Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
Erik wrote: Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Nazi's may want you to sew your lip shut and never talk again, but in reality, they can't stop you as long as you don't reveal secret information, and it is certainly possible to write a short email without having any possibility of revealing secrets. Jane's Fighting Ships has listings for parameters such as flank speed, weapons capabilities, submarine test depths, etc. But this is information that has not been made public by the Navy or any other government agencies. If I have a clearance and know the actual numbers, discussing the numbers published in Jane's may serve to confirm or deny them. When you receive a clearance and are briefed they tell you that discussing such parameters is off limits except for very vague references such as saying "greater than 500 ft" for test depth. In fact, as a sonar technician, and knowledgeable about soviet subs, I was told that discussing Soviet capabilities was off limits as well. I'm not sure what the legal ramifications are if you violate these rules, but you _do_ sign away your rights and are subject to the UCMJ when you enlist or are commissioned into the armed services. On the other hand, it makes people feel very important to think that they and their job is so important that they have to be restricted from talking about things that everyone else can, so it is easy for people to be convinced that that is the case. They WANT to believe it. You know, Gautam and I have had our differences on the list, but I kind of doubt he has any need to feel important here or anywhere else. You also wrote: By the way, Doug, do you consider yourself more inept than Bush? I think he holds a security clearance, and I seem to remember him commenting on some issues from time to time... I'm not sure what ineptitude has to do with it, but I doubt whatever agreement I signed when I had a clearance resembles the restrictions that the president is subject to. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
Gautam Mukunda wrote: You know, Erik, if you didn't keep reminding us we might forget what a jackass you are. Lessee, I believe we can trash this one under the header: personal attack. At least stay polite. Or else take it off-list boys. Sonja :o) xROU: Let's play: same rules for all, shall we ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:13:14AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > I'm quite willing to consider your opinions on whether this is a good > system or not, but I hear you denying the existence of such rules, > which strikes me as naive posturing. What rules? I am specifically talking about legality of commenting on publicly available information. If you know of any legal way that someone could be prevented from, for example, posting the numbers that I did from the income statements of public companies, I'd like to hear about it. By the way, as long as we are being honest, your comment strikes me as idiotic posturing. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job that involves decisions and information that have to be handled responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from. You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we might forget how important you are and how you have all sorts of contacts and secret information that you can't share with us. Looks to me like an exchange of personal attacks here, gentlemen. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
Erik Reuter wrote: It was clear what you meant before your clarification, just not relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly available information, In my experience (and I have a great deal of it), it is very wise to stay well clear of the *appearance* of impropriety. To do otherwise is a seriously career-limiting move. Have you ever worked for a public company and been privy to significant insider information? Ever been a consultant in that situation, which tends to raise the stakes even higher? I'm quite willing to consider your opinions on whether this is a good system or not, but I hear you denying the existence of such rules, which strikes me as naive posturing. Having said all that, I'll add that I am no fan of the big pharmaceutical companies (and at least one is a client of ours, so I'm sticking my neck out now). I've seen too much evidence of questionable marketing tactics to be comfortable. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:08:13PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: > When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even > discuss stuff that is "common knowledge" because by doing so you may > verify or discount information that may or may not be correct. I'm > not sure it the same in the private sector, but I'm sure the principal > holds By the way, Doug, do you consider yourself more inept than Bush? I think he holds a security clearance, and I seem to remember him commenting on some issues from time to time... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:08:13PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: > When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even > discuss stuff that is "common knowledge" because by doing so you may > verify or discount information that may or may not be correct. Bullshit. Sure the secrecy Nazi's may want you to sew your lip shut and never talk again, but in reality, they can't stop you as long as you don't reveal secret information, and it is certainly possible to write a short email without having any possibility of revealing secrets. On the other hand, it makes people feel very important to think that they and their job is so important that they have to be restricted from talking about things that everyone else can, so it is easy for people to be convinced that that is the case. They WANT to believe it. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:55:29PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: > ROTFLMAO. Erik, I really appreciate the work you do in research for > this group, but on this subject you are speaking from ignorance. ROTFLMAO. Dan, I really appreciate the data and references you post to the list, but on this subject you have repeatedly shown that YOU are biased and not worth listening to. > know about him, a reasonable person would categorize his > self-description on the list as rather modest. Indeed, his restraint > verges on amazing from time to time...particularly when he could come > back with a rather stunning response. Yeah, yeah, and if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. > BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the > beginning. No, you did not, as you demonstrated. He CAN write about it, he just WON'T. > At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they would > stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. Anyone that would give up their right to free speech on non-secret information is a fool or a coward. > We knew what was going on, and respected them for it. I know what is going on, and I certainly do NOT respect you for your apologist behavior and corporate kowtowing. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:49:51PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Now is it clear? It was clear before, just wrong, again. Under the law, I don't know of any way someone can prevent you from commenting on publicly available information. Even if you signed a contract that specifically stated that you can't comment on publicly available information (which would be very foolish of you), that part of the contract would probably turn out to be invalidin court. Maybe you don't want to take the effort to comment, or are afraid to, but you are wrong about not being able to. Of course I know that you don't consider basic human rights to be important, so I guess that partially explains why you are willing to accept such a perceived restriction on your freedom of speech. > of all the ways I can think of to boost it, showing off in front of > you has got to be dead last on the list. You must be desperate to have made it so far down your list. Or to even have a list. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
Dan wrote: BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the beginning. At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they would stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. We knew what was going on, and respected them for it. When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even discuss stuff that is "common knowledge" because by doing so you may verify or discount information that may or may not be correct. I'm not sure it the same in the private sector, but I'm sure the principal holds -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
- Original Message - From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style] > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job > > that involves decisions and information that have to be handled > > responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from. > > You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we might forget how > important you are and how you have all sorts of contacts and secret > information that you can't share with us. ROTFLMAO. Erik, I really appreciate the work you do in research for this group, but on this subject you are speaking from ignorance. Gautam and I are friends. We share our personal triumphs and tragedies. Knowing what I know about him, a reasonable person would categorize his self-description on the list as rather modest. Indeed, his restraint verges on amazing from time to time...particularly when he could come back with a rather stunning response. BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the beginning. At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they would stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. We knew what was going on, and respected them for it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we > might forget how > important you are and how you have all sorts of > contacts and secret > information that you can't share with us. > > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ You know, Erik, if you didn't keep reminding us we might forget what a jackass you are. Let me try to be more clear. There are certain things I can't comment on. Even commenting on publicly available information can involve me needing to consult a lawyer on potential securities violations. Since I'm not an expert on that field and I don't feel any desire to do that, I don't, and can't, comment on anything involving the financials of any pharmaceutical company, or the industry in general. I was trying to courteously say that to Dan, so that he would not carry that part of the discussion further. Being a considerate guy, he understood that. Since you aren't, you didn't. I _can_ talk about general principles on non-financial issues which is, in fact, what I've done. Now is it clear? My ego's okay, and of all the ways I can think of to boost it, showing off in front of you has got to be dead last on the list. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 26, 2004, at 6:40 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I still feel (so far) that, all things being equal or equivalent (population, power, etc) at the beginning of a contest, if you have two evenly-matched nations, one of which is totalitarian and the other more liberty-oriented, the totalitarian system will ultimately, eventually collapse. I don't believe totalitarian systems are flexible, innovative or robust enough to survive that kind of competition. This is an argument first made my Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy. Tocqueville also suggested in _Democracy in America_, although, oddly enough, he didn't apply it to the US. In both cases, though, they believed that this was something that could happen only after a democracy had a long time to develop. I suppose the question then becomes how long a long time is. And one could argue that any government, at inception, is vulnerable; but it's probably fair to say that democracies tend to be more vulnerable for a longer time initially than, say, a dictatorship or theocracy. (But I repeat myself. ;) The point Dan and I are making, though, is that historically, things usually aren't equal. Very true. Which is why a democratic superpower is an interesting concept. There are lots of highly plausible scenarios you can spin where the most powerful country in the world is a fascist dictatorship (Nazi Germany), a totalitarian Communist dictatorship (the USSR), or any number of other options. For example, had the North lost the Civil War, it's arguable that democratic reform in England would have been far less successful - certainly, that's what Gladstone thought, and he ought to have known. Well, maybe. IIRC France had already taken up the banner by then as well, so possibly that could have been a factor. My European history is, however, nowhere near sufficient to let me speculate in anything like useful depth. If any of these things had happened, we wouldn't even know about this hypothetical advantage democracies have. The argument that "good" governments win their wars is based on events that could very easily have gone other ways, suggesting that such an advantage, if it exists, is so small that it's hardly sufficient to use to justify the superiority of liberal governments. I'm not so sure. Yes, the South was disadvantaged industrially in the American Civil War, and that could have just been an accident -- I mean if the North had been pro-slavery and the South against it, things might have gone quite differently. Of course another thing to consider is that agriculture might have been better suited to supporting slavery to begin with. But that's dipping back awfully far to try to counter an argument discussing events which are, in truth, historically unprecedented. For that reason I;m not entirely certain that looking at the history of Greece (example) can tell us much about what we'll have to deal with in the next 50 years, nor can it tell us much about the whys and wherefores of our current apparent position of success. It's a little weird, really, almost like trying to divine the present moment by scrying the past. Nostradamus would love it. -- WthmO I don't need a luxury yacht. A bare necessity yacht will do just fine, thanks. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 26, 2004, at 7:18 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: So Perestroika and Glasnost and so on, and eventually Communism in Russia went away (for now!). The same will *probably* happen in China and North Korea, but I'll say again that it doesn't magically happen. There must be competition from other societies, if for no other reason than to get the oppressed thinking in terms of their own rights and liberties (as being at least as valid as those of the Great Leader). I think exactly the _opposite_: a totalitarian regime can only survive for a long time if there is an external competition. The external competition is the stabilizing factor that prevents the minions of the Evil Overlord to fight among themselves to become the next Evil Overlord. Mm, but you could argue that a similar social decay is taking place now in the US; we no longer have an Evil Empire to face, so we're slowly destroying ourselves, working frantically to hate *someone* and turning to the guy next door to do it. Of course this does not prevent the worst-case-scenario of 1984, with three competing totalitarian regimes. Could we become this, with China, the USA and someone else [Europe? The Muslim World? An Arab-Europe coalition?] turned into totalitarian regimes and oppressing the world? Three, or four maybe, sure. -- WthmO Warren's Workable Gun Control Plan: Arm everyone but the wealthy. