US officials said there were no plans to reduce the US nuclear arsenal in Europe and that the issue had caused strain among North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) political and military leaders. "Some allies and US military see a lot of value in going to zero," the senior military official in Europe said. "That said, some allies and US military see value in at least keeping some capability." The newspaper's account of the council's report and findings conincide with a NATO meeting Wednesday and Thursday in Nice, France. US Secretaries of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, and of State, Condoleezza Rice are attending the meeting which France is hosting for the first time. xponent BOOM Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Poll: Tap wealthy on Social Security
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=1&u=/usatoday/20 050209/ts_usatoday/polltapwealthyonsocialsecurity http://tinyurl.com/3kpef Most Americans are willing to endorse painful steps to ensure Social Security (news - web sites)'s long-term solvency - steps that nick the rich, that is. Two-thirds of those surveyed by USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup last weekend say it would be a "good idea" to limit retirement benefits for the wealthy and to subject all wages to payroll taxes. Now, annual earnings above $90,000 aren't taxed. But some ideas that President Bush said in his State of the Union address were on the table for consideration are rejected by solid majorities. By more than 2 to 1, Americans oppose reducing retirement benefits for those now under age 55. Nearly as many say it's a bad idea to raise the retirement age, and 57% are against reducing benefits for early retirees. Six in 10 oppose raising Social Security taxes for everybody, a step Bush has ruled out. He hasn't made it clear whether that also includes boosting the cap on wages that are taxed. "We don't want to raise taxes as a solution," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Tuesday when asked about that issue. "But on specifics, we don't want to negotiate with ourselves." The willingness to support sacrifices by somebody else isn't surprising. "It's like when you ask about taxing cigarettes, the people who support it, amazingly, are those in the population who don't smoke," says Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. "If the sacrifice includes them, they think twice." The strong opposition to most proposals underscores the difficulties ahead. "There's no consensus about the solution that a wide swath of Americans support," Reischauer says. Even though Bush's address last week highlighted Social Security, he failed to convince more Americans that the retirement program is in a state of crisis or that his approach is the right way to fix it. In early January, 18% of those polled called it a crisis. Now 17% do. Support for Bush's plan - creating individual investment accounts and reducing guaranteed benefits - is unchanged from January: 40% call it a good idea; 55% say it's a bad one. The poll of 1,010 adults, taken Friday through Sunday, has an error margin of +/-3 percentage points. Views vary by income: Three-quarters of middle-income workers - those with annual household incomes of $30,000 to $50,000 - say it makes sense to limit retirement benefits for the wealthy. That's 10 points higher than among those who make $75,000 or more. Three-quarters of middle-income workers support lifting the wage cap so all income is taxed. That's 15 points higher than among high-income workers. Those affluent Americans are more likely by about 10 points to support the idea of reducing benefits for early retirees and raising the retirement age. There's another difference between the most affluent and everybody else: They are the most confident that they would get a higher rate of return than the government provides if they could manage their own investment accounts. That may be why they are the most likely to support Bush's plan, by 49%-47%. xponent Permanent Thread Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow [Update}
"Since you must have known such a statement would not have been made and you refused or failed to do any primary research on this supposed quote, what was your motive in printing sSince you must have known such a statement would not have been made and you refused or failed to do any primary research on this supposed quote, what was your motive in printing such a damnable lie?" -from the first article. You know what they say about lies, damnable lies, and statistics. We've had entirely too much of the latter, so it seems rather appropriate now to get some of the former. And knowing the story is false is a little heartening. ~Maru Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5211218.html Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN] | 30 Jan 2005 Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts. Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. [...] http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42748 WorldNetDaily | 8 Feb 2005 Bill Moyers smears ex-Reagan official James Watt says false quote used to cast him as religious nut http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id =1000797041 Editor and Publisher [NY] | 9 Feb 2005 Bill Moyers Apologizes to James Watt for Apocryphal Quote xponent While We Are On The Subject Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Mexican worm takes a new turn
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/211215_mexico09.html The world nearly lost a peculiar piece of Mexico's cultural tradition this week after the government, without regard to drinkers anywhere, targeted the lowly worm at the bottom of the mezcal bottle for extinction. It seems that the worm was almost a victim of Mexico's labyrinthine bureaucracy, which sought to remove it with a set of new laws governing the production of mezcal -- a liquor similar to tequila -- that are set to go into effect tomorrow. The effort to remove the worm came amid concerns of the worm's high fat content. If you make it to the bottom of a bottle of mezcal, a fatty worm is the least of your problems. But officials say they were worried that fat globules alter the chemical composition of mezcal, made from the blue agave cactus, the same raw material used to make tequila. After learning of the anti-worm legislation, mezcal producers swung into action, lobbying and producing studies that show that the worm poses no health risks. The government reversed course, saving not just the worm, but in all likelihood the mezcal industry. "It would