Re: Mindless and Heartless
A long Wiki on Neocons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who allege that their critics are anti-Semitics. Neoconservatism as a Jewish movement One of the most controversial issues surrounding neoconservatism is its alleged relation to specifically Jewish intellectual traditions; in the most extreme form of this view, neoconservatism has been regarded by some as primarily a movement to advance Jewish interests. Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when elaborating this view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through the intellectual domination of national leaders. David Brooks in his January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles. The controversial evolutionary psychologist Kevin B. MacDonald alleges that neoconservatism is an excellent illustration of the key traits behind the success of Jewish activism: ethnocentrism, intelligence and wealth, psychological intensity, and aggressiveness[14], that neoconservatism fits into a general pattern of twentieth-century Jewish intellectual and political activism, and that Leo Strauss is a central figure in the neoconservative movement and the quintessential rabbinical guru with devoted disciples. [15] Further, he contends that like Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism, neoconservatism uses arguments that appeal to non-Jews, rather than appealing explicitly to Jewish interests, and that non-Jewish neoconservatives like Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Donald Rumsfeld represent recruitment to an ideology with a Jewish core and an intense commitment to Jewish interests. Of this recruitment, he writes, it makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespeople for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince.[16] MacDonald's views of neoconservatism are not widely accepted in the United States, though similar theories have found a more receptive audience in some Arab media, such as Al Jazeera. His views have been characterized as anti-Semitic and have been condemned as nauseating by some, including the writer Judith Shulevitz. (For wider discussion, see Kevin B. MacDonald) Michael Lind, a self-described former neoconservative, wrote in 2004, It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like 'nationalist conservative' or 'Western conservative' for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists. [17] Lind argues that, while there were, and are, very few Northeastern WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement, its origins are not specifically Jewish. ...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse 'farm teams,' including liberal Catholics (William Bennett and Michael Novak..) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South and Southwest (the pool from which Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Woolsey and I [that is, Lind himself] were drawn). [18] [edit] Anti-semitic charges against neoconservatism One of the most controversial issues surrounding neoconservatism is its alleged relation to specifically Jewish intellectual traditions; in the most extreme form of this view, neoconservatism has been regarded by some as primarily a movement to advance Jewish interests. Classic anti-Semitic tropes have often been used when elaborating this view, such as the idea that Jews achieve influence through the intellectual domination of national leaders. David Brooks in his January 6, 2004 New York Times column wrote, To hear these people describe it, PNAC is sort of a Yiddish Trilateral Commission, the nexus of the sprawling neocon tentacles. Lind wrote in 2004, It is true, and unfortunate, that some journalists tend to use 'neoconservative' to refer only to Jewish neoconservatives, a practice that forces them to invent categories like 'nationalist conservative' or 'Western conservative' for Rumsfeld and Cheney. But neoconservatism is an ideology, like paleoconservatism and libertarianism, and Rumsfeld and Dick and Lynne Cheney are full-fledged neocons, as distinct from paleocons or libertarians, even though they are not Jewish and were never liberals or leftists. [19] Lind argues that, while there were, and are, very few Northeastern WASP mandarins in the neoconservative movement, its origins are not specifically Jewish. ...[N]eoconservatism recruited from diverse 'farm teams,' including liberal Catholics (William Bennett and Michael Novak..) and populists, socialists and New Deal liberals in the South and Southwest (the pool from which Jeane Kirkpatrick, James
RE: Physics question
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: All I know is it's a pretty damn funky concept. And now I am wondering if there is such a thing as a maximum speed for time. Yes, I know, that sounds really stupid, I guess that's cos it is, but there is supposedly a maximum speed for light, what does that mean in terms of time? IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension, your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion through time is at lightspeed. Yikes. Yes, well, that's what my question is about. What is the speed of time if you are still (putting relative issues aside if one can). At lightspeed time, for other observers, stops. So at no speed, what happens. We are moving, so some of our time velocity is translated into motion, how much, and what happens if we were to slow down. Is Earth for example moving faster along the time axis than somewhere else? Does this question even make sense? You can tell I am making this up as I go along. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gee....
Julia Thompson wrote: Nobody's posted anything for almost 3 whole hours! :) I first took a 20 minute nap [the longest uninterrupted stretch of sleep in the last 24 hours], then I had to go the doctor's, and then I was busy calming the screaming munchkins. So didn't really have the time to stir up some trouble. Sorry about that. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gee....
Behalf Of Ritu Julia Thompson wrote: Nobody's posted anything for almost 3 whole hours! :) I first took a 20 minute nap [the longest uninterrupted stretch of sleep in the last 24 hours], then I had to go the doctor's, and then I was busy calming the screaming munchkins. So didn't really have the time to stir up some trouble. Sorry about that. :) Ritu Put the screaming munchkins on. They will probably raise the tone of debate. Andrew (trying desperately not to work) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Gee....