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job > that involves decisions and information that have to be handled > responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from. You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we might forget how important you are and how you have all sorts of contacts and secret information that you can't share with us. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was clear what you meant before your > clarification, just not > relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly > available information, > of which there is a great deal, as I posted. Acting > like you know a > lot about a subject based on secret information that > you can't share > may score points in the consultant world, but not > here, especially > when you are disputing someone else's point who > isn't claiming secret > information. Well, Erik, I guess I'll have to live with your disapproval...forgive me while I sob. Anyone who read what I wrote might note: 1. I "disputed" it only to the point that I thought it was a little low 2. It was neither germane nor significant to the discussion If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job that involves decisions and information that have to be handled responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:05:23AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not so obvious, actually. > > All right. The reason is that I spent most of the last two years > working as a consultant to several companies in the pharmaceutical > industry and therefore am not allowed to comment on the details > of their financial performance, because much of what I saw during > that time is confidential (that is, I would be in violation of > confidentiality agreements). Does that make it clear? It was clear what you meant before your clarification, just not relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly available information, of which there is a great deal, as I posted. Acting like you know a lot about a subject based on secret information that you can't share may score points in the consultant world, but not here, especially when you are disputing someone else's point who isn't claiming secret information. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam > Mukunda wrote: > > I can't comment on this much (for obvious > reasons). I > > Not so obvious, actually. All right. The reason is that I spent most of the last two years working as a consultant to several companies in the pharmaceutical industry and therefore am not allowed to comment on the details of their financial performance, because much of what I saw during that time is confidential (that is, I would be in violation of confidentiality agreements). Does that make it clear? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My numbers indicate that about 20% of the cost of > > drugs goes into > > development, cost and production, and that the rest > > is systematic overhead. > > I can't comment on this much (for obvious reasons). I Not so obvious, actually. There is plenty of publicly available information. I haven't studied the drug industry, but here is a very short look at some numbers from the income statements of a few: 20022003 20032003 TOTALTOTAL % PFEMRK ABT LLY OF SALES Revenue32373 22486 19681 1258287122 100.0 COGS404543159473267520508 23.5 Gross Profit 28328 18171 10207990766613 76.5 Operating Expenses SG&A 1084663955051405526347 30.2 R&D 517632801834235012640 14.5 Other630 (1106) 0 0 (476) (0.5) Operating 1167690833322350227583 31.7 Income Other Income and Expenses Interest Inc 120 419 412(240) 711 0.8 Taxes 26092433 981 701 6724 7.7 Net Income 912667392753256121179 24.3 I'm not going to try to explain all of the accounting conventions above to those who aren't familiar with them (but I will answer specific questions). But briefly, my way of looking at it is to start with Sales and look at everything else as a percentage of Sales. I added up the income statement numbers for Pfizer, Merck, Abbott, and Lilly as shown above. Total revenues were $87B. Cost of goods sold accounted for 23.5% of revenues. Sales, general, and administrative used up 30.2% of revenue, and research and development used of 14.5% of revenue. Unlike most companies these days, the drug companies are cash machines with little debt -- they actually EARNED 0.8% of sales as interest income (most other companies pay interest on their debt). They paid 7.7% of revenues as taxes, leaving a net profit margin of 24.3% (quite exceptional, few companies are so high). To summarize the major components of where revenue "went": 23.5% COGS 30.2% SG&A 14.5% R&D 7.7% Tax 24.3% Net Income -- 100.2% TOTAL (not 100% since I left out a few small numbers) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
JDG wrote: If the rest of the world can be alienated by liberating Iraq, I am not at all convinced that they would not be alienated by efforts to tackle AIDS in African countries. Indeed, given that Iraq has now been liberated, and the rest of the world is actively bot just sitting on their hands rather than assisting the Iraqi people in building a stable democracy - but is actively *opposing* those efforts to help the Iraqi people build their country!, I don't find it all difficult to believe that they would also feel similarily about tackling AIDS. I thought you said the invasion force was a coallition. And can you expand on how the rest of the world is activly opposing efforts to help the Iraqis? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My numbers indicate that about 20% of the cost of > drugs goes into > development, cost and production, and that the rest > is systematic overhead. I can't comment on this much (for obvious reasons). I think 20% is a little low, though. > I really don't disagree with you concerning the > problems inherent in > demanding cheap AIDs drugs, one way or another, we > need to pay for the > research and development. But, putting my rational > advisor hat on, I'd > argue that a successful drug company should do no > real breakthrough > developments. Rather, is should focus on developing > patentable small > variations in the chemical compound already used. > Look for small > advantages, and then market the heck out of them. > The development risks > are minimal, as are the market risks. Indeed, from > what I've read, this is > the model drug companies are going to. Its not that > they wouldn't market a > cure; its that, when ideas are pitched, the low risk > higher gain ideas will > get the money first. There is certainly a lot of truth to this - that is the way drug companies are going. I think, though, it has more to do with how incredibly hard drug development has become. A truly revolutionary and innovative new drug wouldn't _need_ to be marketed nearly as much, and so could become much more profitable...but no one is having much success getting those new drugs. Pfizer, the largest drug company in the world, is famous for the effectiveness of its sales force, not its R&D. That being said, it's possible to vastly underrate the importance of those small changes in the molecules. One example would be Lipitor, Pfizer's uberdrug. Lipitor is the largest drug in the world (it will cross the $10BB threshold this year). It is not a particularly innovative drug - the first statin was Merck's lovastatin, but then you had Pravachol (pravastatin), and Zocor (simvastatin). All of those are fairly close to lovastatin - they're all HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors with fairly similar mechanisms of action (pravastatin is fat soluble, the others water soluble, but they're all pretty similar). Anyways, so then Warner-Lambert discovered atorvastatin, and Pfizer bought Warner-Lambert pretty much solely for Lipitor and turned it into what it is today. So Lipitor is almost the perfect example of a small molecular change drug that you market the hell out of - it was, I think, the _fifth_ statin - lova, prava, fluva, simva, and finally atorva. I can't remember whether Baycol (cerivastatin) came out before Lipitor or not. Anyways, the point of all this is that Lipitor is a small tweaking of the molecule, and it's not terribly innovative. Except...Lipitor is _twice_ as effective as its major competitors. It's only a small molecular change, but it's hugely more powerful and more effective. In fact, as PROVE-IT just demonstrated, its superior power has really significant medical effects, and ASCOT has shown that it has really powerful benefits for diabetics as well. Incidentally, as a public service announcement - if you're a diabetic and you read this, _you have to be on a statin if you can tolerate them_. It doesn't matter what your cholesterol count is. Without rewarding those small molecular changes - we wouldn't have gotten Lipitor. All of that being said - there's certainly an innovation problem. I don't think it's necessarily because of economic calculations (as I said above). But that innovative role is now being taken over by the biotech startups. One reason (in my judgment, the most important reason) that the biotech startups get VC funding so easily is precisely because of the vast financial reources of big pharma - because the exit strategy of a lot of VCs is having the company they fund being bought by a pharmaco, which can use its production capabilities and sales force to market the innovative new drugs that they develop. So even if the economics dictatted marginal adjustments, as you say, that helps to stimulate innovation a great deal. > This type of overhead grates on people. I can't > prove that it isn't > necessary. Maybe attempts to lower the overhead > costs will just raise > costs. However, I do know that the US spends much > more per capita on > medical costs than do other developed countries. > without a corresponding > superiority in measurements of the health of the > population. Part of it may > be that we pay for the drug development for the rest > of the world. But, I > also think there is tremendous inefficiency in our > system. I think we > could do better. > > Dan M. I have no doubt that we can do better, I just don't think that pharma is the place to do it. First, while I don't remember the exact figures, pharma only accounts for about 10% of medical spending in the US. So it doesn't necessarily seem like the best place to cut. Other countries cut medical expenses by doing things like holding down doctor's salaries, minim
Re: Korea, was Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> Is the portraiment of the US intervention in Korea > correct that > basically the intervention served to prevent the > corrupt unpopular > capitalist government from being replaced by an > elected more popular > communist government in the midst of the cold war? I think you're thinking of Vietnam. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Korea, was Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
JDG wrote: At 08:35 AM 8/28/2004 +0100 Richard Baker wrote: JDG said: Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein? Or during the decades of suffering of North Koreans under Communism? The US sent millions to that corner of the world, so I would hardly call our actions "passive." Funny, but I don't see a great many French troops stationed on the DMZ. Is the portraiment of the US intervention in Korea correct that basically the intervention served to prevent the corrupt unpopular capitalist government from being replaced by an elected more popular communist government in the midst of the cold war? Sonja GCU: Clueless ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
At 08:35 AM 8/28/2004 +0100 Richard Baker wrote: >JDG said: > >> Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis >> under Saddam Hussein? > >Or during the decades of suffering of North Koreans under Communism? The US sent millions to that corner of the world, so I would hardly call our actions "passive." Funny, but I don't see a great many French troops stationed on the DMZ. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
At 09:22 PM 8/27/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: >On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:34:18 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis under >> Saddam Hussein? > >It's of course worth mentioning that AIDS kills as many people in a couple >of years as Hussein did in his entire tenure (and no less mercillessly). >And that we wouldn't have to kill thousands more people in order to >radically reduce the number of deaths. And that instead of alienating the >rest of the world, we would help unify them. And it would be much more >difficult for our enemies to question our motives. If the rest of the world can be alienated by liberating Iraq, I am not at all convinced that they would not be alienated by efforts to tackle AIDS in African countries. Indeed, given that Iraq has now been liberated, and the rest of the world is actively bot just sitting on their hands rather than assisting the Iraqi people in building a stable democracy - but is actively *opposing* those efforts to help the Iraqi people build their country!, I don't find it all difficult to believe that they would also feel similarily about tackling AIDS. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
At 11:36 AM 8/28/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: >What is really needed is endorsement of ABC overall. Its what I taught in >sex education at church...its what our church sanctions. Unfortunately, >the C meets with overwheming opposion here. I don't see the same opposition >to AB as you do. I agree that many religious institutions and the Bush Administration don't exactly strongly promote the "C" in "ABC", but I have definitely heard of strong opposition to the "AB" in "ABC" from the anti-AIDS establishment. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
* Gautam Mukunda [Thu, 26/08/2004 at 11:53 -0700]
> --- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just wanted to note that, last night, in videotape I
> > saw of Parisians celebrating the anniversary of the
> > emancipation of Paris from Nazi rule, some were
> > waving
> > (large) American flags. I think it's as unfair to
> > assume all the French are as supportive of their
> > current administration as it would be to assume that
> > all Americans support our current one... ;)
>
> Well, just remember that in most French textbooks
> today (according to the Washington Post Book World a
> little while ago) the American role in the liberation
> of France is barely mentioned, so don't count on those
> flags for much longer.
