Re: coming episode...uh... three?
At 12:30 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: No, no- I'm pretty sure it was 'nutmeg'; everyone knows that the psychedelic effects of cinnamon is debatable and probably null. I don't know what you mean by 'nutmeg'. But the hallucinogenic effects of the highly prized cloves of nutmeg are well known since the Middle Ages. Hmm. Coincidence? Do you think it's coincidence that cinnamon existed in the middle ages? Of course it isn't. Please pay attention. The signal to noise ratio is too high. I see the greatest minds of our list destroyed by madness. You realize what that says about those of us who are left, don't you? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay men respond like women to pheromones
Ronn!Blankenship quoted: snip Researchers interpreted that to mean that humans, as they evolved to rel on sight more than smell, had no need of the primitive cues that pass for sexual attractiveness in mice. But a role for human pheromones could not be ruled out, especially in light of findings that women living or working together tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles. I have long wondered about the drivers for this. Why is it a good idea, in an evolutionary or even social sense, for menstrual cycles to be synchronized. I know lots of primates do it, I am curious if it is a hangover, or if it is still a useful thing. Gay men have fewer children, meaning that in Darwinian terms, any genetic variant that promotes homosexuality should be quickly eliminated from the population. Dr. Hamer believes that such genes may nevertheless persist because, although in men they reduce the number of descendants, in women they act to increase fertility. Please explain Dr Hamer. Women with gay genes are more fertile? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Self Sacrificing Exploding Lesbian Horny Toads
HEADLINE: Birds May Be Behind Exploding German Toads This was too good (or maybe too stupid) to pass up.. Self sacrificing toads? Crows pecking out livers? Gheeessseee. I think that alien mutilation is just about as likely as either of the other explanations :-) Or maybe it's a military or terrorists experiment to train toads to be suicide bombers? In my semi-sleep deprived loopy condition, I have visions of these toads screaming Semper Fi or Praise Allah just before they explode themselves. Next thing you know, Homeland Security will ban all travelers from flying with their pet toads. (insert mental picture here of terrorist threatening entire plane with his exploding toad) By the way, the Subject line is a homage to a Richard Jeni bit where he talks about the giant electrified hornytoad exploding bad-smelling sabertooth lesbian bulimic squid. It seemed very fitting. Ok, I'm done Gary Sleep Deprived Maru Birds May Be Behind Exploding German Toads BERLIN Apr 28, 2005 - Why are toads puffing up and spontaneously exploding in northern Europe? It began in a posh German neighborhood and has spread across the border into Denmark. It's left onlookers baffled, but one German scientist studying the splattered amphibian remains now has a theory: Hungry crows may be pecking out their livers. Other theories have been that horses on a nearby track infected them with a virus, or even that the toads are taking the selfless way out sacrificing themselves by suicide to save others from overpopulation. Complete silly story http://tinyurl.com/7jtf2 http://makeashorterlink.com/?B22F52C0B http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=712103 If you can't stand the heat, don't tickle the dragon. (or in this case, the exploding toads) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gay men respond like women to pheromones
I have long wondered about the drivers for this. Why is it a good idea, in an evolutionary or even social sense, for menstrual cycles to be synchronized. I know lots of primates do it, I am curious if it is a hangover, or if it is still a useful thing. It was God's gift to men that have to live with multiple women in the house: get the cycles all over at once so the poor man doesn't have to live a constant life of 24/7/365 of PMS and women with hairpin triggers. Gary Still sleep deprived Maru __ If you can't stand the heat, don't tickle the dragon. (especially if it has PMS) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: coming episode...uh... three?
On May 9, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:30 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: No, no- I'm pretty sure it was 'nutmeg'; everyone knows that the psychedelic effects of cinnamon is debatable and probably null. I don't know what you mean by 'nutmeg'. But the hallucinogenic effects of the highly prized cloves of nutmeg are well known since the Middle Ages. Hmm. Coincidence? Do you think it's coincidence that cinnamon existed in the middle ages? Of course it isn't. Please pay attention. The signal to noise ratio is too high. I see the greatest minds of our list destroyed by madness. You realize what that says about those of us who are left, don't you? Either you flatter yourself by including yourself among the greatest minds and experience discomfort of being destroyed by madness or you do not consider yourself one of the greatest minds to begin with. I'm glad that we can have fun with this recent spate of slam-posting. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: coming episode...uh... three?