Andrew Paul wrote: Put the screaming munchkins on. They will probably raise the tone of debate. I just got them both to sleep, in spite of their ENT infections. So please accept my apologies. :) (trying desperately not to work) Ditto. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics question
Warren Ockrassa wrote: IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension, your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion through time is at lightspeed. Yikes. Yikes squared! ;-) But I'm a bit mystified here, how can time have a speed? Isn't it as relative as momentum? I'm not sure how you can measure the passage of time somewhere else, except by comparing it to your own reference frame. Kevin Street -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/77 - Release Date: 8/18/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics question
Behalf Of Kevin Street Sent: Friday, 19 August 2005 6:04 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Physics question Warren Ockrassa wrote: IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension, your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion through time is at lightspeed. Yikes. Yikes squared! ;-) But I'm a bit mystified here, how can time have a speed? Isn't it as relative as momentum? I'm not sure how you can measure the passage of time somewhere else, except by comparing it to your own reference frame. Kevin Street Ah, now there is the rub.. See, when people fly away from earth say, and go fast, time slows down relative to us. And we are moving relative to other places in the universe, so time is presumably going faster or slower in said places. I was wondering if there are places where time is going, relatively, slower than it is here, and this made me wonder, is their like a maximum or minimum speed of time, and where would it occur. The question of having zero momentum reminded me of thinking about this. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics question
Warren Ockrassa wrote: IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension, your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion through time is at lightspeed. Yikes. Yikes squared! ;-) But I'm a bit mystified here, how can time have a speed? Isn't it as relative as momentum? I'm not sure how you can measure the passage of time somewhere else, except by comparing it to your own reference frame. Kevin Street Ah, now there is the rub.. See, when people fly away from earth say, and go fast, time slows down relative to us. And we are moving relative to other places in the universe, so time is presumably going faster or slower in said places. I was wondering if there are places where time is going, relatively, slower than it is here, and this made me wonder, is their like a maximum or minimum speed of time, and where would it occur. The question of having zero momentum reminded me of thinking about this. Andrew Light having a constant speed.. no matter how and where you are going, but time seems not too. A thought experiment. I guess it would help if I had some idea of what I was talking about. Where is Erik when you need him? Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics question
Andrew Paul wrote: Yes, well, that's what my question is about. What is the speed of time if you are still (putting relative issues aside if one can). 24 hours per day, or 60 seconds per minute :-P At lightspeed time, for other observers, stops. So at no speed, what happens. You stop :-) We are moving, so some of our time velocity is translated into motion, how much, and what happens if we were to slow down. Zero Is Earth for example moving faster along the time axis than somewhere else? Not applicable. Does this question even make sense? No. Ok, the first important thing is to define wtf you are talking about. So, let's define time as something useful, like the number you get when you look at your clock. But then it makes no sense to ask if I am going fast or slow along the time axis, because **there is no other clock to compare your clock with it**. This is essentially what will introduce you to Special Relativity, when you compare clocks [and straight rulers] against other systems of measure that move - relatively to you - with constant [vector] speed. General Relativity [or GR] introduces relative motion with acceleration [and gravity]. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17comi.html?ex=1281931200en=0 8e3777cc4943486ei=5090partner=geartestemc=rss http://www.websnark.com/archives/2005/08/wow_i_get_to_tr.html ... The effect is an article on webcomics written by someone who hasn't actually read the comics in question. (She mentions only one webcomic unreservedly positively -- Count Your Sheep. Which she could read for free. Nice to know the Times won't spring for a three dollar one month subscription for her expense account. And also nice to know that she didn't bother to check around for... oh, I don't know... Webcomics resources to use in research.) Of course, in talking about making money -- and the failures of webcomics to fulfill that promise -- she manages to not talk about PvP, Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, Ctrl-Alt-Del, Something Positive, or much of anything else. In other words, she doesn't know the first thing about the debate of commercial success in webcomics, much less the topic. She doesn't know the Keenspot model versus Modern Tales versus Blank Label versus independent sites. She doesn't know the argument of support versus merchandising support versus subscription versus micropayments. And it's not like it's hard to find evidence of those debates. Just going to Scott McCloud's website would do that. ... Comments: ... For the record, Sarah Boxer asked for, and received, free press passes to all the Modern Tales sites while she was writing this article. And then proceeded to treat the subscription wall as an impenetrable barrier anyway. ... On a hunch, I did a little research on this Sarah Boxer person and it turns out that she's a print cartoonist. ... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Gee....
Ritu wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Nobody's posted anything for almost 3 whole hours! :) I first took a 20 minute nap [the longest uninterrupted stretch of sleep in the last 24 hours], then I had to go the doctor's, and then I was busy calming the screaming munchkins. So didn't really have the time to stir up some trouble. Sorry about that. :) Ritu Well, geez, Ritu, if anyone deserves a *nap*, it's you! :) I just found it odd, after the preceding 48 hours or so, to have absolutely no listmail coming in for a stretch that long during my evening. In fact, the only lists I'm on that had any sort of traffic during that period were the Freecycle ones. ( http://www.freecycle.org/ for more info -- I'm in 3 groups. Unloaded something last night, in fact.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jokes: the Jews strike back
Now that the Anti-Semitism debate has died out, let me re-ignite it with some... Jokes about Goym !!! For those who thought that jews only taught jokes about themselves, here is a list of jokes about Goym: 1) A Goy calls his mother: - Mother, I know that you are waiting me for dinner, but I have a very important compromise, and I can´t go. And his mother replies: - It´s all right 2) A Goy gets into a clothe´s store and asks: - How much does this suit cost? - One thousand dollars And the goy answers: - Ok, I will buy it 3) Two Goyim meet in a public place - I know that you have a business. How is it going? And the other replies: - Everything is fine! Thank you! 4) Two Goyot mothers meet and start talking about their sons - My son is a truck driver! - says the first one, happily - My son is a swimming pool cleaner! - says the other, proudly (for the mistranslation, Alberto Monteiro) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:35 PM, Gary Denton wrote: A long Wiki on Neocons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who allege that their critics are anti-Semitics. Huh. If the article is accurate, then it would seem that some of the greatest proponents of the Jewish conspiracy claims regarding neocons are themselves Jewish. -- 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: Physics question