Well it's not statistically valid (only one datapoint), but my daughter
just received her schoolbooks for the coming year. The history book is
quite recent 2003 ISBN 2218741954. In the Chapter on the liberation of
France (my translation):
***
A restored France
{introductory paragraph}
The participation of the French forces in the Liberation and the last
combat against Germany mitigates the humiliation of the defeat of 1940 and
the shame of Collaboration. It makes it possible France to appear among
the winners
...
{The paragraph on the Liberation itself}
The Liberation
The Liberation is greatly the deed of the Allied.
...
{some selfsatisfyng sentences about the Insurection of Paris and the
Marechal Leclerc} These satisfactions shouldn't delude people. In Mai 1945
the French army (which arms were greatly provided by the Allied) counted
only 1.3 million men compared to 12 millions for US and 20 million for the
soviets.
I've scanned the page and will send it to everybody interested. For me it
doesn't look historically unfair. Moreover I was in Cherbourg for the DDay
commemoration and Ihaven't had the feeling that even small children doubted
it was the deed of the Americans.
--
Jean-Marc
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And now for something completely different: those > _vampires_ > that control medical research are not interested in > finding cures > for any disease, they are just pumping money into > expensive > drugs that make _any_ disease a cronical disease. This explains why Bayer invested hundreds of millions to develop cipro, I guess. While there are certainly financial incentives that lead them to prefer making things into chronic diseases, they end up with chronic diseases because the science goes that way. I'm curious, actually, as to what disease exactly you're referring to. AIDS? You go ahead and cure AIDS, then, Alberto, and then come back to me and tell me how the "vampire" pharmacos didn't do anything to cure it, if it's so easy. Meanwhile, I'll be thankful for the fact that those "vampires", to little thanks and less profit, invested billions of dollars of money and countless hours of time from some of the finest doctors in the world to change AIDS into a disease where, if you get it in the West, the odds are you will die of something else. That's one of the most remarkable achievements in medical history. As a purely rational advisor to the industry, I would tell them it was the dumbest mistake they ever made, though. Any pharmaco that invested in AIDS research and got a success out of it got _screwed_. I would use a harsher word, but I know how it bothers John. They took enormous publicity hits, and then were forced to sell it at a very low price. From a business standpoint, any pharmaco that invested in AIDS twenty years ago made a mistake. Any pharmaco that did it today would have to be run by idiots or saints, and the reason why is precisely the attitudes you describe. > They are more evil than the Cocaine Cartel of > Medellin: at least > we can say, in favour of the cocaine barons, that > those that > take cocaine are not _forced_ to take it in the > first place. You're not _forced by the pharmaco_ to take the drug. What they manage to do is spend enormous resources and time to produce products that, if you take them, will make your life better. Let's all circle around and damn them for that, certainly. > > Medical research should never be allowed to be > controlled > by private companies. If there is any reason to > fight Capitalism > and sponsor Communism, those Drug Dealers are number > one in my list. How many drugs did the Soviet Union invent, again? Can you name _even one_? I'll stack the odds in your favor and give you every Communist country in the world - the USSR, China, all of Eastern Europe, and everyone else combined - and say that all of them together have done less for drug development than Merck, all by itself. You can also add in every drug developed by J&J, Pfizer, Glaxo, AstraZeneca, ScheringPlough, Novartis, Aventis, and every single biotech, just to cap things off. > > I imagine that history will > > judge the people who made that happen very harshly > > indeed, actually. > > > I imagine that History will be amazed at the > passivity > of the early XXIers, who allowed the Drug Barons to > monopolize their lifes forever. > > Alberto Monteiro Not if historians know anything about the industry. Now, odds are they won't. But if you do, you know that drug creation is split into two parts - research and development. Research consists basically of finding targets. It's quite difficult. Governments do it quite well, pharmacos have historically done it well but are having less success at the moment. The other part is development. It's _very_ difficult. That is taking the target research has found, crafting a molecule to address it, running it through clinical trials, altering the molecule to increase efficacy and decrease toxicity, running it through clinical trials again, developing a delivery system to consistently get it to the appropriate organ, running it through _more_ clinical trials, finally releasing it to the public after FDA approval, and then conducting _still more_ clinical trials to make sure that it's safe for even the rarest of populations. Governments can't do that worth shit. There's no one outside the industry who has the skills in pharmacological chemistry (to pick one skill among many) to do those things. History will, I think, most likely be amazed at the foolishness of governments that decided to sacrifice all future innovation and new drug development in order to get questionable savings on current products. You don't want to pay pharmaco prices? Fine, but then you should never take any drug that comes onto the market after today, no matter what the reason. Otherwise you're just a parasite, free riding on the people who do pay for those drugs to be created. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http
Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > 2. Despite what people think, it's really not all that > clear what to do in Africa. The AIDS drugs that we're > finally giving out there do some good, but the methods > used to get them (basically, browbeating pharma > companies that bothered to do research to try to cure > AIDS) means that all private research in AIDS has, to > first order, stopped. > And now for something completely different: those _vampires_ that control medical research are not interested in finding cures for any disease, they are just pumping money into expensive drugs that make _any_ disease a cronical disease. They are more evil than the Cocaine Cartel of Medellin: at least we can say, in favour of the cocaine barons, that those that take cocaine are not _forced_ to take it in the first place. Medical research should never be allowed to be controlled by private companies. If there is any reason to fight Capitalism and sponsor Communism, those Drug Dealers are number one in my list. > I imagine that history will > judge the people who made that happen very harshly > indeed, actually. > I imagine that History will be amazed at the passivity of the early XXIers, who allowed the Drug Barons to monopolize their lifes forever. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:58:30 +0100 On 28 Aug 2004, at 7:17 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Not a Catholic today then? Even here in the U.S., four out of five Catholics belive that it's OK to use birth control. 80% of US Catholics are mortal sinners? Actually, 80% of Catholic sinners are mortal... -Travis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=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: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Gautam wrote: And that you absolutely despise the first American President to even attempt to do something about the problem. It's a special kind of tunnel vision that Bush supporters have, isn't it? http://www.thebody.com/whitehouse/wad2000.html "Today, President Clinton will join international religious leaders at Howard University to mark World AIDS Day. At this event, he will unveil the first ever National Institutes of Health strategic plan for international AIDS research, a blueprint for establishing new funding approaches and research opportunities in over 50 countries. He also will release a new report from the White House Office of National AIDS Policy, entitled Action Against AIDS: A Legacy of Leadership at Home and Around the World detailing the Administration's successes in fighting the AIDS epidemic. The President also will urge the Congress to finish the job on the Appropriations bills and fund critical domestic and international HIV/AIDS funding priorities, including domestic and international AIDS prevention and treatment programs, creating a new vaccine tax credit, the Ryan White CARE Act, and investing in HIV/AIDS research." http://www.sfaf.org/policy/global.htm "On August 19th, President Clinton signed a bipartisan bill that pledges nearly $600 million for FY 2001 and 2002 to fight AIDS and other infectious diseases in Africa and around the world. "The Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000" authorizes federal spending in several key areas..." -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On 28 Aug 2004, at 7:17 pm, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: Not a Catholic today then? Even here in the U.S., four out of five Catholics belive that it's OK to use birth control. 80% of US Catholics are mortal sinners? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On 28 Aug 2004, at 7:05 pm, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On 28 Aug 2004, at 5:36 pm, Dan Minette wrote: What is really needed is endorsement of ABC overall. Its what I taught in sex education at church...its what our church sanctions. Not a Catholic today then? Local church...the one I'm an elder at. Fair enough, I guess I'm wearing two religious hats. I do differ with the official Catholic church on that, and agree with the local Presbyterian church on that point. Looking at the Italian birthrate it would seem most Italian Catholics agree with you about disagreeing about that :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone." - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
William wrote: Not a Catholic today then? Even here in the U.S., four out of five Catholics belive that it's OK to use birth control. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 12:52 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > > On 28 Aug 2004, at 5:36 pm, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > What is really needed is endorsement of ABC overall. Its what I > > taught in > > sex education at church...its what our church sanctions. > > Not a Catholic today then? Local church...the one I'm an elder at. Fair enough, I guess I'm wearing two religious hats. I do differ with the official Catholic church on that, and agree with the local Presbyterian church on that point. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On 28 Aug 2004, at 5:36 pm, Dan Minette wrote: What is really needed is endorsement of ABC overall. Its what I taught in sex education at church...its what our church sanctions. Not a Catholic today then? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Our products just aren't engineered for security." - Brian Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development team. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is one other thing that hurts, at least > > according to my daughter > > Neli. According to her, Bush's AIDs program was > > mostly propaganda. When > > the time came to fund it, the money wasn't allocated > > as promised. > > I know that a lot of Africans feel this way, but > everything I've seen suggests that it's not fair. > Given the desperate situation in Africa, being fair is > more than any human being could be, of course. The > Bush Administration has certainly put far more effort > into the problem than anyone ever did before. Second, > they've found out what _everyone_ who has ever tried > to do this has found out (including the pharma > companies who have spent huge sums of money on AIDS in > Africa, actually). There's no one there to receive > the money. The structures aren't in place. That's > what the Bush people have said, over and over again, > when people ask them why the funding hasn't reached > the levels they promised (although, again, they are > much higher than they were in the past) and as far as > I can tell this is true (i.e., it's possible that if > the structures were there the funding would be no > higher, I don't know, and neither does anyone else not > in the Administration, but at the moment, if the > funding levels were higher, it wouldn't do any good, > and they have publicly stated their intent to increase > funding as the structures come into place). > > > > > Second, while we cannot stop the spread of AIDs in > > Africa, there are > > measures to slow it down. Again, folks who have > > made at least a small dent > > in the spread are prohibited from getting funding > > because of the > > administration's supporters discomfort with the > > connection between condoms, > > birth control and agencies that favor abortions. > > I'm obviously not happy with their position on this > issue. OTOH, I don't feel the blame is all one-sided, > either. The agencies involved are, after all, the > ones asking for money. It is not unreasonable for > them to adapt to the demands of the people writing the > checks. Even if the demands don't just apply to that particular program? Yes, money is fungable, but I think a grant of X million matched with a spending increase in the desired area of the same X million would be the same as targeted funding. Telling agencies that they must change their activities everywhere to conform to the US government's specifications in order to be involved with a program on which common ground can be found is not a way to ensure cooperation. I won't argue with your assertion that there is difficulty with finding structures to spend the money wisely. I also won't argue that a number of folks on the left are squeemish about preaching ABC. They can share the blame. But, it seems to me that insisting on idealogical purity for those who can help do the work in Africa will promote the same type of sucess as insisting on idealogical purity for those who help in Iraq.That insistance is not all one sided; I'll agree with that. But, it is very unhelpful. > > When Neli gets home tonight, I'll double check on > > her sources. But, since > > Zambia now has a life expectancy in the lower 30s, > > she feels this rather > > strongly. And, I know that its not just Bush > > bashing on her part because > > she also said that she has to admit that Bush/Powell > > have done far more > > than the UN or anyone else about addressing Sudan. > > > > Dan M. > > Finally, one other thing. The country in Africa that > has probably handled the AIDS crisis the best is > Uganda. The AIDS infection rate there peaked in 1991, > and has dropped ever since. In 1991 the infection > rate was 21 percent. In 2001 it was _6_ percent. > Uganda adopted the ABC approach - basically > Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom. The slogan > they used, IIRC, was "Zero grazing outside your own > field." The key component to its success was using > organized religion to preach the importance of this > message. The Ugandan approach has not been used in > other parts of Africa because the international AIDS > community doesn't want to deal with religious groups, > and doesn't want to talk about the fact that > moralistic preaching on sexual behavior is the m
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is one other thing that hurts, at least > according to my daughter > Neli. According to her, Bush's AIDs program was > mostly propaganda. When > the time came to fund it, the money wasn't allocated > as promised. I know that a lot of Africans feel this way, but everything I've seen suggests that it's not fair. Given the desperate situation in Africa, being fair is more than any human being could be, of course. The Bush Administration has certainly put far more effort into the problem than anyone ever did before. Second, they've found out what _everyone_ who has ever tried to do this has found out (including the pharma companies who have spent huge sums of money on AIDS in Africa, actually). There's no one there to receive the money. The structures aren't in place. That's what the Bush people have said, over and over again, when people ask them why the funding hasn't reached the levels they promised (although, again, they are much higher than they were in the past) and as far as I can tell this is true (i.e., it's possible that if the structures were there the funding would be no higher, I don't know, and neither does anyone else not in the Administration, but at the moment, if the funding levels were higher, it wouldn't do any good, and they have publicly stated their intent to increase funding as the structures come into place). > > Second, while we cannot stop the spread of AIDs in > Africa, there are > measures to slow it down. Again, folks who have > made at least a small dent > in the spread are prohibited from getting funding > because of the > administration's supporters discomfort with the > connection between condoms, > birth control and agencies that favor abortions. I'm obviously not happy with their position on this issue. OTOH, I don't feel the blame is all one-sided, either. The agencies involved are, after all, the ones asking for money. It is not unreasonable for them to adapt to the demands of the people writing the checks. > > When Neli gets home tonight, I'll double check on > her sources. But, since > Zambia now has a life expectancy in the lower 30s, > she feels this rather > strongly. And, I know that its not just Bush > bashing on her part because > she also said that she has to admit that Bush/Powell > have done far more > than the UN or anyone else about addressing Sudan. > > Dan M. Finally, one other thing. The country in Africa that has probably handled the AIDS crisis the best is Uganda. The AIDS infection rate there peaked in 1991, and has dropped ever since. In 1991 the infection rate was 21 percent. In 2001 it was _6_ percent. Uganda adopted the ABC approach - basically Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom. The slogan they used, IIRC, was "Zero grazing outside your own field." The key component to its success was using organized religion to preach the importance of this message. The Ugandan approach has not been used in other parts of Africa because the international AIDS community doesn't want to deal with religious groups, and doesn't want to talk about the fact that moralistic preaching on sexual behavior is the most cost-effective way of dealing with AIDS. The Bush Administration has (not nearly enough, but somewhat) gotten behind ABC and the Ugandan program when no one else was willing to do that. Not, of course, that they get any credit for any of that. Some of the opponents of the Administration, from what I can tell, are okay with mass death from AIDS, as long as the Administration doesn't look good because it's doing something about it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > --- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I wonder how people in the end of the XXI century > > will > > think about _us_, who are passive in the face of the > > AIDS African Holocaust :-/ > > > > Alberto Monteiro > > Harshly, but not as harshly. For several reasons. > Two of which are: > 1. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing is bad. > Actively helping people involved in genocide is much > worse, and that's what Communist sympathizers and > Communist spies did during the Cold War. > > 2. Despite what people think, it's really not all that > clear what to do in Africa. The AIDS drugs that we're > finally giving out there do some good, but the methods > used to get them (basically, browbeating pharma > companies that bothered to do research to try to cure > AIDS) means that all private research in AIDS has, to > first order, stopped. I imagine that history will > judge the people who made that happen very harshly > indeed, actually. Just throwing money at the problem > will do little, because the structures and governments > necessary to administer the aid and make it useful > _don't exist_. There is one other thing that hurts, at least according to my daughter Neli. According to her, Bush's AIDs program was mostly propaganda. When the time came to fund it, the money wasn't allocated as promised. Second, while we cannot stop the spread of AIDs in Africa, there are measures to slow it down. Again, folks who have made at least a small dent in the spread are prohibited from getting funding because of the administration's supporters discomfort with the connection between condoms, birth control and agencies that favor abortions. When Neli gets home tonight, I'll double check on her sources. But, since Zambia now has a life expectancy in the lower 30s, she feels this rather strongly. And, I know that its not just Bush bashing on her part because she also said that she has to admit that Bush/Powell have done far more than the UN or anyone else about addressing Sudan. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder how people in the end of the XXI century > will > think about _us_, who are passive in the face of the > AIDS African Holocaust :-/ > > Alberto Monteiro Harshly, but not as harshly. For several reasons. Two of which are: 1. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing is bad. Actively helping people involved in genocide is much worse, and that's what Communist sympathizers and Communist spies did during the Cold War. 2. Despite what people think, it's really not all that clear what to do in Africa. The AIDS drugs that we're finally giving out there do some good, but the methods used to get them (basically, browbeating pharma companies that bothered to do research to try to cure AIDS) means that all private research in AIDS has, to first order, stopped. I imagine that history will judge the people who made that happen very harshly indeed, actually. Just throwing money at the problem will do little, because the structures and governments necessary to administer the aid and make it useful _don't exist_. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's of course worth mentioning that AIDS kills as > many people in a couple > of years as Hussein did in his entire tenure (and no > less mercillessly). > And that we wouldn't have to kill thousands more > people in order to > radically reduce the number of deaths. And that > instead of alienating the > rest of the world, we would help unify them. And it > would be much more > difficult for our enemies to question our motives. > And we wouldn't have > to fabricate reasons for justifying it. Etcetera, > etcetera. > > -- > Doug And that you absolutely despise the first American President to even attempt to do something about the problem. So most of the rest of what you said is nonsense, etc. etc. etc. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On 27 Aug 2004, at 10:38 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: Being passive in the face of, or even actively supporting, governments that carried out genocide in the middle years of the twentieth century was not a crime limited to German or Japanese citizens. I wonder how people in the end of the XXI century will think about _us_, who are passive in the face of the AIDS African Holocaust :-/ Actually the Bushies and the Catholics are promoting AIDS in Africa by disseminating false and distorted medical advice. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
JDG wrote: > >> I wonder how people in the end of the XXI century will >> think about _us_, who are passive in the face of the >> AIDS African Holocaust :-/ > > Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis under > Saddam Hussein? > That was not (being passing). That was (being not active). Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
JDG said: > Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis > under Saddam Hussein? Or during the decades of suffering of North Koreans under Communism? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:34:18 -0400, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein? It's of course worth mentioning that AIDS kills as many people in a couple of years as Hussein did in his entire tenure (and no less mercillessly). And that we wouldn't have to kill thousands more people in order to radically reduce the number of deaths. And that instead of alienating the rest of the world, we would help unify them. And it would be much more difficult for our enemies to question our motives. And we wouldn't have to fabricate reasons for justifying it. Etcetera, etcetera. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