At 11:27 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:30 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: No, no- I'm pretty sure it was 'nutmeg'; everyone knows that the psychedelic effects of cinnamon is debatable and probably null. I don't know what you mean by 'nutmeg'. But the hallucinogenic effects of the highly prized cloves of nutmeg are well known since the Middle Ages. Hmm. Coincidence? Do you think it's coincidence that cinnamon existed in the middle ages? Of course it isn't. Please pay attention. The signal to noise ratio is too high. I see the greatest minds of our list destroyed by madness. You realize what that says about those of us who are left, don't you? Either you flatter yourself by including yourself among the greatest minds and experience discomfort of being destroyed by madness or you do not consider yourself one of the greatest minds to begin with. I actually meant that regardless of which category I personally consider myself to belong to, those do seem to be the only categories available to choose from . . . I'm glad that we can have fun with this recent spate of slam-posting. Amen. That's how it should always be. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gay men respond like women to pheromones
On May 10, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Andrew Paul wrote: Ronn!Blankenship quoted: Gay men have fewer children, meaning that in Darwinian terms, any genetic variant that promotes homosexuality should be quickly eliminated from the population. Dr. Hamer believes that such genes may nevertheless persist because, although in men they reduce the number of descendants, in women they act to increase fertility. Please explain Dr Hamer. Women with gay genes are more fertile? I came across an interesting piece of research -- a finding actually -- about six months ago that led to that conclusion, basically. The idea was that women who were more sexually active tended to have sons of homosexual persuasion. I have no idea how much following up the finding's had, and can't seem to Google up the ref now, and hell if I can even remember where I found the story in the first place. For all I know this Dr. Hammer character is the one who did that other research! This is the important part of the article, I think: Alternatively, Dr. Savic's finding could be just a consequence of straight and gay men's using their brain in different ways. We cannot tell if the different pattern is cause or effect, Dr. Savic said. The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions. Unfortunately it's easy to overlook this significant disclaimer in the midst of all the conclusive noise. -- 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: US riches, actual and hypothetical
I will add a few links putting this back on track with Dem and GOP economic policies and economic performances under GOP presidents. Dr. Larry Bartel of Princeton has just recently completed a paper on income inequality by president. He looked at income growth by income quintile. Unless you are in the top 20% you should really want a Democratic president. http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf Kevin Drum echoes my conclusions: Conservatives drive up income inequality because they focus primarily on the well off, which benefits only the well off. Liberals keep income inequality in check because they focus (or *should* focus) primarily on the working and middle classes, which benefits everyone. And *that's*the underlying reason that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republican presidents. If you keep the unemployment level low and middle class incomes growing, the rest of the economy will pretty much take care of itself. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006286.php The results are simple: Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations. Skeptics offer two arguments: first, that presidents don't control the economy; second, that there are too few data points to draw any firm conclusions. Neither argument is convincing. It's true that presidents don't control the economy, but they *do* influence it as everyone tacitly acknowledges by fighting like crazed banshees over every facet of fiscal policy ever offered up by a president. The second argument doesn't hold water either. The dataset that delivers these results now covers more than 50 years, 10 administrations, and half a dozen different measures. That's a fair amount of data, and the results are awesomely consistent: Democrats do better no matter what you measure, how you measure it, or how you fiddle with the data. Kevin also presents the most unusual finding - the GOP finally gets an economic act together only in election years. The income for all classes improves during the GOP election years even if more for the top 20%. In non-election years the Democrats clearly have better growth. But it is time to get re-elected and the GOP finally remembers that voters vote their pocketbooks. So a question might be what is happening to the Democratic growth engine when they really need it? Bartels doesn't essay an explanation for this. Do Republican presidents deliberately try to time economic growth spurts and are Democratic presidents too lame to do the same? Is it just luck? Or is the difference somehow inherent in the different ways that Democrats and Republicans approach the economy (with Democrats typically focusing on employment and Republicans on inflation)? At this point, your guess is as good as anyone's. Bottom line: if you're well off, vote for Republicans. But if you make less than $150,000 a year, Republicans are your friends only one year in four. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php This follows Kinsley's reporting a month ago on the Dems being more GOP than the GOP. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kinsley3apr03,0,6929691.column?coll=la-util-op-ed The stock market also prefers Democrats to Republicans. http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=2071929 -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Co-dependency
- Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 3:11 AM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 10:26 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Keith Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Co-dependency At 09:37 PM 01/05/05 -0500, Dan Minette wrote: snip With all due respect, Keith, how familiar are you with the literature on abusers returning to their spouse? I understand why you want to explain everything in terms of evolutionary psychology, but I tend to be biased more towards experimental studies than broad theoretical statements. I was rather up on this area of study a few years ago. Are you aware of any studies that don't support this EP model? Sure. There are a number of things that don't support this. First, there is a pattern of repeatedly finding spouses that are abusive. After divorcing an abusive spouse, an abused woman is more likely than the average woman to find another abuser. With the Stockhome syndrome, getting the woman out of the position where the man has power over her should lead to as low a level of still supporting the kidnapper months after being freed. Are there instances of them asking to be reunited with the kidnappers months after they are free? This happens quite frequently with abusers. I think that family dynamics and a co-dependant family of origin are much better explainations for this behavior. Have you read the original story of the bank robbery where the syndrome got its name? Indeed, one of the women broke her engagement and tried to marry one of the bank robbers. OK, there are instances, so the event rate isn't zero. But, if we look at a number of places where the syndrome is said to take place, such as in concentration camps, hijackings, prisons, I don't think we would see it anywhere near as prevalant as we do with battered spouses. About half of the battered spouses return to the abuser as they leave the shelter. Incidentally, none of your examples provides an alternate theory of how such psychological traits evolved. Co-dependant just does not have biological/evolutionary roots where you can understand the origin of the behavior. Well, it depends on what you you want. If you start with the idea that you must explain everything by expressing it in terms of the behavior of proto-humans as they evolve into humans, and how certain traits were genetically selected for, then no. But, that isn't science. Science simply provides models and predictions for observables. It does not require that biology make intuative sense when one is thinking about electromagnetic potential. It's not that there isn't a tie; it's that it is complex enough so simple general rules of thumb obtained at the atomic level need not apply at the level of organisms. If you want an explaination in terms of biologically selected traits; I think the answer is fairly simple, but it leads to complex systems. Humans have been selected for a tremendous ability to learn and adapt. In particular, humans learn a great deal during their childhood. If this were right, family of origin issues are crucial when understanding human behavior. And, we find this is true, that almost everyone's behavior, especially in their own initmate surroundings, is tied to the norm of their family of origin. Evolutionary psychology, by considering the environment of primitive people where women were captured back and forth between tribes for millions of years cleanly accounts for capture-bonding as an essential survival trait. That is speculation. We don't know what proto-human societies were like. We have some extremely limited knowledge of present day hunter-gatherer societies (but those societies are so small, it's hard to understand if they are anomolies or normative. Native American societies might have provides some examples, but since there were a wide range of types of societies in North America (including farmer/hunter hybrids) and since vast organized civilizations had existed here, and since good studies were not done before the societies were changed through interaction with Europeans, we can only gather some information here. In terms of Western European society, the furthest back that I can see, in terms of the development from pre-humans to human hunter/gatherer to nomad/animal herders to agricultural civilizations the rules of the second society given in contrast to what may have applied to the first society. As a result, the nature of older societies is somewhat of a blank slate...and people tend to put on it what they expect; not what the data lead them to believe. Going back in history, we can piece together a good deal about the nature of Greek and Roman societies. We can gain a great deal of understanding about the
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical At 10:16 AM 5/5/2005 -0400, Bob Chassell wrote: His hypothesis is ... the political party with the Presidency would probably be somewhere just above sunspot activity ... Clearly, it is wrong. I think it is clearly nothing of the sort. The very premise of the analysis is too badly flawed to be at all usefull. And again, I note that there is no theoretical model to support the proposed conclusions. Put another way, Dan is right when he suggests that the economic policy of an administration is meaningful. I don't think that I disagreed that the economic policy of a Presidency is meaningful. Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. False. The Presidency does not change Party every four years. The political cycle is thus irregular. Moreover, since 1953 there have been nine recessions. Yours and Dan's analysis would ascribe 8 of those recessions to Republican Presidencies. Would you then, be happy with a comparison from 1920 to 1952? the number of recessions slightly favor the Republicans over that time. Also, I can do a rigorous stochastic analysis of the year to year, two year to two year correlations, (and others you suggest) in order to see if your idea that one year's growth is strongly correlated to the previous years is valid. But, I don't want to take the time to do it, if you know you will dismiss results that contradict your viewpoint out of hand Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
Replying now 'cause I'm still about 600 posts behind- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Agreed, but if one is going to claim _moral_ justification in pursuing war, one had better ensure that citizens and foreign states will agree with one's assertions. Otherwise, they will eventually discover that such claims were, at best, misreprentation of the actual situation. And that destroys the credibility of that government. As others have pointed out, there is no reason why any of the above should be true. As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles pointed at your capital. For example, Deborah, you have suggested that the US should be doing more in Sudan. The rest of the world believes that the US should *not* intervene militarily to protect the Darfuris.If Bush were to advocate such an intervention, would the morality of this intervention be based upon the opinion of the rest of the world? As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action WRT Darfur, which is laudable. From what I've learned, it is not possible for the US alone to intervene there militarily, as our forces are stretched too far elsewhere. Getting ANC (?) countries to be major participants in such an intervention would probably be morally better than going it alone, as it shows respect for and confidence in their abillity to police their own continent. But because the Rwanda massecres (sp!!) happened so quickly, sole intervention then would have been justifiable to me. Debbi who hopes to catch up on her email this week...but won't be holding her breath! :) __ 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: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons Replying now 'cause