On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:29 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Are we going through spacetime at the speed of light, basically? Yes -- the combined velocity along the space and time vectors is lightspeed. (I don't recall when exactly this realization was made clear to me, but when it did get clarified, it made it a lot easier to understand why FTL travel isn't possible in this universe. It also kind of freaked me out.) Asking, though, what the speed of time is is a lot like (exactly like) asking what the speed of space is. Time, being a dimension, doesn't have a speed. It's only your motion through it that applies the measure of speed. When you're at rest, your motion in time is maximized to light's velocity. When you move, some of the velocity on the time axis is diverted to velocity in the spatial axes. That's why, if you're moving at a significant velocity, you get the (relative) effects of time slowdown, but of course only compared to the framework of others not moving so quickly. As far as you're concerned, time is still moving at the same rate. On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:16 AM, Andrew Paul wrote: Ah, now there is the rub.. See, when people fly away from earth say, and go fast, time slows down relative to us. And we are moving relative to other places in the universe, so time is presumably going faster or slower in said places. If what you're thinking about here is cosmic expansion, it doesn't apply. (Argh!) The universe itself -- its underlying structure -- is expanding, which (argh! Ouch!) does not translate to velocity for the things carried along in that expansion. So even if you pick a galaxy that's on the far side of the universe from our own, one that's being carried away from us at a maximum apparent velocity, you won't see time dilation for its inhabitants relative to us or vice versa. I was wondering if there are places where time is going, relatively, slower than it is here, and this made me wonder, is their like a maximum or minimum speed of time, and where would it occur. Absolutely. Gravity is effectively acceleration, which means that time near strong gravitational sources is slowed. And of course Earth's motion around the sun and our system's motion around the galactic core will contribute, in their own ways, to slowing down in time, but TTBOMK in order for these kinds of effects to be noticeable as more than a few seconds' difference over, say, a month or a year, you've either got to be very near an extremely dense object (picture the current administration and multiply by at least a factor of ten), or on a very fast-moving one. Much faster than you normally see in astronomical objects. -- 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: Physics question
On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: All I know is it's a pretty damn funky concept. And now I am wondering if there is such a thing as a maximum speed for time. Yes, I know, that sounds really stupid, I guess that's cos it is, but there is supposedly a maximum speed for light, what does that mean in terms of time? IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension, your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion through time is at lightspeed. Yikes. Well, that pretty much explains why I can never get anything done... Between batting away accusations of anti-semitism and lobbing insults at the president and his ilk, I'm traveling through time at lightspeed. Dave So much light, so little time Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just heard about Cindy
On Aug 18, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Just heard that Cindy's mother had a stroke so she's leaving Crawford for now. The thought just occurred that, as Pat Robertson is claiming the retirement of Sandra O'Connor from the Supreme Court as being an answer to a prayer he did a couple of years back (based, surely, on how improbable it is that an octogenarian might want to retire), there may be certain factions of people now who are seeing this as an answer to their prayers, or at least an uppity b*tch getting what she deserved. I really don't like imagining a society that tolerates such individuals in its midst, but it's dishearteningly clear that the US is such a society. Maybe because there haven't been enough cries of shame on you from the right places. -- 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: Fight The Future: Fmr Secretary Touts Mandatory Human RFID Chipping
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.rednova.com/news/health/196561/ health_chips_could_help_patients_in_us/ If somebody wants to be chipped instead of wearing a MedAlert ID (pendant or bracelet), that's their business, but _I_ certainly won't allow my personal med hx to be made available to any who can read such a chip. The following might be of interest: http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2060 The RSA® Blocker Tag is itself a RFID tag -- in size and cost much like a conventional RFID tag. The RSA® Blocker Tag, however, helps consumers to manage their live RFID tags in a privacy-protecting manner. Why am I thinking of that childhood song about the old lady who swallowed a fly...? Debbi She swallowed the dog to catch the cat; she swallowed the cat to chase the rat; she swallowed the rat to chase the frog; she swallowed the frog to catch the spider which wriggled and tickled and squirmed inside her. Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fight The Future: Fmr Secretary Touts Mandatory Human RFID Chipping
On Aug 19, 2005, at 12:16 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah Harrell wrote: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.rednova.com/news/health/196561/ health_chips_could_help_patients_in_us/ If somebody wants to be chipped instead of wearing a MedAlert ID (pendant or bracelet), that's their business, but _I_ certainly won't allow my personal med hx to be made available to any who can read such a chip. The following might be of interest: http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2060 The RSA® Blocker Tag is itself a RFID tag -- in size and cost much like a conventional RFID tag. The RSA® Blocker Tag, however, helps consumers to manage their live RFID tags in a privacy-protecting manner. Why am I thinking of that childhood song about the old lady who swallowed a fly...? Makes me think of caller ID. You can have it blocked, so your callees can't see your number … but then, you can block calls which have caller ID blocked. The latest workaround is apparently to register as anonymous or call from an exchange that masks your number. And so on it goes. I expect this blocker tag thing to either be regulated, or to have a back door … sigh. I don't *want* a transparent society for exactly the same reasons I don't want to take down the curtains over my windows (and don't want my neighbors to either; some things really aren't meant to be seen ;). And I particularly am not sanguine about technology that is supposed to help us but, Pandora-fashion, turns out to bear hidden consequences, such as crackers being able to steal 30+ million unenciphered credit card numbers by getting into a database collected by a company that had no use whatsoever for the data -- it was just gathering it *because it was there to be gathered*. As for Tommy Thompson -- I used to live in WI. He's not one of my faves either. -- 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: Just heard about Cindy
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 18, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Just heard that Cindy's mother had a stroke so she's leaving Crawford for now. The thought just occurred that, as Pat Robertson is claiming the retirement of Sandra O'Connor from the Supreme Court as being an answer to a prayer he did a couple of years back (based, surely, on how improbable it is that an octogenarian might want to retire), there may be certain factions of people now who are seeing this as an answer to their prayers, or at least an uppity b*tch getting what she deserved. I really don't like imagining a society that tolerates such individuals in its midst, but it's dishearteningly clear that the US is such a society. Maybe because there haven't been enough cries of shame on you from the right places. Whatever happened to shame? It was a big thing when I was a kid, at least among us kids. There seems to be a lot less of it. There are things considered shameful that I don't think are, and things that I think are dreadfully shameful that the same sort of people that would deny you parenthood don't bat an eyelash at. This thoroughly sucks. And I think I need to eat some lunch before I go completely to where it's impossible to put thoughts or feelings into words. I may make another attempt at this later, if I can make myself some time for it. Julia but hey, the patio is a lot cleaner now! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Just heard about Cindy
On Aug 19, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Whatever happened to shame? It was a big thing when I was a kid, at least among us kids. There seems to be a lot less of it. There are things considered shameful that I don't think are, and things that I think are dreadfully shameful that the same sort of people that would deny you parenthood don't bat an eyelash at. This thoroughly sucks. And I think I need to eat some lunch before I go completely to where it's impossible to put thoughts or feelings into words. I may make another attempt at this later, if I can make myself some time for it. Shame is a razor-sharp tool. Like many sharp tools, it can be used to do some good. Like all sharp tools, it can lead to serious injury. Loads of people who hate themselves do so because they were raised in an atmosphere of shame. I'm not saying that there aren't times when only a scalpel will do the job, but I don't think it's a good idea to start waving one around when all we want is for an 8-year-old to pick up his socks. It's one thing to say I see some clothes on the floor that aren't going to get washed if they're not in the hamper, and quite another to say What a pig-sty: look at those clothes all over the floor ... you should be ashamed of yourself, living like this, which is how the message gets delivered in a shaming family. The former sends a message about how clothes-washing happens in this family. The latter sends a message that the kid is a pig. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