At 09:38 PM 8/27/2004 + Alberto Monteiro wrote: >Gautam Mukunda wrote: >> >> Being >> passive in the face of, or even actively supporting, >> governments that carried out genocide in the middle >> years of the twentieth century was not a crime limited >> to German or Japanese citizens. >> >I wonder how people in the end of the XXI century will >think about _us_, who are passive in the face of the >AIDS African Holocaust :-/ Or how about being passive in the decades of sufferings of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein? JDG - Don't even mention Darfur Maru... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > Being > passive in the face of, or even actively supporting, > governments that carried out genocide in the middle > years of the twentieth century was not a crime limited > to German or Japanese citizens. > I wonder how people in the end of the XXI century will think about _us_, who are passive in the face of the AIDS African Holocaust :-/ Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But, Nazi Germany was not really a totalitarian > > regime. Damon pointed out > > they were not really fully mobilized until '43 or > > '44. > > To expand on this, theres a lot of evidence that > suggests that Germany didn't become a "police state" > until sometime in 1944. Before that time the German > government didn't interfere in the personal lives of > "normal" Germans. > > Damon. Just to echo that (I've talked about this subject on the list as well) Germany becoming a police state is usually traced to the bomb plot against Hitler. After that, he really cracked down. Before the bomb plot you would (if you were an "Aryan" of course - and I wonder how Hitler would have felt if anyone had told him that I am one and he wasn't?) have had a non-trivial level of personal freedom, and even some ability to resist the government in minor ways. You could certainly be coerced into fighting in the German army, but so far as I am aware there is little or no evidence of any active coercion forcing people to work in the death camps, SS, etc. Hitler was able to rule the way he did because, as far as all the evidence I have seen says, he was very popular in Germany at least until 1943, maybe even later. And while we can argue about whether he was popular _because of_ the Holocaust, he certainly wasn't popular _despite_ the Holocaust. People knew about it, and it didn't seem to bother them all that much. It's worth noting, though, that (for example) lots of people in the West knew about Stalin's purges, which killed at least _twice_ as many people as the Holocaust did, and that didn't stop them from defending him either. Alger Hiss was a spy, to pick one example - there literally can no longer be any doubt about that fact. There were lots of other Soviet agents in the US and Great Britain. There were also lots of other people who were not spies, but were certainly sympathizers, pepole who knew what was going on in the USSR, and they _just didn't care_. Being passive in the face of, or even actively supporting, governments that carried out genocide in the middle years of the twentieth century was not a crime limited to German or Japanese citizens. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> Gautam pointed documentation that showed that a > guard who refused to work > in the death camp was not punished; he was merely > reassigned. Stein in his book on the Waffen SS discusses this as well, in context of placing the Waffen SS with the cupability in the Holocaust. There have been a few documented cases where German soldiers have refused what we would call today "illegal" orders -- shootings of prisoners and Jews in the Soviet Union. These soldiers were not directly punished (in terms of military law). Sonja's point about desertion is true. In just about every military at the time (and possibly today as well), the penalty for desertion was Death by Firing Squad. It was rarely enforced in the US Army (except for a few "examples" late in the war -- there's a story of a deserter living in a French forest for some time hunting deer with his M1 rifle), but was strictly enforced in the German army. > But, Nazi Germany was not really a totalitarian > regime. Damon pointed out > they were not really fully mobilized until '43 or > '44. To expand on this, theres a lot of evidence that suggests that Germany didn't become a "police state" until sometime in 1944. Before that time the German government didn't interfere in the personal lives of "normal" Germans. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 6:24 AM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > Dan Minette wrote: > > >From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > >>Reports had filtered out earlier, IIRC, though I don't think they'd > >>been given much credence. > >> > >> > >There is documented skepticism about the "whining of the Jews" concerning > >them being targeted by the Nazis. > > > I believe the US and the UK only allowed Jewish children to enter their > country freely during the first years of the war. The adults usually > were refused entry unless they could show loads of money or prove that > they had a usefull profession. The general adult rif-raf (not ment > denigratingly) was kept out, much like immigration laws in most > countries today. > > >>>Its fairly well established > >>> > >>> > >>Among the brass, certainly -- I was referring to the people in the > >>trenches and the civilians left behind. > >> > >> > > > >Among those folks too. That is fairly well established, as Gautam has > >shown here. > > > I don't know what Gautam has shown but I know for a fact that most > German soldiers had no choice but to fight. The alternative was what > usually turned out to be a one way trip to one of the fronlines. Gautam pointed documentation that showed that a guard who refused to work in the death camp was not punished; he was merely reassigned. > Survival chances there were rather slim depending on which front you got > sent to. Desertion equated immediate death. Hardheaded cases or vocal > opposition was send to fight in the hot spots on the much feared Eastern > fronts or alternatively got a bullet through the head or if they got > lucky enough were sent to one of the many work camps. Quite frankly if > that are the options I'd be very carefull and fight. It is a strong > motivation when one lives under a totalitarian regime where betrayal is > rife. But, Nazi Germany was not really a totalitarian regime. Damon pointed out they were not really fully mobilized until '43 or '44. Spear wrote that Hitler was unwilling to restrict permanents, which used up a limited chemical supply needed for the war effort because he was worried about popular opinion. Hitler didn't believe in elections, but the Nazis would have won until the war started going bad. People casually wrote about the death camps in letters. I realize that all the Western governments agreed to accentuate the dictatorial nature of the Nazis with respect to Aryans and the strength of the French resistance beyond anything a hard look at data would suggest. But, 60 some years later, its worthwhile to try to achieve an accurate understanding; isn't it? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reports had filtered out earlier, IIRC, though I don't think they'd been given much credence. There is documented skepticism about the "whining of the Jews" concerning them being targeted by the Nazis. I believe the US and the UK only allowed Jewish children to enter their country freely during the first years of the war. The adults usually were refused entry unless they could show loads of money or prove that they had a usefull profession. The general adult rif-raf (not ment denigratingly) was kept out, much like immigration laws in most countries today. Its fairly well established Among the brass, certainly -- I was referring to the people in the trenches and the civilians left behind. Among those folks too. That is fairly well established, as Gautam has shown here. I don't know what Gautam has shown but I know for a fact that most German soldiers had no choice but to fight. The alternative was what usually turned out to be a one way trip to one of the fronlines. Survival chances there were rather slim depending on which front you got sent to. Desertion equated immediate death. Hardheaded cases or vocal opposition was send to fight in the hot spots on the much feared Eastern fronts or alternatively got a bullet through the head or if they got lucky enough were sent to one of the many work camps. Quite frankly if that are the options I'd be very carefull and fight. It is a strong motivation when one lives under a totalitarian regime where betrayal is rife. Sonja GCU: First hand accounts ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:25:47 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda: > I think that's a little optimistic. A simple > historical "what-if". What if FDR had died in, say, > mid-1944 instead of mid-1945? This is eminently > plausible - his health was poor throughout 1944. If > he had, Henry Wallace would have become President of > the United States, and presumably won reelection in > 1944. Henry Wallace had, at one point in his career, > named the people he would have picked for several > senior positions in his Cabinet. We now know his > choices for both Secretary of State and Secretary of > the Treasury were paid Soviet agents. But see: Roger J. Sandilands, "Guilt by Association? Lauchlin Currie's Alleged Involvement with Washington Economists in Soviet Espionage" Boughton and Sandilands, "Politics and the Attack on FDR's Economists: >From the Grand Alliance to the Cold War" Economist Brad DeLong looks into this and concludes the evidence is not there although he does admit they were "security risks." "Up until recently the public evidence that White was a spy for Stalin was that Whittaker Chambers said so. But Whittaker Chambers was a very strange man--someone who sees no essential difference between Marx and Keynes; someone who said that Khrushchev's 1956 denunciation of Stalin's terror made Communism not less but more dangerous; and someone who rewrote Theodore White's dispatches from WWII China to make Chiang Kai-Shek appear to be the noble, competent, and democratic Hope of China. As either a liar, a loon, or both, Chambers's unsupported statements have little credibility. It strongly looks as though he was right about Hiss (but I am told that in Blind Ambition Dean says that Nixon said that Hiss was framed), but about what else? ... "Were I on a jury, I certainly would not convict White of espionage on the basis of the evidence we have, even including VENONA. I'm not sure the evidence passes the "clear and convincing standard." Nevertheless I think that even though Boughton and Sandilands have pleaded their case well, there is enough evidence to classify White as a genuine "security risk." "There is, of course, one more point that needs to be made: If Harry Dexter White was indeed a spy for J.V. Stalin, never did a tyrant receive worse service than Stalin did from White. The post-WWII North Atlantic alliance was so strong and such a barrier to the Soviet Union primarily because post-WWII economic growth was so strong, and Harry Dexter White's work at institution-building played as large a role in laying the foundations for those Thirty Glorious Years of economic growth as anyone's. " http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000967.html Gary Denton - -- #2 on google for liberal news "I don't try harder" ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> For the military buffs here: I saw no mention in > posts > thus far of Russian winter conditions as part of the > reason the Nazis ultimately lost; do you think it > played a significant part or not? (My understanding > was that it did factor in a great deal, but perhaps > that was because of one man ordering 'attack' when > he > ought not have?) Well, I personally think it has been overdramatized. The Germans quickly adapted when they needed to, and there's an interesting discussion (well, maybe only for grognards) about the development of German winter uniforms, and by 1943 at the very least they had an excellent uniforn that could capably deal with the Russian Winters, and had a few experimental uniforms beforehand. Further, its a myth that the Germans rolled into the Soviet Union utterly unprepared for the winter...German troops WERE issued with winter clothes as part of their normal uniform (usually a hood, trenchcoat, sweater, etc), though these proved unsuitable for the sustained conditions in Russia. There are a few advantages to fighting in winter too; a big one is that there is no mud! With the frozen earth, the use of tanks in mobile warfare is facilitated. And one thing to consider is that the Soviets would be just as hindered by -40F temperatures and whiteout conditions as the Germans; they were better prepared for them though, so could adapt their operations around it. But IMO by '43 the Russian Winter stopped being as great a factor as it had been in, say, 1941. I think a better reason why the Germans lost was the crushing manpower the Soviets could bring to bear. Production of the T-34 tank, a decent, well designed vehicle that was also easy to maintain an operate, FAR outstripped the TOTAL German armor production of the ENTIRE war! Further, by the latter part of the war the Soviets were producing better quality tanks (at least more capable...the IS-2 was a very capable tank for the time). Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just wanted to note that, last night, in videotape I > saw of Parisians celebrating the anniversary of the > emancipation of Paris from Nazi rule, some were > waving > (large) American flags. I think it's as unfair to > assume all the French are as supportive of their > current administration as it would be to assume that > all Americans support our current one... ;) Well, just remember that in most French textbooks today (according to the Washington Post Book World a little while ago) the American role in the liberation of France is barely mentioned, so don't count on those flags for much longer. > For the military buffs here: I saw no mention in > posts > thus far of Russian winter conditions as part of the > reason the Nazis ultimately lost; do you think it > played a significant part or not? (My understanding > was that it did factor in a great deal, but perhaps > that was because of one man ordering 'attack' when > he > ought not have?) > > Debbi Sure it was significant, but it's complicated. The standard thing is to say "never attack Russia in winter" and argue that the Germans launched their offensive too late. There's certainly a fair amount of truth in that, but you almost _have_ to operate in winter in Russia because winter is when the ground freezes hard enough to allow armored operations. The problem is actually most acute in the change of seasons, when the raputista (sp?) turns most of the western half of the country into solid mud, paralyzing military operations. At any rate, winter or no, overstretched or no, I remember driving into Moscow from Lefortorvo airport and seeing the huge tank traps that the Russians have left in place to mark the farthest line of advance of the German armies. They were right on the outskirts of the city - you could just about see the domes of the Kremlin (German scouts actually reached the city proper). Given the centralization of Soviet society around Moscow as an industrial, transportation, and governmental hub, (the best way to think of Moscow's importance in Russia is to combine Washington, New York, LA, Chicago, and Detroit in one) I find it difficult to imagine the USSR fighting effectively had Moscow fallen. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In fact, as far as I am aware the US has the most > expansive definition of freedom of speech of any > nationand > quite a few countries that would be very powerful in > the UN are _actively opposed_ to any form of freedom > of speech, while many of the others > France are easily bought off, so it's > hard to imagine how it would turn out any other way. Just wanted to note that, last night, in videotape I saw of Parisians celebrating the anniversary of the emancipation of Paris from Nazi rule, some were waving (large) American flags. I think it's as unfair to assume all the French are as supportive of their current administration as it would be to assume that all Americans support our current one... ;) For the military buffs here: I saw no mention in posts thus far of Russian winter conditions as part of the reason the Nazis ultimately lost; do you think it played a significant part or not? (My understanding was that it did factor in a great deal, but perhaps that was because of one man ordering 'attack' when he ought not have?) Debbi Sometimes Mother Nature's Face Is Kali's Maru ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Dan wrote: I cannot point to the gene for free will any more than I can point to the gene for reflective self-awareness. :-) But isn't the evidence for reflective self-awareness in humans much more compelling than the evidence against free will in pumas? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 10:20 AM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > > On 26 Aug 2004, at 1:46 am, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > Since pumas do not have free will, they are not acting immorally. A > > human > > who does the same would be. > > What makes you think a puma doesn't have free will if humans do? Do you > think chimpanzees have free will? Where is the gene for free will, and > how do you know what has it and what doesn't? I cannot point to the gene for free will any more than I can point to the gene for reflective self-awareness. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > So Perestroika and Glasnost and so on, and eventually Communism in > Russia went away (for now!). The same will *probably* happen in China > and North Korea, but I'll say again that it doesn't magically happen. > There must be competition from other societies, if for no other reason > than to get the oppressed thinking in terms of their own rights and > liberties (as being at least as valid as those of the Great Leader). > I think exactly the _opposite_: a totalitarian regime can only survive for a long time if there is an external competition. The external competition is the stabilizing factor that prevents the minions of the Evil Overlord to fight among themselves to become the next Evil Overlord. Of course this does not prevent the worst-case-scenario of 1984, with three competing totalitarian regimes. Could we become this, with China, the USA and someone else [Europe? The Muslim World? An Arab-Europe coalition?] turned into totalitarian regimes and oppressing the world? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On 26 Aug 2004, at 12:30 am, Dan Minette wrote: From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good and evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not objectively exist. So, an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as valid as one in which genocide is wrong? Comparing ethics assumes some overarching system in which they are both embedded, a meta-ethics. If ethics are human-defined there is no such overarching system and the idea of comparing validity is meaningless. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any idiot is going to run it." - Warren Buffet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On 26 Aug 2004, at 1:46 am, Dan Minette wrote: Since pumas do not have free will, they are not acting immorally. A human who does the same would be. What makes you think a puma doesn't have free will if humans do? Do you think chimpanzees have free will? Where is the gene for free will, and how do you know what has it and what doesn't? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Richard Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam said (in a message I haven't seen): > > > As one Soviet general said to the other in Paris, > "By > > the way, who won the air war?" (old, and bitter, > army > > joke). The "sea battle" was relevant only to the > > extent that it allowed the US to supply Great > Britain. > > And both to supply the Soviet Union! Together, the > US, the UK and Canada > supplied the USSR with something like 12,000 > aircraft, 9,000 tanks, > hundreds of thousands of other vehicles, enough food > to feed twelve > million troops for the duration of the war, and lots > of fuel too. If the > war at sea had been lost and this supply pipeline > dried up, I'm not sure > if the Soviets would've survived until the tide > turned at Stalingrad. > > Rich Yes, absolutely true. I mentioned that obliquely in another post, but I should have been more clear in this one. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Gautam said (in a message I haven't seen): > As one Soviet general said to the other in Paris, "By > the way, who won the air war?" (old, and bitter, army > joke). The "sea battle" was relevant only to the > extent that it allowed the US to supply Great Britain. And both to supply the Soviet Union! Together, the US, the UK and Canada supplied the USSR with something like 12,000 aircraft, 9,000 tanks, hundreds of thousands of other vehicles, enough food to feed twelve million troops for the duration of the war, and lots of fuel too. If the war at sea had been lost and this supply pipeline dried up, I'm not sure if the Soviets would've survived until the tide turned at Stalingrad. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Dan Minette wrote: > >> As an example, if you're in the middle of Faulkner's markless trackless >> unaxed wild and a puma finds and eats you, whither your human right to >> life? > > Since pumas do not have free will, they are not acting immorally. A human > who does the same would be. > A bad example. Pumas _could_ have free will (according to their own limited brain functions), and still it would not be Evil for them to eat a human being. I think that designing a self-consistent moral/ethics system is not impossible, but eventually we will have to set arbitrary "weights", and two systems that are based on the same axioms but have different "weights" would end up with totally different and opposite moralities. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:33 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > --- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > Further, to zeroth order, it was Stalin's USSR > > that defeated the Nazis. > > > > In Russia, on land, sure. But it was US and UK > > efforts that won the air > > and sea battles. > > As one Soviet general said to the other in Paris, "By > the way, who won the air war?" (old, and bitter, army > joke). The "sea battle" was relevant only to the > extent that it allowed the US to supply Great Britain. > Had the Germans won the battles on the land, this > would have meant, nothing. The war in the air was of > debatable importance in the outcome of the war (I > think most historians give the impact of the strategic > bombing campaigns too little credit for reasons that > are not worth going into here) but for all that, it > seems to me that the purpose of the air war was to > allow the war on land to be won. I'm not sure I'd go > as far as Dan's "Zeroth order" comment - given how > closely balanced the Eastern Front was, it's my belief > that without British and American support of the USSR > it would have collapsed in either 1940 or 1941 - but > certainly to first order it seems correct. Actually, my zeroth order comment was meant to be weaker than a first order comment. Think about perturbation theory. If a solution can be expressed in terms of a convergent series; a first order approximation is one that includes all first order terms, a second order approximation includes all first and second order terms, etc. A zeroth order approximation, thus, is a metaphor for an approximation that is rougher than a first order approximation. I've stated earlier that, to first order; the war in Europe was won by the US and the USSR. To zeroth order it was won by the USSR. I hope that clarifies my meaning. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I still feel (so far) that, all things being equal > or equivalent > (population, power, etc) at the beginning of a > contest, if you have two > evenly-matched nations, one of which is totalitarian > and the other more > liberty-oriented, the totalitarian system will > ultimately, eventually > collapse. I don't believe totalitarian systems are > flexible, innovative > or robust enough to survive that kind of > competition. This is an argument first made my Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy. Tocqueville also suggested in _Democracy in America_, although, oddly enough, he didn't apply it to the US. In both cases, though, they believed that this was something that could happen only after a democracy had a long time to develop. They thought that democracies when they first developed would be very vulnerable - far more so than equivalent dictatorships. Certainly political scientists have noticed that democracies tend to win the wars they fight more often than should be expected (although they usually credit this fact to democracies' superior ability to mobilize national resources during a crisis). All things being equal, this may be true. The point Dan and I are making, though, is that historically, things usually aren't equal. There are lots of highly plausible scenarios you can spin where the most powerful country in the world is a fascist dictatorship (Nazi Germany), a totalitarian Communist dictatorship (the USSR), or any number of other options. For example, had the North lost the Civil War, it's arguable that democratic reform in England would have been far less successful - certainly, that's what Gladstone thought, and he ought to have known. If any of these things had happened, we wouldn't even know about this hypothetical advantage democracies have. The argument that "good" governments win their wars is based on events that could very easily have gone other ways, suggesting that such an advantage, if it exists, is so small that it's hardly sufficient to use to justify the superiority of liberal governments. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> impact on the ability of German industry to arm the > Wehrmacht. Do you feel this is a reasonable > assessment? Yep. That's a theory that's already been explored to a certain extent. I don't have any references, but I remember studying the topic when I wrote a paper in college on the very subject. Yes, it is a very plausable theory. Lets say (figures are for reference only) in 1943 the Germans produced 800 Pz.IV tanks, while the next year (being hit by strategic bombers in key industries) they increase to 1000 tanks. It is quite possible, though, that they could have increased production to 1500 without the bombers. We'll never really know, of course, but there is at least some thought that although the Germans did increase production (which peaked in 1944 when the Allies were dominating the skies), the bombing campaign hindered the potential that production expansion had. And then you had the efforts of the Germans to hinder their own production (discussion for another time)... > 1. To what extent were German casualties on the > Eastern Front a product of Russian air superiority? Not nearly as great as in the West, at least not early on. I don't have any numbers handy here at work, but it may very well be comperable in raw numbers; however, the ratio compared to the size of the armies was probably much lower. Part of this is due to the fact that the balance of power in the air over the Eastern Front lasted a bit longer than in the West, where the allies had near total dominance. > 2. To what extent was Russian air superiority a > product of the losses inflicted on the Luftwaffe by > the British and American air campaigns? I'd say a great deal. Aircraft by their nature are strategic. It's fairly easy to shift them from one zone to another, just as the Germans did by shifting much of their fighter assets into Germany to defend from Allied Bombers. Thus the destructioin of airframes in one battlezone will have an effect on the airpower of another, if for no other reason than they won't be availalbe to shift to another front. Perhaps more telling though (at least in my mind) was the attrition of skilled pilots. Of course this is something each power had experienced at one point or another in WW1 or 2. The British, FREX, were feeling a significant pinch in pilot quality in IIRC 1915, and the Germans again in 1918. Now in 1944-45 the Germans were feeling it again. It takes considerably more to train a pilot than it does a tanker or infantryman, and the Germans were simply not able to put out the same quality pilots as they did in say 1940... Ah and to respond to another comment you made, I would say it wasn't the quality of the German soldier that made them a capable army (the quality of the German soldier declined significantly after 1941), but rather the quality of the leadership. When left to their own devices, German military leadership was excellent--one need look only at what Rommel could do with 2 armored divisions (15th & 21st), and Italian armored divison or two, and the bulk of an Italian army of rabble. But when you started having interference from the top in the local strategic disposition of the war (I'm speaking of Hitler here, obviously), I think it shows, and he was more responsible for the number of German disasters (which were happening almost daily in late 1944 on, but especially in 1945) than anything. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 8:25 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Maybe not (arguable, though). But we have some empirical evidence that we can use to test that hypothesis. Damon's military history is a lot better than mine, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that he would agree with me that the German armies fought really, really, really well during the Second World War - man for man, they were probably the best of any of the major combatants (possible exception for the Finns). Indeed, I know that in the standard US army wargames simulating the Western Front in the Second World War, German units are rated as considerably superior to their American counterparts. While you can argue that American elite formations (the 101st Airborne, some historians argue Patton's 3rd Army) fought as well or better than their German counterparts, I don't think there's any question that of all the reasons that the Germans lost the war, the fighting abilities of their armies (on a one for one basis) is dead last on the list. I wasn't thinking of their fighting abilities, but rather that they got spread very thin very fast. IIRC they were overdeployed and too disconnected to keep up the campaign indefinitely. That's what I meant when I referred to their arrogance and belligerence. Two, any social system that attempts to quell diversity will suffer and probably fail when it is forced to compete with another, more cosmopolitan social system. For instance the collapse of Communism in Russia was more or less preordained; as soon as it became a thought-control, monotonous experiment, all original thinking -- which is crucial to keep a society going artistically, technologically and so on -- was crushed. (The ridiculous attempts to force Lysenkoism into agriculture are an extreme example of how backwards such systems can become.) I think that's a little optimistic. A simple historical "what-if". What if FDR had died in, say, mid-1944 instead of mid-1945? This is eminently plausible - his health was poor throughout 1944. If he had, Henry Wallace would have become President of the United States, and presumably won reelection in 1944. Henry Wallace had, at one point in his career, named the people he would have picked for several senior positions in his Cabinet. We now know his choices for both Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury were paid Soviet agents. Wallace himself was not, but was so ludicrously sympathetic to the Soviets that it seems virtually certain that, had he been President instead of Harry Truman, Stalin would have been able to secure a dominant global position after the war. Controlling the two most important people in the Cabinet might have helped as well. It seems at least possible, to put it mildly, that this would have changed the outcome of the Cold War. I'd agree, but it doesn't refute my outlook, I think, because of the condition about being forced to compete with a cosmopolitan society. Had events unfolded as you described, the US may not have been that competition, so probably the outcomes would have been different, and possibly dramatically. I still feel (so far) that, all things being equal or equivalent (population, power, etc) at the beginning of a contest, if you have two evenly-matched nations, one of which is totalitarian and the other more liberty-oriented, the totalitarian system will ultimately, eventually collapse. I don't believe totalitarian systems are flexible, innovative or robust enough to survive that kind of competition. The liberty society doesn't even have to do a heck of a lot apart from maintain its border security -- internal forces like paranoia and purges in the totalitarian society will gut its power structure, its population will hemorrhage into the liberty society, and its inability to adapt to new ideas will cause it to lag further and further behind in technology until it is simply incapable of going on any longer. -- WthmO If you can't beat 'em, have 'em flogged. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 7:48 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Reports had filtered out earlier, IIRC, though I don't think they'd been given much credence. There is documented skepticism about the "whining of the Jews" concerning them being targeted by the Nazis. Whoops, I think that's what I was thinking of; but that doesn't exactly amount to general disgust, does it? (Quite the opposite, sigh.) My mistake. I'm not sure how I got the idea that the death camps were known outside Nazi borders ... maybe I was thinking prewar, with Hitler's endless rhetoric. Its fairly well established Among the brass, certainly -- I was referring to the people in the trenches and the civilians left behind. Among those folks too. That is fairly well established, as Gautam has shown here. I must have missed that discussion. That sounds like arguing what happened must have been inevitable. I think it was inevitable, yes. But, if the US didn't exist as a powerful unified country, then things would have been much different. I should have clarified. In the absence of a competing, nontotalitarian system, the Nazis might have done fairly well for themselves. But because there were nations that resisted them, and because there were dawning superpowers capable of rallying against the Nazi depredations, the fall of the Nazi regime was inevitable. (Or so I think.) That existance is dependant on the North winning the Civil War. If Lincoln was not a singular talent; the North would probably not have won. Possibly. It's interesting to reorder history like that and see where the dominoes topple, isn't it? I like your take on this, that in a surprising way the US Civil War, had its outcome been different, might have changed the entire political face of the Twentieth Century. It's an intriguing suggestion. After WWII, you mean? No -- presumably the USSR would have been carrying on a long war of attrition with the Nazis, but there were really two major powers at work on the side of belligerence. I think the major players would have eventually been whomever won the Nazi/USSR standoff, and Japan/Asia. (The USSR could very well have won the European conflict, I think.) And none of them were [systems that promoted liberty.] Yes, but again, in the absence of a competing non-liberty-centric system it's easy for dictatorships to thrive. There's no alternative, and there's little to no opportunity for an alternative to develop. But, that is a very suspect arguement. Very unethical systems have suceeded for centuries. That's true but it doesn't make my way of judging which systems are ethically preferable "suspect". In the absence of competition, a given social system might very well persist for centuries, whether it's relatively more or less ethical. But, what about more ethical systems being destroyed by less ethical systems? As with Tibet's crisis? What about it? If a less ethical system is more powerful, that means only that it's likely to bully its way to ascendancy. However I'd argue that its inferiority is demonstrated by the fact that it is such a bully system ... power doesn't mean it's better, any more than failure necessarily indicates worse. (As you might guess I'm not judging good versus bad based on success or failure; or at least not automatically.) At the present time, the US is the lone superpower, so it appears that our system is inevitably the best. Not to me. Actually I liked the model the ancient Greeks were toying with, on and off, for a while (if my recollection of Hellenic history is any good, which it might or might not be). The system we have in place is possibly one of the better available, but I think other modern cultures have quite a lot to offer as well, and would like seeing some of their elements added to ours. (As an example the sociosexual mores of Thai culture, which isn't hung up on definitions like gay or straight.) 25 years ago, many bright people thought the the triumph of Communism was an inevitable result of the historical dielectic in action. I bet they wanted to think it was inevitable, but deep down knew (or suspected) better. Communism wants (needs?) humans to be high-minded, hardworking and *honest*, not self-centered, opportunistic and devious. Unfortunately humans are not all that good all the time, and in a system that is prone to failure if laziness and corruption reach a critical mass, the effects of human failings can become magnified. So Perestroika and Glasnost and so on, and eventually Communism in Russia went away (for now!). The same will *probably* happen in China and North Korea, but I'll say again that it doesn't magically happen. There must be competition from other societies, if for no other reason than to get the oppressed thinking in terms of their own rights and liberties (as being at least as valid as those of the Great Leader). OK, does free will exist. You know there is no experimental evidence for it. As I said, I really don't know whether free wi