have been devastating," said New York-born Douglas French, who exports Oaxacan mezcal, with a scorpion instead of a worm, to the United States. "It's an old beverage for Mexico, but it's new for the world and its trademark is the worm." French estimates that sales, especially for mezcal exported abroad, would have plunged without the worm, perhaps as much as 70 percent. The worm's history is steeped in folklore and also a little bit of controversy. While some trace the worm's lineage to Aztec times, others say the worm is nothing more than a modern marketing gimmick. The Del Maguey Single Village Mezcal company claims that a young entrepreneur named Jacobo Lozano Paez stumbled onto the idea when a worm hiding inside an agave plant mistakenly got included in a batch of mezcal in 1950. Regardless of its origins, the worm has been imbued with all sorts of powers: Some believe it can cause hallucinations; in Japan, drinkers believe the worms to be aphrodisiacs and demand multiple worms in their bottles. For Mexicans and tourists alike, eating the worm can be a rite of passage. Two kinds of worms, actually butterfly larvae, live in the leaves of the agave plant and are also commonly eaten as food in Oaxaca. The mezcal itself is made from the sugar-rich heart of the agave plant, which is baked in a rock oven, helping give mezcal a smoky flavor. Beyond the worm crisis, mezcal producers are eagerly awaiting the new rules, which will create stricter production standards for mezcal, much as the government does with tequila. Producers hope the certification process, which includes government regulation and approval, leads to the same explosion in popularity that tequila has experienced. Connoisseurs say there is even more potential for mezcal. Tequila (which never includes a worm) is made from just one variety of the agave plant -- agave tequilana Weber -- which flourishes in the state of Jalisco. Mezcal can be made from any of a dozen agave varieties. "It's like grapes for wine, every grape has a different flavor," French said. "There's a whole rainbow of flavors and people can start zeroing in on the one they prefer." High-grade mezcal is already catching some of tequila's wave and acceptance as a serious, high-quality drink. But for now, producers say exports depend on the worm. And for now, the worm is safe, patiently waiting at the bottom of the bottle. xponent Drink Up Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow [Update}
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5211218.html Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN] | 30 Jan 2005 Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts. Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. [...] http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42748 WorldNetDaily | 8 Feb 2005 Bill Moyers smears ex-Reagan official James Watt says false quote used to cast him as religious nut http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id =1000797041 Editor and Publisher [NY] | 9 Feb 2005 Bill Moyers Apologizes to James Watt for Apocryphal Quote xponent While We Are On The Subject Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> From: Deborah Harrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Did we conclusively establish that there are things > > that are not provable, > > Or did we prove that everything is ultimately > > provable, if perhaps not quite yet? > > I think that everyone agreed that there are things we > cannot prove now, although they are, to the best of > our current knowledge, correct. But there may have > been disagreement about whether or not everything is > ultimately understandable/provable by the human mind. > > Debbi > Infinity Is Not Merely A Combustion Engine Maru ;) > And that's probably a good thing. Imagine the fuel bill. As I understand it, it's a momentary imbalance of quarks and anti-quarks, much like Hawking radiation around a black hole (different objects, same kinda idea), so we just borrowed the energy briefly. I wonder when they want it back? No Idea Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
- Original Message - From: "Damon Agretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Enterprise Cancelled In contrast with the first one, which didn'thave any action, either . . . I dunno why this one gets so much flak. I personally liked it. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: UM's PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf. C if your refering to the motion picture... it may have something to do with the supertight jumpers that they wore you see less of a swimmer in a speedo comeon who wants to see shatner in a speedo? nick "say no to speedo" lidster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
In contrast with the first one, which didn'thave any action, either . . . I dunno why this one gets so much flak. I personally liked it. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: UM's PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf. C ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
At 12:05 PM Tuesday 2/8/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 8, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Kevin Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It sounded like the plan was to create an original film with new characters, set in the Trek universe. An original film with new characters... Without a television series to enable the characters to truly take life, I'm not sure how the Trek crew could avoid a hollowed out husk of a movie. That is, if it's intended to be anything more than a mindless action film. You haven't seen the last few Trek movies, have you? "Mindless action film" is a pretty good description for any one of them. In contrast with the first one, which didn'thave any action, either . . . --Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Songs You Cannot Expel
> Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell wrote: > >> Jim Sharkey wrote: > >> I'd vote for "It's Not Unusual" by Tom Jones as > one of the songs > >>that definitely sticks to your head. > >AII! My ears! My Ears! > Don't you go speakin' ill of the coolest Welshman > ever, little Missy! "Tom Jones drools, Diamond Rules!" > "I want a doctor to take your picture so I can look > at you from inside as well" Ya know, that's now actually possible! (Somebody previously posted an article about the mini-cam-to-be-swallowed-and-take-pix-of-the-small-intestine.) Debbi who has a pic of herself with BigHair (but no spandex!) from back in the Big Eighties;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US Hostage a little stiff...