-Original Message- From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:22:25 -0700 Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:10 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 17, 2005, at 8:49 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is obvious to me that you don't know shit about anti-semitism It's obvious to me that you're a self-righteous, arrogant whiner with delusions of persecution. I imagine by now that Dan is wishing to hell he hadn't thrown in his lot so readily with yours. You're no more sane on this subject than those who bear prejudice against Jewish people. I may be wrong, but -- I think that Dan and Zimmy know each other a lot better than you know either of them, and that Dan was well aware of Zimmy's feelings on the subject before he said anything, and also familiar with Zimmy's style of argument. That's entirely possible, but I don't think I'd describe what's been spewing forth recently as argument. It's a lot more like Oy vey schmeer, poor me, poor us, no one has any clue whatsoever and because of my minority status I am free to both be as overbearing as I want to *and* accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me totally of ignorance or worse. Now you insult me. I never claimed minority status. I never said I was poor. And quite frankly many non-jews have documented and been horrified by the pervasive antisemitism of the west. The books by Johnson and Carroll were written by non-jews after all. It is ironic that you fail to understand that what I am saying is quite the opposite of no one has a clue who is not jewish. You can have a clue by just reading a little history. It is actually quite easy to see the nature of antisemitic arguements after reading these books because these arguements never change. There is no way to win in this discussion. Even a slight questioning of such a perspective is being insensitive; nothing short of total disavowal of massive swaths of Western culture is acceptable; nothing short of repudiation of a person's entire weltanschauung is to be tolerated if there's even the merest hint of -- totally unsubstantiated -- anti-semitism. Again - do some reading before you talk about unsubstantiated claims. By the way for those who seem to believe that I am arguing that Jews and Israel cannot be criticized wihtout that criticsm being anti-semitic I offer the this rebuttal. Crticism is fine. Blaming is not. Criticism is specifc. I am critical of jewish setttlement of occuppied lands. I am critical of Sharon and very critical of the jewish right wing. But I do not blame Israel for what is happening in the Middle East. That is the crux of the arguement. To state that the war is the result of US tilting to much towards Israel is to blame Israel and the supporters of Israel in the US. To say that our policy towards is Israel in the mideast was at least a partial cause of 911 is to blame Israel and its supporters. This ignores the fact that US policy in the mideast is complex. Why not blame our own oil men or our auto industry. In fact why not blame US car buyers who insist on buying fuel inefficient SUVs thus continuing our dependence on arab oil and enriching the people who turn ar ound and use this money to support terrrorists. (Bemmzim, before you reply to the above, please bear in mind that just because you say something is anti-semitic DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS. And I'll thank you to stop making assumptions about how well I know history.) I would humbly submit that the arguement fits into the classic anti-semitic formula. I would ask you to tell us what you have read of the history of western anti-semitism that rebuts my assertions. As to seeing evil around me. You have got me there. I am actually concerned that there will be a backlash against jews if not here at least in Europe. Remember that the grand parents of adult europeans were all adults when the Holocast occurred. Remember that Pope Pious refused to lift a finger to help Italian jews (they were marched past the vatican on their way to concentration camps). Remember that the grandparents of the average French person in his/her 50-60 was an adult when the Dryfus affair occurred and that the French army actively and again actively refused to exonerate Dryfus until recently(and then only half hartedly). So we are no more than 2 or 3 generations from a period when anit-semitism was the default view of a majority of European christians. Two generations is not enough to erase subtle pervasive attitudes. I see anti-semitism as a latent virus that can lurk around for a long while only to reactivate when stress occurs. We are in a time of stress. In the past, times of stress produce reactivaion of virulent anti-semitism. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
-Original Message- From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 21:25:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:02:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's the source of criticism? Comments from an atheist I would analyze differently than comments originating in a Klan rally Any source Not good enough. Reread my question and my rationale, and try again. Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. This is not a discussion about the jewish religion. I am an atheist. This about blaming jews; -- 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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics question
Julia Thompson wrote: Are we going through spacetime at the speed of light, basically? Warren Ockrassa wrote: Yes -- the combined velocity along the space and time vectors is lightspeed. (I don't recall when exactly this realization was made clear to me, but when it did get clarified, it made it a lot easier to understand why FTL travel isn't possible in this universe. It also kind of freaked me out.) For me, the proof was provided by a professor who went through a long derivation of the equations of special relativity - which ended with him showing that the energy of a moving object (Not the rest mass. He referred to it as the relativistic mass, or m-prime, but also made it clear that this was only a mathematical convenience.) would keep increasing as the speed increased. That is, the relativistic mass increases as you move at increasing relativistic speeds. And to attain a speed of c you need to pump infinite energy into your propulsion system, because you'd be hauling around something that had effectively infinite mass. This was just before lunch, and I remember thinking that he'd effectively slowed down time for the whole class, because everyone couldn't wait to get out of there. ;-) Still, this was one of the few times that physics touched on stuff I'd read about in science fiction, so I remembered it. Asking, though, what the speed of time is is a lot like (exactly like) asking what the speed of space is. Time, being a dimension, doesn't have a speed. It's only your motion through it that applies the measure of speed. When you're at rest, your motion in time is maximized to light's velocity. When you move, some of the velocity on the time axis is diverted to velocity in the spatial axes. That's why, if you're moving at a significant velocity, you get the (relative) effects of time slowdown, but of course only compared to the framework of others not moving so quickly. As far as you're concerned, time is still moving at the same rate. I'm still confused by this. Are you talking about Minkowski Diagrams? As I understand it, time is just something we define as a way to separate different events. As Alberto said, the speed of time is one second per second for every observer, because that's the definition. How can one move through time at a different velocity than that? Kevin Street -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:51 PM Subject: Re: Mindless and Heartless Robert wrote: You might want to ask a black person if they think that the southern strategy is racist. I have. And they do? The ones who are aware of The Southern Strategy and the Voting Rights Act of 64 certainly seem to. But at the same time I would imagine that most (but not all) Republicans would deny this. I can't say that I blame them. It would be quite difficult to reconcile the very public claim to being the party of Lincoln with the acceptance of former Democrat racists into their party. xponent An Interesting Era Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Not Safe For Work Or Children
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133 Amid rumors of sagging morale on the home front, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld greeted his wife Joyce Monday with an unanticipated visit to her vagina, according to the Pentagon. Today, at about 1600 hours EST, Secretary Rumsfeld landed in the vagina and delivered cordial greetings to Mrs. Rumsfeld, said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. William Brock. The focus of the trip was to thank Mrs. Rumsfeld for her long years of outstanding service and continuing sacrifices, and to afford the defense secretary an opportunity to survey the vagina up close and in person. The 12-minute visit, described by Brock as brief but satisfactory, was characterized by sources close to the vagina as an in and out mission. Because of security concerns, Rumsfeld's aides were quiet about the visit, taking extra efforts to conceal the defense secretary's plans from the media and his wife. After delivering a speech to his wife, Rumsfeld performed a brief inspection of her vagina, then engaged in a few minutes of relaxed, informal contact before returning to the Pentagon. Despite the hurried nature of the visit, I am proud to report that my wife met and exceeded the operational standards set by the U.S. military for readiness in a two-front war, said Rumsfeld in a press conference shortly after the visit. I am confident that she can still stand up to heavy fire and serve ably, even in a rearguard action. The visit comes at a time in which controversial rumors have spread throughout Washington about low morale on the part of Mrs. Rumsfeld. Reports