I'm still about 600 posts behind- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: Agreed, but if one is going to claim _moral_ justification in pursuing war, one had better ensure that citizens and foreign states will agree with one's assertions. Otherwise, they will eventually discover that such claims were, at best, misreprentation of the actual situation. And that destroys the credibility of that government. As others have pointed out, there is no reason why any of the above should be true. As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles pointed at your capital. For example, Deborah, you have suggested that the US should be doing more in Sudan. The rest of the world believes that the US should *not* intervene militarily to protect the Darfuris.If Bush were to advocate such an intervention, would the morality of this intervention be based upon the opinion of the rest of the world? As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action WRT Darfur, which is laudable. From what I've learned, it is not possible for the US alone to intervene there militarily, as our forces are stretched too far elsewhere. Getting ANC (?) countries to be major participants in such an intervention would probably be morally better than going it alone, as it shows respect for and confidence in their abillity to police their own continent. But because the Rwanda massecres (sp!!) happened so quickly, sole intervention then would have been justifiable to me. But, AFAIK the African intervention is illegal, because it is not approved by the UN. Three veto powers have a sigificant financial involvement with the genocidal government, so it is _very_ unlikely that any UN intervention will be approved. NATO has been asked to help with logistics, and France is arguing against saying yesas one might expect. If France can stop NATO from helping, the US will have to go alone in providing help. As far as needed other countries because the US is stretched thin, my understanding is that the main non-African country that could help would be Great Britain. As far as I can tell, the Africans are sort of a trip wire, but would be hard pressed to fight the government of Sudan straight up. With logistical help, that may be enough. If not, the only chance they have might be a credible threat from the US. In short, it seems to me that moral arguments have, to first order, zero weight at the UN, and little weight with some traditional allies, such as France. Persuading other countries that action is morally required doesn't appear to be effective in this type of environment. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles pointed at your capital. Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment to other people - people who have an interest in acting in an immoral fashion. All of the arguments you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact. We have many, many examples of different ways in which the countries whose sanctions you advocate us seeking have showed that moral concerns have little or no claim on their stated beliefs. Ignoring that fact doesn't make it less true. As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action WRT Darfur, which is laudable. From what I've learned, it is not possible for the US alone to intervene there militarily, as our forces are stretched too far elsewhere. Getting ANC (?) countries to be major participants in such an intervention would probably be morally better than going it alone, as it shows respect for and confidence in their abillity to police their own continent. But because the Rwanda massecres (sp!!) happened so quickly, sole intervention then would have been justifiable to me. Debbi But, in fact, whether or not our forces were stretched thin, other countries won't really be helping much, because they don't have the military capacity to engage in a wholesale intervention. The complete collapse of deployable European/Japanese military capacity since the end of WW2 has been one of the untold, and most interesting, stories of international politics. Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is good, but their intervention has been illegal and unapproved by the UN. You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. You _cannot_ do both. They are fundamentally inconsistent positions. The French government, which has veto power in the UN, _aided_ in the Rwandan genocide and denies that there is a genocide happening in the Sudan. As long as they do that, UN approval is impossible, therefore legal intervention is impossible. You can either stand on international law or on the necessity of humanitarian intervention. You cannot do both. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: News From the /Other/ United States
Dave Land wrote: Here's a new holiday that probably wouldn't fly in the country that calls itself America, from a country that calls itself the United States: Brazilian Town Declares Orgasm Day ??? You mean United States of Brazil??? This is not the country's name. We are the Republica Federativa do Brasil or Federated Republic of Brazil Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: coming episode...uh... three?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:27 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:30 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote: No, no- I'm pretty sure it was 'nutmeg'; everyone knows that the psychedelic effects of cinnamon is debatable and probably null. I don't know what you mean by 'nutmeg'. But the hallucinogenic effects of the highly prized cloves of nutmeg are well known since the Middle Ages. Hmm. Coincidence? Do you think it's coincidence that cinnamon existed in the middle ages? Of course it isn't. Please pay attention. The signal to noise ratio is too high. I see the greatest minds of our list destroyed by madness. You realize what that says about those of us who are left, don't you? Either you flatter yourself by including yourself among the greatest minds and experience discomfort of being destroyed by madness or you do not consider yourself one of the greatest minds to begin with. I actually meant that regardless of which category I personally consider myself to belong to, those do seem to be the only categories available to choose from . . . I'm glad that we can have fun with this recent spate of slam-posting. Amen. That's how it should always be. I occurs to me that this is how Brin-L was when I first joined, many years ago. That...is a cheerful thought.G xponent Enduring Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: News From the /Other/ United States
In a message dated 5/10/2005 3:12:40 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Brazilian Town Declares Orgasm Day How did they declare it? Anyone who wants an 'Orgasm Day,' raise your hand. And lower it. And raise it. And lower it. And raise it. And Old Not the Nine O'clock News routine. (Slightly changed.) Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: coming episode...uh... three?