It was written: > >>I read somewhere (maybe on this list) recently > that satire is [reportedly] > >>specifically forbidden by the Koran . . . > >Hmm. That would surprise me. > Why? At its core satire is meant as a call for > change. And what religious institution wants to >change? I did see, in a Frontline program about Saudi Arabia, a snippet from an Arabic comedy show which had a professor* going to the gov't to complain about 3 other professors* who were 'too religiously strict' -- and the tribunal to which he was to report consisted of those 3 professors!* *Maybe it was journalists? But I think it was professors...anyway, here's the website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saud/ Debbi The Kid's Show Praising Jihadis Was Nauseating Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Teens Sued for Cookie Delivery to Neighbor
> Gary Nunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never ceased to be amazed at the stupidity of > people and the legal system. > I hope the judge and the woman both feel and look > like idiots in their > town It is a little strange for a couple of > attractive teenage girls to > choose to stay home and bake cookies, but the judge > is demonstrating stupidity at it's best. > Teens Sued for Cookie Delivery to Neighbor > Feb. 5, 2004 - A pair of Colorado teens surprised a > neighbor by baking cookies - no charge. > It cost them $900. > > Taylor Ostergaard, 18, and Lindsey Zellitti, 19, > decided to stay home from a > dance in July in order to surprise their neighbors > with an anonymous delivery of homemade cookies. > > But one of their neighbors, Wanita Renea Young, 49, > became so terrified she > suffered an anxiety attack and called the police. > Young sued the girls and > this week was awarded $900 to recoup her medical > bills. > http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=473840&page=1 Pretty stupid...The girls have gotten lots of donations to cover their costs, however: http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2700488,00.html "...Cookie giant Otis Spunkmeyer, which honors the girls with its "Kindness Cookie," also has promised the girls countertop ovens and a year's supply of dough. "The girls will visit Denver on Thursday to accept $900 from 850-KOA Radio, which has raised about $4,000 in their names since Saturday, spokesman Alan Jackson said. The rest of the proceeds will be donated to the Never Forgotten Fund, a charity in honor of Columbine High School shooting victims." Debbi No Sprinkles For *You* Wanita! Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cat-astrophe (was: E-mail program questions)
Deborah Harrell wrote: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For behaviors/places it isn't workable, I use "The Enforcer"a squirt gun filled with water and a tiny bit (teaspoon) of white vinegar. Why the vinegar my dear? Because, dahling, cats (and dogs) do not like the smell or taste, so it is more effective than water alone. Debbi who has had both dogs _and_ cats that liked to play with or in water I'd try the water gun first. I'd prefer to have wet spots than vinegar spots all over the place. :) Maybe that's just me. I visit a household with a cat that gets squirted with water when he does something wrong. I was instructed on what he wasn't supposed to do and how to effectively squirt him. After the second time I got him, all I had to do was pick up the bottle and he stopped the undesired behavior, at least for the next half-hour. Then it actually took another squirt to stop him. (And he is such a cute kitty) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: You're In?
> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell wrote: > >"...the cellular contents discharged by the > nematocyst > >may be anything from toxins to digestive or lytic > >enzymes. Most of these materials are proteins..." > >--which explains why both acidic and basic > solutions > >would affect these stings: degrading or denaturing > >the protein toxin/enzyme. > Note that my explanation of how ammonia works > specifically mentioned insect > stings in which acid is a major component of the > venom and is a major source of the irritation. Note that I specified "these stings" referring to nematocysts... Debbi Who Could It Be Now? Maru;} __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Cat-astrophe (was: E-mail program questions)
> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >For behaviors/places it isn't workable, I use "The > >Enforcer"a squirt gun filled with water and a > >tiny bit (teaspoon) of white vinegar. > Why the vinegar my dear? Because, dahling, cats (and dogs) do not like the smell or taste, so it is more effective than water alone. Debbi who has had both dogs _and_ cats that liked to play with or in water __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SpamAdaption
> Trent Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nevertheless, radical libertarianism isn't why I > have trouble getting angry at > spammers. I have trouble getting angry at my cat > for scratching the > furniture. I have trouble getting angry at my dog > for barking. Likewise, I > have trouble getting angry at developers for > converting beaches to high rent > developments or at spammers for distributing junk > mail. It is the nature of > the human species, they are greedy. Getting angry > with spammers makes as > much sense as getting angry with waves or the wind. But getting angry IS human nature -- it is a useful emotion when you are confronted by some human who is trying to take your home or your child, and you need to ramp up to combat-readiness. It is not so useful when you are screaming at the stupid umpire on the tube... ;) It is counter-productive when you strike a child/pet/person because you didn't think first about how to resolve the conflict nonviolently. And it is frequently far more self-preserving (and useful) to get angry _and_do_something_about_whatever-it-is_ than to whine or sigh in despair, and do nothing. Debbi Pragmatic Idealism Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow
> Andrew Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Deborah Harrell > > But, as others have said, there really > is a > > terror of the Unknown, and of uncertainty, that > drives > > the desperate need to proclaim that they have a > handle > > on the Absolute Truth. There was an interesting > > discussion on 'why we believe' a ways back -- I > think > > Nick hit on most of the reasons for those of us > > faithful who acknowledge that we don't have > scientific > > proof. And I'll let Dan refer you to his > > discussion(s) of QM and unprovable science etc. > :) > I think was unsubbed for part of that debate. > > Did we conclusively establish that there are things > that are not provable, > Or did we prove that everything is ultimately > provable, if perhaps not quite yet? I think that everyone agreed that there are things we cannot prove now, although they are, to the best of our current knowledge, correct. But there may have been disagreement about whether or not everything is ultimately understandable/provable by the human mind. Debbi Infinity Is Not Merely A Combustion Engine Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Presidential Q&... um ... well ...
Here's a snippet of the president answering questions on Social Security (from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050204-13.html): THE PRESIDENT: Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red. Okay, better? I'll keep working on it. (Laughter.) Q: How do you like these hard questions? THE PRESIDENT: You know. You watch my press conferences? (Laughter.) Please don't encourage him. (Laughter.) -- I swear, if it wasn't so sad, I'd laugh. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraqi Vote (was Re: Live video of ...)