from confidantes indicate that her vagina is being undersupplied by the Department of Defense, and extended tours of duty have stirred up feelings of discontent. Although the two have faithfully served one another since 1954, Secretary Rumsfeld's busy schedule and demanding obligations have prevented him from visiting the fertile crescent since last November's highly publicized surprise visit. A brief question-and-answer period following the visit revealed some difference of opinion between Rumsfeld and the woman whose vagina he is charged with supplying. When she asked the defense secretary if she could expect more consistent support from him in the future, Mrs. Rumsfeld received a characteristically salty reply. Naturally, I would like to spend more time in the vaginal region, Rumsfeld said. But we have a difficult mission to complete, both at home and on the front. Everyone in this conflict is making sacrifices. You go to the vagina with the equipment you have. This explanation did not satisfy Judith Proudfit, executive director of Veterans' Wives Against The War and a sharp critic of the Bush Administration. Proudfit called Rumsfeld's visit a craven publicity move intended to foster the illusion that Rumsfeld is in touch with his wife's vagina. Rumsfeld's blunt, defensive response clearly indicates that he has no intention of making her a top priority, Proudfit said. The situation in Mrs. Rumsfeld's vagina was in no way improved by such a brief encounter. Continued Proudfit: It is a true testament to Mrs. Rumsfeld's patience, stamina, and patriotism that she continues to serve her husband under such duress. When asked about future plans for his wife's vagina, Rumsfeld grew somber. This vagina has seen a lot of action, Rumsfeld said. And much of its infrastructure has fallen into disrepair. I do believe, however, that my wife's sustained efforts under my direction will ultimately allow us to re-establish order in this troubled area. The Pentagon would not confirm a rumor that President Bush is scheduled to drop in on the vagina with a holiday turkey around Christmas. xponent Fertile Crescent My Ass, Have You Seen Her? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Not Safe For Work Or Children
BLEAH! Blecch, bleah, ick, ptooey, BLEAH! Rummy and his … with … and … BLEAH! -- 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: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 17, 2005, at 9:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/17/2005 11:02:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What's the source of criticism? Comments from an atheist I would analyze differently than comments originating in a Klan rally Any source Not good enough. Reread my question and my rationale, and try again. Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. I didn't miss any point. I have been lucid and direct, and did not bring up any irrelevancies. If you are incapable of comprehending a simple question as well as the *fact* that different motivations produce different rationales for superficially similar results, that is your problem, not mine. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a clear, direct question, and don't try to hide your unwillingness to answer it. -- 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: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:37 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's entirely possible, but I don't think I'd describe what's been spewing forth recently as argument. It's a lot more like Oy vey schmeer, poor me, poor us, no one has any clue whatsoever and because of my minority status I am free to both be as overbearing as I want to *and* accuse anyone who doesn't agree with me totally of ignorance or worse. Now you insult me. Well, it's probably no worse an insult than accusing others of ignorance and anti-semitism, now is it? I never claimed minority status. By pointing out your alignment with Judaism, you did precisely that. Or are you going to say that you're not Jewish now? There is no way to win in this discussion. Even a slight questioning of such a perspective is being insensitive; nothing short of total disavowal of massive swaths of Western culture is acceptable; nothing short of repudiation of a person's entire weltanschauung is to be tolerated if there's even the merest hint of -- totally unsubstantiated -- anti-semitism. Again - do some reading before you talk about unsubstantiated claims. Actually you're the one putting forth the assertions of anti-semitism; it us up to you to provide documentary evidence to support the claims you've made. It's not sufficient for you to simply assert that something is true and expect it to be accepted, particularly since there *now* seems to be evidence that the neo-con movement is *not*, as you have claimed, a Jewish organization, either originally or now. -- 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: Not Safe For Work Or Children
Warren Ockrassa wrote: BLEAH! Blecch, bleah, ick, ptooey, BLEAH! Rummy and his … with … and … BLEAH! What he said. Some of that was just -- well, it was TOO something. Don't want to think about it very hard to figure out just WHAT it was TOO of. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics question
At 12:13 PM Friday 8/19/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 19, 2005, at 8:29 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: Are we going through spacetime at the speed of light, basically? Yes -- the combined velocity along the space and time vectors is lightspeed. (I don't recall when exactly this realization was made clear to me, but when it did get clarified, it made it a lot easier to understand why FTL travel isn't possible in this universe. It also kind of freaked me out.) Asking, though, what the speed of time is is a lot like (exactly like) asking what the speed of space is. Time, being a dimension, doesn't have a speed. It's only your motion through it that applies the measure of speed. When you're at rest, your motion in time is maximized to light's velocity. When you move, some of the velocity on the time axis is diverted to velocity in the spatial axes. That's why, if you're moving at a significant velocity, you get the (relative) effects of time slowdown, but of course only compared to the framework of others not moving so quickly. As far as you're concerned, time is still moving at the same rate. On Aug 19, 2005, at 2:16 AM, Andrew Paul wrote: Ah, now there is the rub.. See, when people fly away from earth say, and go fast, time slows down relative to us. And we are moving relative to other places in the universe, so time is presumably going faster or slower in said places. If what you're thinking about here is cosmic expansion, it doesn't apply. (Argh!) The universe itself -- its underlying structure -- is expanding, which (argh! Ouch!) does not translate to velocity for the things carried along in that expansion. So even if you pick a galaxy that's on the far side of the universe from our own, one that's being carried away from us at a maximum apparent velocity, you won't see time dilation for its inhabitants relative to us or vice versa. I was wondering if there are places where time is going, relatively, slower than it is here, and this made me wonder, is their like a maximum or minimum speed of time, and where would it occur. Absolutely. Gravity is effectively acceleration, which means that time near strong gravitational sources is slowed. And of course Earth's motion around the sun and our system's motion around the galactic core will contribute, in their own ways, to slowing down in time, but TTBOMK in order for these kinds of effects to be noticeable as more than a few seconds' difference over, say, a month or a year, you've either got to be very near an extremely dense object (picture the current administration and multiply by at least a factor of ten), or on a very fast-moving one. Much faster than you normally see in astronomical objects. Though the different rates of clocks due to the difference in gravity at the Earth's surface and in LEO is something which must be taken into account in order to provide accurate locations from GPS. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does the NYT EVER print anything that isn't dogawful tripe or Propaganda?
At 01:54 PM Friday 8/19/2005, The Fool wrote: Just going to Scott McCloud's website would do that. Is the server for that web site located on the _Starduster_? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics question
At 02:00 PM Friday 8/19/2005, Dave Land wrote: On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:53 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 18, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Andrew Paul wrote: All I know is it's a pretty damn funky concept. And now I am wondering if there is such a thing as a maximum speed for time. Yes, I know, that sounds really stupid, I guess that's cos it is, but there is supposedly a maximum speed for light, what does that mean in terms of time? IIRC current models for spacetime hold that the maximum velocity you can have is lightspeed. As you accelerate along the space dimension, your motion in time slows; if you're fully at rest, your motion through time is at lightspeed. Yikes. Well, that pretty much explains why I can never get anything done... Between batting away accusations of anti-semitism and lobbing insults at the president and his ilk, I'm traveling through time at lightspeed. Dave So much light, so little time Maru Maybe that's why so many get hooked on speed . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [Health] For the men...