On 5/10/05, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:27 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 11:52 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:30 AM Tuesday 5/10/2005, Dave Land wrote: On May 9, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I don't know what you mean by 'nutmeg'. But the hallucinogenic effects of the highly prized cloves of nutmeg are well known since the Middle Ages. Hmm. Coincidence? Do you think it's coincidence that cinnamon existed in the middle ages? Of course it isn't. Please pay attention. The signal to noise ratio is too high. I see the greatest minds of our list destroyed by madness. You realize what that says about those of us who are left, don't you? Either you flatter yourself by including yourself among the greatest minds and experience discomfort of being destroyed by madness or you do not consider yourself one of the greatest minds to begin with. I actually meant that regardless of which category I personally consider myself to belong to, those do seem to be the only categories available to choose from . . . I'm glad that we can have fun with this recent spate of slam-posting. Amen. That's how it should always be. I occurs to me that this is how Brin-L was when I first joined, many years ago. That...is a cheerful thought.G xponent Enduring Maru rob I...sense a presence I haven't felt in a long time. ~Maru Your lack of service disturbs me.Get MCI today ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: NYT: Gay men respond like women to pheromones
I snipped everything but the good part. Shag the context. From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Brin-L brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: NYT: Gay men respond like women to pheromones Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 00:25:13 -0500 Gay men have fewer children I don't really have anything substantive to say (some would accept that as a confession!), except of course that this is extremely funny if misquoted properly. And in my mind it doesn't seem to come across any other way. -Twavis _ MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling get-togethers. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: News From the /Other/ United States
On May 10, 2005, at 8:19 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dave Land wrote: Here's a new holiday that probably wouldn't fly in the country that calls itself America, from a country that calls itself the United States: Brazilian Town Declares Orgasm Day ??? You mean United States of Brazil??? This is not the country's name. We are the Republica Federativa do Brasil or Federated Republic of Brazil Thanks, Alberto. /Was/ that ever its name? Wherever did I get that crazy idea, I wonder. PS: I noticed that the holiday does not specify the number or the gender distribution of parties engaged in the celebration. Perhaps what Brazil needs is a Defense of Orgasm Act that defines an orgasm as being an act involving exactly two persons with exactly three X chromosomes between them. Of course, under the Brazilians with Disabilities Act, a gay male couple, one of whom has Klinefelter's syndrome, or a lesbian couple, one of whom has Turner's syndrome would be perfectly welcome to enjoy the benefits of this new holiday. Dave Font of Misinformation Land ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment to other people - people who have an interest in acting in an immoral fashion. Oh, baloney. Your generalization deserves no more intelligent refutation than that. You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic intervention by businesses and much more. Reducing such issues to either-or choices doesn't feed hungry people. Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? We end up distracting ourselves from the real issues of poor and oppressed people with ideological arguments, trying to settle whether or not a conservative or liberal strategy is right. The problem is the argument is wrong. How about if we use this list to brainstorm new approaches, since the old choices are both failing? What could private businesses do? What NGOs could we support that would alleviate some of the trouble? How about a faith-based initiative! What other ways are there to intervene? I don't have any problem ignoring the UN if it is paralyzed by ideological arguments. But that doesn't automatically mean we go it alone. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: News From the /Other/ United States
On May 10, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Dave Land wrote: PS: I noticed that the holiday does not specify the number or the gender distribution of parties engaged in the celebration. That's because Brazil is comfortable with its sexuality, of course. It's not a nation overrun with people who had experiences with one another at boy scout camps, and who are forever after sure that, deep down inside, they're all faggitz, and must therefore do everything in their power to throw off their own desires. And, of course, the more the merrier. ;) -- 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: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons On Tue, 10 May 2005 14:26:32 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. And myriad possibilities in between, as well as assistance to NGOs, economic intervention by businesses and much more. Reducing such issues to either-or choices doesn't feed hungry people. Nick, everything I know from Africa indicates that getting the food to Africa to feed hungry people is relatively easy. It's getting the food past the guys with guns who see benefit in people starving to death that's the problem. I've seen interviews with the heads of relief efforts in Africa talking about their frustration with this. Neli's best friend is a niece of one of the leaders of the people in Danfur...the ones being attacked. Would you consider her references authorative, or would you still insist that the guys with the guns are not the main problem? Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? Imagination is fine, but by itself it does not create energy, it does not feed people. All things are not possible for humans. We end up distracting ourselves from the real issues of poor and oppressed people with ideological arguments, trying to settle whether or not a conservative or liberal strategy is right. The problem is the argument is wrong. How about if we use this list to brainstorm new approaches, since the old choices are both failing? I see an approach that has worked before, but I know a number of countries are against it because it's opposed to their ecconomic self interests. It is clear to me that the next step for us is to provide any support the African peacekeepers need to do their work. We should ask other countries for their support, but we should not withold the help if others are opposed to it. If the peacekeepers are attacked or theatened. , we need to defend them. That seems fairly straightfoward to me. Waiting for other creative solutions, as we did for years. As far as a long term solution goes, Neli and I have had a running conversation on that. She plans on being part of the solution, and we're doing what we can to be supportive. But, we know that we need to address immediate needs like Danfer and Rwanda with immediate action, not more discussions. I don't have any problem ignoring the UN if it is paralyzed by ideological arguments. But that doesn't automatically mean we go it alone. It depends on the power France has within NATO. If they can prevail, NATO won't help. A coalition of the willing is the most that could be expected then. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On May 10, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: But, in fact, whether or not our forces were stretched thin, other countries won't really be helping much, because they don't have the military capacity to engage in a wholesale intervention. Or, apparently, the desire, for whatever political reasons might be expedient at any given time in a given situation. The complete collapse of deployable European/Japanese military capacity since the end of WW2 has been one of the untold, and most interesting, stories of international politics. That is an interesting thing to highlight. In some ways it can be seen as good -- lots less risk of internecine warfare -- but obviously there are situations where a European military presence might be desirable. Any of this due to the old cold war era? (Japan and Germany are relics of WWII, of course; I'm thinking more of nations that maybe didn't feel a need to have a large military since their countries had US bases in them.) Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is good, but their intervention has been illegal and unapproved by the UN. You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. You _cannot_ do both. They are fundamentally inconsistent positions. The French government, which has veto power in the UN, _aided_ in the Rwandan genocide and denies that there is a genocide happening in the Sudan. As long as they do that, UN approval is impossible, therefore legal intervention is impossible. You can either stand on international law or on the necessity of humanitarian intervention. You cannot do both. I think I see where you're leading with this, but there's a big difference between immediate pressing need -- genocide happening now -- and something considerably more vague -- oh, maybe there's nastiness afoot, we don't know, and oh by the way this guy did genocide, um, a decade ago -- which makes it difficult to support a suggested parallel between an illegal action in Rwanda and an illegal action in Iraq. There are too many extenuating circumstances to imply that supporting *one* illegal action suggests that anyone should support *all* of them or be a hypocrite. -- 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: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons On May 10, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: But, in fact, whether or not our forces were stretched thin, other countries won't really be helping much, because they don't have the military capacity to engage in a wholesale intervention. Or, apparently, the desire, for whatever political reasons might be expedient at any given time in a given situation. The complete collapse of deployable European/Japanese military capacity since the end of WW2 has been one of the untold, and most interesting, stories of international politics. That is an interesting thing to highlight. In some ways it can be seen as good -- lots less risk of internecine warfare -- but obviously there are situations where a European military presence might be desirable. Any of this due to the old cold war era? (Japan and Germany are relics of WWII, of course; I'm thinking more of nations that maybe didn't feel a need to have a large military since their countries had US bases in them.) Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is good, but their intervention has been illegal and unapproved by the UN. You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. You _cannot_ do both. They are fundamentally inconsistent positions. The French government, which has veto power in the UN, _aided_ in the Rwandan genocide and denies that there is a genocide happening in the Sudan. As long as they do that, UN approval is impossible, therefore legal intervention is impossible. You can either stand on international law or on the necessity of humanitarian intervention. You cannot do both. I think I see where you're leading with this, but there's a big difference between immediate pressing need -- genocide happening now -- and something considerably more vague -- oh, maybe there's nastiness afoot, we don't know, and oh by the way this guy did genocide, um, a decade ago -- which makes it difficult to support a suggested parallel between an illegal action in Rwanda and an illegal action in Iraq. It seems that you are arguing that situations like these need to be evaluated on a case to case basis. If so, I concur. If not, I won't agree or disagree until I figure out what you mean. :-) There are too many extenuating circumstances to imply that supporting *one* illegal action suggests that anyone should support *all* of them or be a hypocrite. Agreed. But, I think a case can be made that it's against international law becomes a much weaker argument against a proposed action in light of the examples Gautam gave. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles pointed at your capital. Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment to other people - people who have an interest in acting in an immoral fashion. All of the arguments you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact. We have many, many examples of different ways in which the countries whose sanctions you advocate us seeking have showed that moral concerns have little or no claim on their stated beliefs. Gautam, why is it that only other countries have self-interested agendas? Is it possible that now and then, America does too? I think it is, and that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second opinion. If however, the USA's every thought and deed is always based purely in their moral concerns, and these morals and ethics are always unimpeachable (if such a concept were even possible), then you are of course absolutely right. Perhaps that is what you believe. I don't know. I like America, but I don't think it is perfect. As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action WRT Darfur, which is laudable. From what I've learned, it is not possible for the US alone to intervene there militarily, as our forces are stretched too far elsewhere. To use an argument style that really peed me off, does this inability to intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out in Iraq, mean that support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit approval of the slaughter in Darfur? I Was Shocked Too Maru Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What's Your Seduction Style?