On Wednesday 2005-02-09 12:43, Gary Denton wrote: > With a slow connection I don't do video feeds but am glad they > recognize the sacrifices our troops are making. > > My nephew the Army Ranger is back in Iraq. He was protecting the > vote. He is at Mosul, where they had 10% voter turnout. I was doing a > calculation the other day - it looks like Iraqi voter turnout as > percentage of voting age population was much lower than we might have > heard here. They did not meet the goal of 50%. I guess our so-called > liberal media missed that call. When final results are in I suspect > we will have helped the Iraqis elect their equivalent of the Taliban. > Sioldiers die to do whatever the politicians want, we should have > better men as politicians. At least as good as our soldiers. > > - Gary Denton > Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest The election for the Iraqi interim parliament and constitutional covention was a general national poll, based on party lists, with proportional representation. Arab Shia voted at relatively high rates. Kurds (mostly Sunni) would also have voted as would most of the small minorities (Turkomen and Christians, and others). Lets _assume_ that Kurds and small minorities voted at near the overall median rate for the election. The Arab Sunni, already very touchy about their minority status, to a significant degree boycotted the vote, resulting in participation figures along the lines you quote for Mosul of 10% (Mosul is dominated by Arab Sunni I understand). The Taliban regard themselves as ultra-Sunni from Hanbali-Wahhabi-Deobandi school of Sunni tradition. Those most sympathetic to the Taliban were reactionary Arab Sunnis; just those least likely to vote (and most likely to be rabidly anti-Shia). If Iraq becomes Taliban-like it will NOT be the result of these elections, but due to violence. On the other hand, early results show the biggest winner, and possibly a super-majority in its own right, to be the Shia party most closely tied to the Ayatollahs. Iran (and even more the Iranian model) has considerable influence with this group. Ayatollah Khomeini was a brilliant thinker and was instrumental in comming up with the idea of Wallayit al-Faqih [spelling guaranteed wrong], government by religious jurists. Iran's constitution and regime are one experiment in instantiating this innovative theory of theocratic government. One condition for implementing a wallayit al-faqih is that the overwhelming majority of the population be at least nominally Shia. Thus, the mullahs and ayatollahs imposed wallayit al-faqih on Iran, but Hizbollah did not do so in Lebanon despite their millitary and propagandistic strength. In Iraq about two-thirds of the population are Shia, so even if your caucus supports jurisprudential republican theocracy in the abstract, it might oppose it as an impractical and unjust imposition on a large minority. I am expecting the Iraqi Constitutional Covention to produce something like Iran-Lite, either a watered down Jurisprudential Theocratic Republic with a mixed bench of Shia and Sunni judges and a troika presidency or a liberal republic with lots of theocratic constraints enforced by Islamic jurists. The interesting question will be how ShrubCo reacts to a constitutional document that produces either a theocratic republic (albeit weaker than in Iran), or a federal democratic republic with a strong theocratic judicial branch. The other problem will be how paranoid the virulently anti-Shia principalities in the Gulf react to having a second strong Shia polity as a neighbor. Back around the start of the 20th century, Wahhabi Ikhwan committed massacres of Shia. Wahhabi-Deobandi groups often have hatred of Shia as an article of dogma. This is even more durable than hatred of Americans or Jews, because those hatereds only surface with contact and conflict. With Americans and Jews W-D's could agree to live and let live. Shia are hated as corrupt crypto-polytheist Muslims. Theoretically, Shia must be sought out and purged. So no worries about electing Taliban, worry instead about electing an Ayatollah. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: what happens when they show the movie Free Enterprise
On Feb 9, 2005, at 1:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A.Six Democrats stand up and denounce it. B.Someone notices it's Ron Gulart playing Capt. Kirk. C.Freedom of Information documents reveal, the Dept. of Education mistakenly paid for the movie, thinking it was an educational film. Later, the head of DoE becomes a successful Hollywood producer, from his cabana in the south of Spain. D. Activists begin picketing outside the white house with placards bearing the message, "Free Enterprise NOW!" E. SPAM bogus charity emails written in very poor English begin surfacing, all beginning something like: My dear, Please do not feel sad for me because I believe every show has to be cancelled someday... F. The French government issues a statement denouncing the loss of Free Enterprise just when sanctions were really beginning to work. G. In San Francisco, thousands of people gather for a three-day rock fest called "Artists for Showbiz Security". Mistaking the initials for something else, Rick Santorum publicly denounces the "ASSfest" as a further example of perversity and debauchery. H. At ASSfest, Jolene Blalock has a Wardrobe Malfunction. The internet is shut down by the flood of searches for "Jolene Blalock ASS" and, over the next several days, no digital commerce can proceed. I. The United States economy, already on shaky ground, collapses. J. Bush II blames the failure of the US economy on Clinton and slashes taxes to the wealthy while cutting finances to programs that are mandated but underfunded. K. Everyone packs up and leaves for Canada except die-hard residents in the South. L. The Vulcans, who have been monitoring the events from Saturn's orbit, send an envoy to offer emergency relief. The envoy is met by a crowd of hangers-on in what's left of the US, and are immediately shot on the grounds