At 03:08 PM Friday 8/19/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote: This is a long article, and the speaker is promoting his book program, but I think anything that gets men to pay more attention to their health in a proactive (rather than paranoid) way is good. Gentlemen, tune your engines! :) Warning: There is some very explicit medical discussion of sex, may not be appropriate for work/family room. http://my.webmd.com/content/chat_transcripts/1/109289.htm?pageNumber=1 http://makeashorterlink.com/?W50A255AB This is from page 2: ...We sort of created this sensuous eating program because we appreciated, at least I appreciated, that the senses one uses in the bedroom to be a great lover are the same senses that you actually use while you're eating. You need to be able to have a sense of smell and taste and texture and you have to have visual capacity. Those are the same senses that you're using when you're eating, so why not take advantage and prime those senses? I asked Waldy Malouf if he would come up with some really healthy recipes that were a bit spicier and that would challenge a man's palate and he could transfer those senses in another venue. He really came up with just unbelievable kinds of foods. I had the privilege of cooking with him so that we could show the world that even somebody, such as myself, who is really not a cook in anyway (my wife will attest to that) can actually do some of these preparations. We're trying to make it easy for guys. We're saying over the six-week period: reduce your calorie intake a little bit or start doing some stretching, because sex is a physical act. You have to be physically fit in order to perform at the highest level. It doesn't require a lot of energy expenditure, believe it or not, to actually have sex, but there is a certain amount of endurance and physical fitness that's required. So we wanted to say to the man: if you want to go play tennis in six weeks, don't you think you need to put your body in a certain kind of physical shape in order to play tennis? You're just not going to decide you're going to play singles after you have been sedentary... I thought the prevailing wisdom was that most guys spend their teenage years doing warm-up exercises . . . Why Is The Bathroom Door Locked Again? Maru -- Ronn! :) (Come on. All of you were thinking it. Again.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 12:39:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am sure that the nudge nudge wink wink reaction is true for a lot of people. But that wasn't my question, was it? What I'd like to know is if you think that the only reason Perle and Wolfie are known to people is because they are jews. Or if you, like me, are open to the notion that the attention given to Perle and Wolfie might have other reasons? They are known because they prominent members of the neoncon movement. The current administration (Bush and Channey) accepted at least some of their ideas and wolfie and perle were given prominent positions in the adminstration. They did not get these positions because they were jews. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 12:51:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But that seems rather unfair to me. If, going by what you say, the fact of Jewish oppression for two millennia on certain continents gives the Jews the right to suspect any statement of carrying the seeds of anti-semitism, then surely, the fact of peaceful co-existence for two millennia on other continents confers an obligation to suspend that suspicion. Surely the stand/the standards have to be internally consistent at least. Jews were better tolerated by muslims than by christians. To muslims chrisitians and jews were both inferior but they did not see the need to persecute jews with the same vigors as chriistians. Jews were allowed more freedom but whenever it was convenient the muslims would take the jews property and money. There were so few jews in the far east that there could be no real problem. As I said in a post earlier today. Criticism of things jews do is completely reaonable but blaming jews (and Israel) is at the heart of anti-semitism. I know I have come across as a bit over the top on this. I have not been discriminated against in any substantive way in my life but this is not about me it is about the current climate in the world. More in Europe but in the US as well. As tensions have risin there has been more critiicsm of Israel and a shift away from a balanced view of the Israel palistiine problem. There has been an increase attacks on temples in France. A member of the Noble Prize Committee said he was sorry that the Israeli leader (forget which one) had receieved a Noble Peace Prize (for the Olso accords) when things went bad. But he did not say that he was sorry that Arafat got the prize. How can this be? Arafat had the opportunity for peace in 2000 and he turned his back on this. But he deserved to keep his prize while the Israeli leader did not. Most people simply say that atrocities could not happen again but the last attempt to wipe the jews from the face of the earth was less than 70 years ago. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 1:40:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Geez hang on a cotton picking minute, who was the one going on about Jewish conspiracy theories being a lot of crap... and now you are saying there is one sorry, I am at a loss here. The neocon movement is not a conspiracy it is a school of thought. The neocons did not plot to gain power. They wrote articles. Taught in colleges etc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 2:03:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see this as a statement necessarily directed against Jews, and I think people are reading a lot of stuff between the lines that may not be there. But it is an emotive subject, so that is to be expected I guess. I don't agree with it necessarily, but until someone can put forward a cogent argument as to why Iraq was invaded, it is not surprising that people who suffered directly try to find some reason for their sons dying. For the kazilioinst time, if you want to understand why this remark is hurtful read some fing history. James Carrol's Sword of Constantine, Philp Johnson's History of the Jews. Look, I am not a history scholar, but I have heard of Jews. And I understand that if one wants to wilfully take her words as some kind of veiled reference to a dark underlying desire to exterminate the Jewish people, then one can do so. I didn't, and I have no idea what she secretly might have meant. I will let her put her own words in her mouth. You may have heard of jews but if you do not know that the current remarks fit into a standard anti-semitic story line that has over and ovver again led to horrible treatment. Your statement is akin to saying you have heard of quantum mechanics but you don't think it is true because it is outside your experience. And does she have a point about hatred of US Mid-East policy being behind 9/11? Be that anti-Semitic or otherwise, is there any truth in it? So you are blaming the jews for 911? Yes indeed you are. Why not go all the way. The Israelis did it which is why all the jews stayed home that day. I asked a serious question. You are drawing a very long bow there, and well, it's a little insulting. Sure, there are anti-Semites out there, plenty of them.. Give us the benefit of the doubt would you and stop tarring us with some brush we don't deserve. I am trying to make you see that the danger is not from overt anti-semitism it is from the inclination to blame jews for problems. That this inclination is part of the DNA of our culture. Is there truth to the notion that many arabs hate us because we support Israel. Well maybe. After all they have blaming all of their problems since world war II on the jews. They have refused to solve the problem of the palastinians for over 50 years. They turned down an offer that would have given them 95% of what they wanted in 2000. The nations of the mideast have funded palastinian terrorism/resistance but have not funded schools hosptials etc. We have supported a democratic country in a region where democracy othewise does not exist. And is she entitled to have that opinion, and to express it? Of course she is entitled. And I am enttiled to denounce her statements as the worst kind of anti-semitism. Umm, perhaps you best read up on your Jewish history. Several worse kinds of anti-semitism spring to mind actually, but then perhaps I am missing something. Trust me I have read my history and I believe that these statements are the most dangerous because they lead to other things. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 4:56:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now this is what confuses me: How is Andrew being an anti-semitist for raising the possibility that the Arab anger towards the US might be, in part, responsible for 9/11? And why are you not an anti-semitist when you acknowledge the same possibility? What I meant to say is that arab hatred of jews may have played a roll in 911 but that hatred is not a reason to begin to think that the terrorists are correct. Maybe I am too sensitive but I see this as a slippery slope. I am not a big fan of these sorts of arguements in general but historical precedent tells me tha this a slope that we have slid down before and I would like to see people be careful about the implications of this arguement. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 9:53:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Zimmy and I have argued tooth and nail on a few points. But I've liked him and respected him for about 5 years. I'm certainly not Jewish, but I try to listen to people with other vantage points and have a little empathy for them. So, I see his views as totally reasonable. When I have been active on the list I have always liked discussing and arguing with Dan. Often I don't comment because I agree with him and he says it better. Just because he´s paranoid don´t mean they´re not after him? If they are after you then it is not paraonia unless you think the they is little green men from Mars . :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:57:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Maybe when *some* people talk about them. And only if they know that history. And only if they know that Wolfowitz and Pearle are jewish. Which, prior to this thread, I didn't. Perhaps I should have from the names but I try not to judge people by their names... I am not claiming that everyone knows these facts. But the explicit anti-semites (people who hate jews or see them as evil) certainly do. And when they put their ideas out they don't identify then as anti-semitic. They play the Israel not Jew game and people who do not know better get sucked in. The idea gets out; someone then notices that wolfie and perle are jewish and the connection is remade. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fw: [GSFP-ALL] Re: Israel