http://www.blogthings.com/seducerquiz/ Mine: Your Seduction Style: Ideal Lover You seduce people by tapping into their dreams and desires. And because of this sensitivity, you can be the ideal lover for anyone you seek. You are a shapeshifter - bringing romance, adventure, spirituality to relationships. It all depends on who your with, and what their vision of a perfect relationship is. xponent Does this Mean I'm A Scumbag? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On May 10, 2005, at 7:05 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: 'As others have pointed out, he _is_ calling for action WRT Darfur, which is laudable. From what I've learned, it is not possible for the US alone to intervene there militarily, as our forces are stretched too far elsewhere. To use an argument style that really peed me off, does this inability to intervene in Darfur because the US is stretched out in Iraq, mean that support for the Iraq war is functionally, tacit approval of the slaughter in Darfur? Following your (admittedly regrettable) logic, the fact that the US is stretched out in Iraq amounts to tacit approval of pretty much any horror that might come along. Assuming that the decision to act in Iraq was made rationally, the decision must have taken into consideration the fact that any number of situations might arise (and might have been already brewing) where the US would not be able to intervene. Bets are placed and dice are rolled. On the topic of the US being stretched out in Iraq, my 8-year-old son was brought to tears last night by the list of items being requested by soldiers through www.operationshoebox.com -- his school is gathering toiletries, snacks, games, and other items to send to our soldiers in Iraq. What moved him was the sad simplicity of the items being requested: plastic spoons, tooth brushes, sun screen... His heart was broken to think about the soldiers having to beg for such basic stuff. I was reminded of the bumper sticker that reads, It will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber. It's painfully ironic that we have arrived at that day, but it seems that there is plenty of money for bombers, but the poor soldiers have to beg grade-schoolers for chewing gum and nail clippers. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: Re: more neocons
At 12:05 PM 5/11/2005 +1000, you wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Nick (I think) noted already, a 'moral imperative' should be essentially unimpeachable, because it is a softer reason than, say, the other guy has missiles pointed at your capital. Yeah, but his argument didn't make any sense, because it was just a wholesale abrogation of moral judgment to other people - people who have an interest in acting in an immoral fashion. All of the arguments you and he make _completely ignore_ that fact. We have many, many examples of different ways in which the countries whose sanctions you advocate us seeking have showed that moral concerns have little or no claim on their stated beliefs. Gautam, why is it that only other countries have self-interested agendas? Is it possible that now and then, America does too? I think it is, and that's why I think it is worthwhile getting a second opinion. I don't know that Gautam has ever denied this. Indeed, he has explicitly made arguments referring to this - such as when he previously suggested that the War in Iraq was an instance in which America's self-interest and the selfless morally right thing coincided. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:36:04 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? Imagination is fine, but by itself it does not create energy, it does not feed people. All things are not possible for humans. Wrong. It does solve problems. Without imagination to see that there's something to do other than fight about ideology, we're doomed. Waiting for other creative solutions, as we did for years. I didn't advocate that the whole world wait to see what we come up with on Brin-L. I just don't see that ideological arguing here or anywhere else is doing anything more than distract people from finding real solutions, while draining our budgets of time and money, making real solutions even harder to accomplish. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:33:55 -0700, Dave Land wrote I was reminded of the bumper sticker that reads, It will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy a bomber. It's painfully ironic that we have arrived at that day, but it seems that there is plenty of money for bombers, but the poor soldiers have to beg grade-schoolers for chewing gum and nail clippers. Another bit of bumper-sticker wisdom: if you can't take care of the veterans, don't start any wars. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US riches, actual and hypothetical
At 03:26 PM 5/10/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: Presumably, over an 80 year time period, economic cycles would get out of sync with political cycles, which come every four years *exactly*. False. The Presidency does not change Party every four years. The political cycle is thus irregular. Moreover, since 1953 there have been nine recessions. Yours and Dan's analysis would ascribe 8 of those recessions to Republican Presidencies. Would you then, be happy with a comparison from 1920 to 1952? the number of recessions slightly favor the Republicans over that time. I think that you are responding to the point rather than the big picture. Honestly, I don't find any analyses of the type you are proposing to be at all particularly interesting. Indeed, I personally think that it is fundamentally unsound. In the above case, I was simply using a particular example to demonstrate this unsoundness. Addressing the single point, however, does not change the fundamental unsoundness. I've debated with myself as to whether or not you would take the above analysis seriously, or if you are just yanking my chain by being intentionally absurd. I'm going to presume that you are being serious, and so if I make a fool of myself by arguing against intentional absurdity then so be it. Maybe I should try to enumerate my objections in no particular order: 1) the analysis relies upon inherently small sample sizes. The revised analysis you propose would have a sample size of a single political cycle 2) economic growth is much more