their presence might compromise White Racial Purity. M. The Vulcans respond by razing half of North America with a particle weapon, leaving much of what was once swampland as a charred and cindered plain. The American Southwest becomes a vast expanse of glass. N. Pat Robertson claims that the only reason the Vulcans were able to do anything at all was because of the prevalence of homosexuality in US society. O. The Defense of Marriage Amendment is passed by what's left of Congress. P. Britney Spears tries to get married, then divorced, in Vegas to an old school chum. Unfortunately the Constitutional amendment had a rider defending marriage, not just from gays and polygamists, but also from *divorce*. In a media circus she surrenders her virginity for the first time ever, really, no kidding. Q. Madonna wants in on the action too, but the Vulcans claim she is illogical and beam her into the sun's core. R. France surrenders. S. Bush II mobilizes what's left of the US population in an attempt to track down the Vulcans, but becomes distracted in a search for Denobulan weapons of mass destruction. The Vulcans are untouched but a cache of more than 50,000 tribbles is found on the far side of the moon. France surrenders again. T. Rick Santorum is caught sodomizing a puppy and, in a fit of shame -- an emotion he has never felt before -- eats his own head. U. The Vulcans vaporize Pat Robertson. V. A tribble is used to prove that Dick Cheney is actually a Klingon, and Bush II is ousted from Washington. W. John McCain is universally hailed as the next President of the Remaining United States. X. Peace descends. Y. William Shatner memorializes everything by doing a VERY bad cover of "By-Bye, Miss American Pie". He is promptly vaporized by the Vulcans. Z. France surrenders. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: what happens when they show the movie Free Enterprise
OK, so what happens when they show the movie Free Enterprise on a cable channel? :) Julia A.Six Democrats stand up and denounce it. B.Someone notices it's Ron Gulart playing Capt. Kirk. C.Freedom of Information documents reveal, the Dept. of Education mistakenly paid for the movie, thinking it was an educational film. Later, the head of DoE becomes a successful Hollywood producer, from his cabana in the south of Spain. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Live video of Texas Legislature Marine recognition
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:15:36 -0800, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday around 10 a.m. Texas time, there will be a live video feed of the > Texas state > legislature honoring our niece's husband, Wes Canning. Chayla will be there > with her parents, Wes' > parents and grandparents. They're passing a resolution and giving the family > the flag that will fly > over the state Capitol that day. > > Go to this page: > > http://www.senate.state.tx.us/bin/live.php > > and I think the video feed will be No. 1, "Senate Chamber." > > As with all things governmental, the exact time this will happen is a bit > unpredictable. > > On Thursday, it will be three months to the day from when Wes was killed in > Fallujah. > > Wes' dad, Joe, told me I should look for him to be wearing a "folded flag" > pin that I sent him. I > wear one like it every day these days. > > Nick With a slow connection I don't do video feeds but am glad they recognize the sacrifices our troops are making. My nephew the Army Ranger is back in Iraq. He was protecting the vote. He is at Mosul, where they had 10% voter turnout. I was doing a calculation the other day - it looks like Iraqi voter turnout as percentage of voting age population was much lower than we might have heard here. They did not meet the goal of 50%. I guess our so-called liberal media missed that call. When final results are in I suspect we will have helped the Iraqis elect their equivalent of the Taliban. Sioldiers die to do whatever the politicians want, we should have better men as politicians. At least as good as our soldiers. - Gary Denton Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - I think Brin was on to something in 'Earth' in suggesting the right to vote be dependent upon subscribing to some opposing viewpoint media. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, "The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up." -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "This message was sent automatically using cron. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life
Dave Land wrote: It's as if they are saying "We have to destroy our faith in order to save you." It seems to be closely related to the focus on "ownership" v. "stewardship." Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: NASA envisions Mars warmed up for life
On Feb 8, 2005, at 6:08 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:59 AM, Dave Land wrote: Warren, On Feb 7, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 6, 2005, at 10:46 PM, David Land wrote: And why not? "Left Behind"-reading, Biblical-literalist eco-terrorists are plotting the demise of Earth in order to force God's hand and bring about the end of days anyway. Oh? Have you heard some news of which I'm unaware? I'm reasonably sure that this has been discussed on the list, but here's (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004/10/27/scherer-christian/) an article that discusses the topic. Mm. But that's not on par with literally being eco-terrorists with an anti-preservation agenda... OK, so maybe the term "eco-terrorists" is a bit over the top. Nonetheless, I boggle at the fact that there are self-proclaimed Bible-loving Christians in positions of power whose interpretation of the Scripture is so out of bounds that it threatens not only life on Earth, but makes it possible -- even likely -- that millions will relegate their beloved book to the same pile that holds the gods of Olympus. It's as if they are saying "We have to destroy our faith in order to save you." Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