In a message dated 8/18/2005 12:52:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The hoopla about Israel.Months ago Cindy sent an e-mail to the producer of Nightline. She had been treated badly by Sam and was clarifying some issues. She commented about the middle east in the e- mail but DID NOT mention Israel. Cindy CC'd the e-mail to a nut case that had been contacting her for a while. He has apparently tweaked the e-mail and sent it to ABC to further his cause. That problem is being handled. I am glad to here this personally. What was most upsetiting to me was that a person I had great sympathy and respect for (even when I do not agree with her about the need to get out the war) would hold such views. If otherwise good people sucumb to this stuff what chance do we have to keep this from turning nasty. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 1:06:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Israel has no influence on U.S. policy except through American Jews? Are you kidding? That's ludicrous. Israel has influence on U.S. policy because of where it is, because it is a democracy in the Middle East, because there are many Americans in Israel, because a great deal of critical technology is developed in Israel (every one of Intel's microprocessors through the 80386 was designed there). Our economies are quite intertwined. There are all sorts of reasons that Israel *should* influence U.S. policy that have little or nothing to do directly with ethnicity or religion. I overstated my arguement and I stand corrected. But of course american jews have been the most dominent supporters. And if one wanted to one could the connection between US policy american jews and israel -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 1:15:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: hope that nothing I've written sounds as though I endorse blaming Israel or anybody else. What matters to me is who is responsible and how we grieve and heal together. I have had no quarrel with you at all. Nothing you have said that I object to. I hope that my remarks can get to her. Not because I am important buy because I think my reactions will be relatively typical for many jews. I know that she is dealing with more important family things now and I hope things go well. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 3:06:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It kind of cracks me up that our leading defender of Judaism can't spell Wailing Wall. It's about lamentation, not cetacean-hunting. for any one who knows me they will no theat sppeeeling is knot my strong sute ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 3:20:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you do not understand the thrust of Zimmy's argument, which seems to be that for hundreds or thousands of years, various forms of overt and covert evils have been leveled against Jews by various groups (Amelekites, Egyptians, Germans, American Klansmen, and so forth), to the point that virtually all thought is now irretrievably poisoned by the meme of anti-semitism. No my arguement is that anti-semitism is deeply embedded in the west. You may be glib about it but it is there. I have offered many specific historical examples of anti-semitism. No one has denied that these things occurred. They just say that it is untrue. So for the catholics in the audience here is another. In approximately 1850 a catholic woman secretly baptised a jewish baby. The baby was kidnapped. The pope refused to return the child to his parents. Had paintings of the child made with him. For you protestants in the audience; ever take a look at what Luther said about the jews? Do not get me wrong. I am not claiming that protestant groups and the catholic church are anti-semitic. They certainly are not. I am not saying that christians today are anti-semitic in the way that people were in the past. I am saying that to deny history is to repeat it. You can't avoid it, you can't deny it, it is in your cultural DNA. If you spent your entire life defending the rights of Jewish people everywhere, you would still be poisoned by anti-semitism and subject to criticism on that front. but of course you can avoid it. If you do not deny that subtle anti-semitism isn pervasive you can look at what you say or think and ask yourself if it is reasonable. Kind like you know your a redneck if . For instance you know your an anti-semite if you think the noble prize should be taken away from the jewish leader but not Arafat (note - you may think it should be taken away from both without being an anti-semite). Quite obviously everyone thinks this way. The problem is that good and reasonable people think this way. At least some people on this list don't think my sensitivity to this issue is out of place. You can't deny it because you can't escape it. It is in you. You can't deny it but you can certainly escape it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 8:25:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On a serious note, I can see zimmys viewpoint. And why it would be troubling. It's just that you need to be careful about carrying your own cultural baggage into other peoples conversations. I had no idea these guys were Jews, nor that neo-cons was a jewish thing, nor that anyone would think that those statements were anti-semitic. Thus my perplexed look. But zimmy, peace, I was not and would not disrespect your feelings, or make light of the seriousness of anti-semitism. It is an issue. Along with lots of other antis. That is all that I would ask. Don't make light of seemingless innocuous statements. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/18/2005 11:54:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW, Bob Z. can't spell or type very well, but he is incredibly intelligent in a number of areas that haven't come up on-list lately. I'm sorry that this was the first topic that really stirred him up since you became really active; I think your perception of him has been unfairly distorted as a result of *that*. I don't know where the Zimmy came from either. I think Dan used it and I don't mind. At work everyone calls me Doctor Z. I think it makes me sound old but hey that is accurate. And it is true that I can't spell. I could use speeel cheek but that would ruin the fun. Thanks for the compliment. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 7:58:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. I didn't miss any point. I have been lucid and direct, and did not bring up any irrelevancies. If you are incapable of comprehending a simple question as well as the *fact* that different motivations produce different rationales for superficially similar results, that is your problem, not mine. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a clear, direct question, and don't try to hide your unwillingness to answer it. Your arguement was I believe that since atheists are by definitiion critical of the jewish religion they are anti-semitic. But of course I was not talking about religious beliefs. It is irrelevent whether an atheist thinks the religous tennets of judiasm are wrong as long as he or she does not think that Jews are wrong. (Judiasm sucks but jews do not). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 7:59:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I never claimed minority status. By pointing out your alignment with Judaism, you did precisely that. Or are you going to say that you're not Jewish now? There is a big difference between saying that I have been persecuted for being a jew ( I have not) and that jews have not been persecuted.. I am fortunate to live in the one country where anti-semitism has never been as big a problem as elsewhere. The US is one of the few countries that has not as part of its official governmental policy discrimated against jews. (in other words jews have not been kicked out of the us,. had their property confiscated, denied the right to have property, denied the right to vote etc). I do not consider myself to be part of an oppressed minority. There is no way to win in this discussion. Even a slight questioning of such a perspective is being insensitive; nothing short of total disavowal of massive swaths of Western culture is acceptable; nothing short of repudiation of a person's entire weltanschauung is to be tolerated if there's even the merest hint of -- totally unsubstantiated -- anti-semitism. Again - do some reading before you talk about unsubstantiated claims. Actually you're the one putting forth the assertions of anti-semitism; it us up to you to provide documentary evidence to support the claims you've made. It's not sufficient for you to simply assert that something is true and expect it to be accepted, particularly since there *now* seems to be evidence that the neo-con movement is *not*, as you have claimed, a Jewish organization, either originally or now. I have pointed numerous episodes of anti-semitic actions. You have failed to respond to any of these examples. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/19/2005 7:58:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since you completely missed the point of my arguement and then brought up something irrelevent about atheists I see no point. I didn't miss any point. I have been lucid and direct, and did not bring up any irrelevancies. If you are incapable of comprehending a simple question as well as the *fact* that different motivations produce different rationales for superficially similar results, that is your problem, not mine. Don't blame me for your inability to understand a clear, direct question, and don't try to hide your unwillingness to answer it. Your arguement was I believe that since atheists are by definitiion critical of the jewish religion they are anti-semitic. That most certainly was *not* my argument. I was using, in one tangential exchange with WTG, a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate that it's possible, if one wishes to, to accuse virtually *anyone* of being anti-semitic on *some* grounds or other. On another, completely unrelated topic, you had asked: Do you think that criticisms leveled at Jews are more or lessl likely to reflect prejudice than those leveled against christians. I had asked what the source of the criticism was, because to me it is abundantly clear that we can a priori assume a Klansman would have a completely different intention than (for instance) an atheist. For some reason you seem to think my question is irrelevant, or unworthy of serious consideration or response. I believe to the contrary; I believe the source of criticism is anything *except* irrelevant. -- 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: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have pointed numerous episodes of anti-semitic actions. I haven't seen any. I have seen a lot of incoherence and an unwillingness to respond meaningfully to direct and reasonable questions. You have failed to respond to any of these examples. I'm not sure what you believe is a meaningful response to episodes of anti-semitic actions you think you've pointed out. Do you expect something like: Jews were persecuted in many nations Oh, that's tragic!? Because if so, you're going to be disappointed; I'm not sure why I'd have to respond to such statements, since obviously such persecution is tragic, and therefore don't usually do so. And you have failed to provide documentary evidence to support your claims against Cindy Sheehan *or* that the neo-cons are or ever were a primarily Jewish organization. That was your initial claim and, rather than produce the evidence needed to support your allegations, you have continued to deflect the discussion. Now please, produce your evidence or retract your allegations. -- 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: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 10:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had asked what the source of the criticism was, because to me it is abundantly clear that we can a priori assume a Klansman would have a completely different intention than (for instance) an atheist. For some reason you seem to think my question is irrelevant, or unworthy of serious consideration or response. I believe to the contrary; I believe the source of criticism is anything *except* irrelevant. When I said any source I meant in a general population of western europe or the us was one more likely to here anti-semitic statements than anti-christian statements. I was trying to get at the prevelence of backround anti-semitism. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/19/2005 10:10:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had asked what the source of the criticism was, because to me it is abundantly clear that we can a priori assume a Klansman would have a completely different intention than (for instance) an atheist. For some reason you seem to think my question is irrelevant, or unworthy of serious consideration or response. I believe to the contrary; I believe the source of criticism is anything *except* irrelevant. When I said any source I meant in a general population of western europe or the us was one more likely to here anti-semitic statements than anti-christian statements. I was trying to get at the prevelence of backround anti-semitism. But coming from whom? Statements criticizing Jews, blacks, Asians or what have you originate either with individuals or with groups through a spokesman. Positing a vague criticism from a nameless, faceless source is not something that can usefully be responded to. You've got to have some concrete examples of statements and sources before *any* serious judgment can be made about whether the statements are intended to be anti-semitic or not. -- 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: Mindless and Heartless
In a message dated 8/19/2005 10:16:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And you have failed to provide documentary evidence to support your claims against Cindy Sheehan I made no attempt to offer evidence because the arguement moved from her to the statement. In this context it does not matter whether she was correctly quoted. Nick says that the quote was inaccurate but that Cindy has blamed Israel (and others). As to the neocon issue. It is not an organization it is a political and philosophical movement. I still maintain that it has its roots in jewish intellectual movement. Of coruse movements do not arise whole cloth so these thinkers were influenced by others who were not jews. The thing that made this movement noteworthy and shocking to some is that it was made up of jews. *or* that the neo-cons are or ever were ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Mindless and Heartless
On Aug 19, 2005, at 7:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As to the neocon issue. It is not an organization it is a political and philosophical movement. I still maintain that it has its roots in jewish intellectual movement. Of coruse movements do not arise whole cloth so these thinkers were influenced by others who were not jews. The thing that made this movement noteworthy and shocking to some is that it was made up of jews. But you haven't provided evidence to support this belief, and there appears to be evidence that your belief is inaccurate. Or did you not see the post from Gary Denton beginning with: A long Wiki on Neocons here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States The one thing they are not is a Jewish movement except for those who allege that their critics are anti-Semitics. This would seem to challenge your assertion. -- 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: Physics question
On Aug 19, 2005, at 1:53 PM, Kevin Street wrote: Asking, though, what the speed of time is is a lot like (exactly like) asking what the speed of space is. Time, being a dimension, doesn't have a speed. It's only your motion through it that applies the measure of speed. When you're at rest, your motion in time is maximized to light's velocity. When you move, some of the velocity on the time axis is diverted to velocity in the spatial axes. That's why, if you're moving at a significant velocity, you get the (relative) effects of time slowdown, but of course only compared to the framework of others not moving so quickly. As far as you're concerned, time is still moving at the same rate. I'm still confused by this. Are you talking about Minkowski Diagrams? Ref: http://www.brown.edu/Students/OHJC/ma8/papers/minkowsk.htm In essence, yes. I'm talking about the way Minkowski's diagrams apply in the real world. As I understand it, time is just something we define as a way to separate different events. No; that's akin to saying space is something we define as a way to separate different objects. Just as there is space, a dimension, for objects to move through, time possesses its own dimension or depth. As Alberto said, the speed of time is one second per second for every observer, because that's the definition. How can one move through time at a different velocity than that? What you've defined isn't the speed of time; it's time's apparent passage for an observer (more accurately, the mileposts an observer sees as the moves through time). Time has no speed. What varies is the means we use to scale our passage through it. That is, we measure in seconds, minutes, months, etc. But because velocity though space affects velocity through time, as you accelerate along one axis you decelerate along the other. Brian Greene used an interesting visualization for this. Suppose you've got a car that can travel 100 MPH, and you drive east 100 miles in it, then north 100 miles, both at maximum velocity. To someone watching the car traveling east, pacing it perhaps in a vehicle, the car appears to be moving at 100 mph. Now suppose you drive the car *diagonally*, northeast, at 100 mph, but that your eastbound observer remains on the main road and doesn't follow the car diagonally. Pacing the vehicle, your observer will see your car *appearing to be traveling slower than 100 mph* because rather than having all its velocity being dumped into the eastward journey, half its velocity will be northward. That is, while your car is still going northeast at 100 mph, it is traveling along a straight eastward axis at half that speed, and along a straight northward axis at, again, half that speed. The same sort of thing happens as we move through spacetime. The faster we move through space, the slower we move through time; we have one maximum speed (actually one speed, period), which means that acceleration in one direction translates into deceleration in another. Finally, time is not separate from space. It's intertwined. That's why all this weird crap happens in the first place. -- 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