strongly determined by exogenous factors than the Party in the Presidency 3) the analysis makes no reference to actual policies, but instead only refers to arbitrary Party labels 4) the economic growth in one year is correlated to the economic growth in the previous year Moreover, even if economic growth were completely independent of the Party in the Presidency, if voters perceived the two to be correlated, this could create a de facto correlation. For example, a President who happened to be up for re-election in times of economic growth would be more likely to be re-elected Also, I can do a rigorous stochastic analysis of the year to year, two year to two year correlations, (and others you suggest) in order to see if your idea that one year's growth is strongly correlated to the previous years is valid. But, I don't want to take the time to do it, if you know you will dismiss results that contradict your viewpoint out of hand I'm very open to whatever data you care to submit. I'll admit that since the analsyis is being on %change, I might be surprised, and you might conclude that they data series is independent. Again, however, I think that you would be missing the big picture in your zeal to respond to the individual points. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:36:04 -0500, Dan Minette wrote Do we have so little imagination that these are the only choices? Imagination is fine, but by itself it does not create energy, it does not feed people. All things are not possible for humans. Wrong. It does solve problems. Without imagination to see that there's something to do other than fight about ideology, we're doomed. If these are just ideological fights, then how can folks like Gautam and Neli find so much common ground and find agreement on many issues? They come from vastly different ideological backgrounds, yet see a lot of common ground. Both of them do believe in practical solutions. I'm sorta in the middle of them, politically, but all three of us have a lot in common. Asking practical questions is not fighting about ideology. Looking at past events is not ideology. Gautam, Neli and I do not have the same ideologyexcept that we believe in truth, we believe that the proof is in the pudding. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On May 10, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] On May 10, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Anyways, yes, getting them to intervene is good, but their intervention has been illegal and unapproved by the UN. You can be in favor of intervention to stop genocide in Rwanda/Darfur _or_ you can say that intervention on moral principles is contingent on international consensus. You _cannot_ do both. They are fundamentally inconsistent positions. The French government, which has veto power in the UN, _aided_ in the Rwandan genocide and denies that there is a genocide happening in the Sudan. As long as they do that, UN approval is impossible, therefore legal intervention is impossible. You can either stand on international law or on the necessity of humanitarian intervention. You cannot do both. I think I see where you're leading with this, but there's a big difference between immediate pressing need -- genocide happening now -- and something considerably more vague -- oh, maybe there's nastiness afoot, we don't know, and oh by the way this guy did genocide, um, a decade ago -- which makes it difficult to support a suggested parallel between an illegal action in Rwanda and an illegal action in Iraq. It seems that you are arguing that situations like these need to be evaluated on a case to case basis. Yep. There are too many extenuating circumstances to imply that supporting *one* illegal action suggests that anyone should support *all* of them or be a hypocrite. Agreed. But, I think a case can be made that it's against international law becomes a much weaker argument against a proposed action in light of the examples Gautam gave. Sure it can; if the only argument against an action is that it's against international law, then the argument isn't very sound. -- 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: Br!n: Re: more neocons
On May 10, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Dave Land wrote: On the topic of the US being stretched out in Iraq, my 8-year-old son was brought to tears last night by the list of items being requested by soldiers through www.operationshoebox.com -- his school is gathering toiletries, snacks, games, and other items to send to our soldiers in Iraq. What moved him was the sad simplicity of the items being requested: plastic spoons, tooth brushes, sun screen... His heart was broken to think about the soldiers having to beg for such basic stuff. Yes. It's disgusting. Everything about Iraq was wrong. From the beginning the hollow, pathetic justifications for an attack were wrong. The way the Bush admin went about the attack was wrong. The way democracy is being brought about is wrong -- it's just another bigger power forcing another type of government on the people, after all. The way the target was changed from bin Laden to Hussein was wrong. The way admin faces keep trying to spin the ongoing war is wrong. The way soldiers are treated is wrong. The way the grunts are taking the fall for scandals such as Abu Ghraib is wrong. The way Jessica Lynch's story got hyped, stretched and in many places outright manufactured is wrong. The fact that the perpetrators -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company -- are allowed to walk free -- Free! Without a hint of impeachment or prosecution! -- is wrong. Iraq is a festering moil of filth and evil. Those who brought it about are guilty of treason. They have betrayed their nation, compromised its ability to defend itself and its standing in the world, and they don't give a shit. Not a single one of them cares, because they know they can get away with it. They already have. The apologists flock in their thousands to defend these evil men and no punishment will ever be meted on the heads that most deserve it. Oh, history will tell -- big f*cking deal. How does the interpretation of someone living 100 years form now matter to the pricks responsible for this disaster *today*? Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about Iraq is right. -- 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