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, what about more ethical systems being destroyed > by less ethical > systems? At the present time, the US is the lone > superpower, so it appears > that our system is inevitably the best. 25 years > ago, many bright people > thought the the triumph of Communism was an > inevitable result of the > historical dielectic in action. To put that in perspective, even people who _weren't_ taken in by Communist rhetoric about the dialectic thought the USSR was winning the Cold War. Robert Gilpin's _War and Change in World Politics_, for my money the best non-Kenneth Waltz book of IR theory written in the last few decades - concludes with a chapter on how growing Soviet strength could lead to Soviet domination of the world, and the implications this would have for everyone else. IIRC he wrote the book in 1979 or 1980. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IMHO, the real effect the Air War had on Germany was > both tactical and through attrittion. It doesn't > matter that the Germans were able to maximize > production in 1944 (sometime around March or so, > IIRC). The real effect was that the bombing > campaigns > drew the Luftwaffe over Germany rather than > dispersed > to meet a possible allied invasion, and further the > constant attrition of aircrews had a very > significant > effect on the Luftwaffe's ability to counter Allied > airpower when it really mattered -- over France and > the Low countries. Secondly, although airpower was > not > decisive, it greatly hindered the German's ability > to > maneuver while at the same time protecting Allied > forces and allowing THEM to maneuver. The result was > the Falaise Pocket and the destruction of the bulk > of > the Wehrmacht's equipment and troops. This was > partially due to being entrapped and the crews > abandoning their vehicles, and because of a lack of > fuel/spares. German losses were staggering: they > started the Normandy campaign with something in the > neighbourhood of 1000-1500 tanks; they lost nearly > every one of them. I would posit then that the true > benefit of the air campaigns was not in production > costs, but in the ability of the German army to > defend > itself from allied predators. > > Damon. Damon - how do you feel about the argument (which I find plausible) that the strategic bombing campaign actually massively limited German equipment production? In essence (I'm sure you're familiar with the case, I'm just laying it out as I understand it) Germany didn't fully mobilize for war until 1943-44, if then, as Hitler was extremely reluctant to impose the deprivations on his civilian population that total mobilization would entail. As such, German production increased in 1944 as a result of the diversion of civilian production to the military economy, certainly. But if you compare the increase in production to the multiple order of magnitude increases achieved by the US, unhindered by strategic bombing, it seems at least plausible that the strategic bombing campaigns actually had a very large impact on the ability of German industry to arm the Wehrmacht. Do you feel this is a reasonable assessment? In terms of your assessment of the overall effect of airpower - it seems unquestionable to me that the 9th Air Force's tactical support of the ground forces was a very effective use of air power, probably more effective than the 8th's strategic bombing campaigns (despite my argument above). But, while German losses on the Western front were high, it doesn't seem to me that they were nearly as high as German losses on the _Eastern_ front. Now, if you agree with this assessment, this leads to two questions: 1. To what extent were German casualties on the Eastern Front a product of Russian air superiority? 2. To what extent was Russian air superiority a product of the losses inflicted on the Luftwaffe by the British and American air campaigns? My gut instinct is that the answer to 1 is not so much and 2 is a great deal, but I definitely want to hear your much-more-informed opinion. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > Further, to zeroth order, it was Stalin's USSR > that defeated the Nazis. > > In Russia, on land, sure. But it was US and UK > efforts that won the air > and sea battles. As one Soviet general said to the other in Paris, "By the way, who won the air war?" (old, and bitter, army joke). The "sea battle" was relevant only to the extent that it allowed the US to supply Great Britain. Had the Germans won the battles on the land, this would have meant, nothing. The war in the air was of debatable importance in the outcome of the war (I think most historians give the impact of the strategic bombing campaigns too little credit for reasons that are not worth going into here) but for all that, it seems to me that the purpose of the air war was to allow the war on land to be won. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Dan's "Zeroth order" comment - given how closely balanced the Eastern Front was, it's my belief that without British and American support of the USSR it would have collapsed in either 1940 or 1941 - but certainly to first order it seems correct. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No; it's faulty and arguably inferior. There are two > proofs of that, > one historical fact and the other a bit more > feel-goodish but still > valid (IMO). One, the Nazis lost the war. That > happened at least in > part because of their arrogance and belligerence, > but possibly too > because of the sense of outrage that formed when it > was realized what > was really going on over there. Unfortunately that > didn't seem to > really gather steam until after the war, but it's > also possible that > the Nazis themselves were demoralized by what was > going on, and a > demoralized army doesn't fight very well. Not all > who sieg heiled were > bad people. Maybe not (arguable, though). But we have some empirical evidence that we can use to test that hypothesis. Damon's military history is a lot better than mine, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that he would agree with me that the German armies fought really, really, really well during the Second World War - man for man, they were probably the best of any of the major combatants (possible exception for the Finns). Indeed, I know that in the standard US army wargames simulating the Western Front in the Second World War, German units are rated as considerably superior to their American counterparts. While you can argue that American elite formations (the 101st Airborne, some historians argue Patton's 3rd Army) fought as well or better than their German counterparts, I don't think there's any question that of all the reasons that the Germans lost the war, the fighting abilities of their armies (on a one for one basis) is dead last on the list. > > Two, any social system that attempts to quell > diversity will suffer and > probably fail when it is forced to compete with > another, more > cosmopolitan social system. For instance the > collapse of Communism in > Russia was more or less preordained; as soon as it > became a > thought-control, monotonous experiment, all original > thinking -- which > is crucial to keep a society going artistically, > technologically and so > on -- was crushed. (The ridiculous attempts to force > Lysenkoism into > agriculture are an extreme example of how backwards > such systems can > become.) I think that's a little optimistic. A simple historical "what-if". What if FDR had died in, say, mid-1944 instead of mid-1945? This is eminently plausible - his health was poor throughout 1944. If he had, Henry Wallace would have become President of the United States, and presumably won reelection in 1944. Henry Wallace had, at one point in his career, named the people he would have picked for several senior positions in his Cabinet. We now know his choices for both Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury were paid Soviet agents. Wallace himself was not, but was so ludicrously sympathetic to the Soviets that it seems virtually certain that, had he been President instead of Harry Truman, Stalin would have been able to secure a dominant global position after the war. Controlling the two most important people in the Cabinet might have helped as well. It seems at least possible, to put it mildly, that this would have changed the outcome of the Cold War. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> The air campaign helped some, but Nazis were still > able to increase > production until the very end of the war. IMHO, the real effect the Air War had on Germany was both tactical and through attrittion. It doesn't matter that the Germans were able to maximize production in 1944 (sometime around March or so, IIRC). The real effect was that the bombing campaigns drew the Luftwaffe over Germany rather than dispersed to meet a possible allied invasion, and further the constant attrition of aircrews had a very significant effect on the Luftwaffe's ability to counter Allied airpower when it really mattered -- over France and the Low countries. Secondly, although airpower was not decisive, it greatly hindered the German's ability to maneuver while at the same time protecting Allied forces and allowing THEM to maneuver. The result was the Falaise Pocket and the destruction of the bulk of the Wehrmacht's equipment and troops. This was partially due to being entrapped and the crews abandoning their vehicles, and because of a lack of fuel/spares. German losses were staggering: they started the Normandy campaign with something in the neighbourhood of 1000-1500 tanks; they lost nearly every one of them. I would posit then that the true benefit of the air campaigns was not in production costs, but in the ability of the German army to defend itself from allied predators. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > > And none of them were systems that promoted liberty. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > > Reports had filtered out earlier, IIRC, though I don't think they'd > been given much credence. There is documented skepticism about the "whining of the Jews" concerning them being targeted by the Nazis. > > Further, to zeroth order, it was Stalin's USSR that defeated the Nazis. > > In Russia, on land, sure. But it was US and UK efforts that won the air > and sea battles. The air campaign helped some, but Nazis were still able to increase production until the very end of the war. > > Its fairly well established > > Among the brass, certainly -- I was referring to the people in the > trenches and the civilians left behind. Among those folks too. That is fairly well established, as Gautam has shown here. > > That sounds like arguing what happened must have been inevitable. > > I think it was inevitable, yes. But, if the US didn't exist as a powerful unified country, then things would have been much different. That existance is dependant on the North winning the Civil War. If Lincoln was not a singular talent; the North would probably not have won. The opening to Lincoln's Gettysburg address was not hyperbola, it was a true statement: "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation: conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure." > After WWII, you mean? No -- presumably the USSR would have been > carrying on a long war of attrition with the Nazis, but there were > really two major powers at work on the side of belligerence. I think > the major players would have eventually been whomever won the Nazi/USSR > standoff, and Japan/Asia. (The USSR could very well have won the > European conflict, I think.) And none of them were > > > > But, that is a very suspect arguement. Very unethical systems have > > suceeded for centuries. > > That's true but it doesn't make my way of judging which systems are > ethically preferable "suspect". In the absence of competition, a given > social system might very well persist for centuries, whether it's > relatively more or less ethical. But, what about more ethical systems being destroyed by less ethical systems? At the present time, the US is the lone superpower, so it appears that our system is inevitably the best. 25 years ago, many bright people thought the the triumph of Communism was an inevitable result of the historical dielectic in action. > > OK, does free will exist. You know there is no experimental evidence > > for > > it. > > As I said, I really don't know whether free will exists or not. I > believe it does, but if it doesn't then I have no choice but to believe > it does -- and since I believe it does, that means I believe > responsibility exists as well. OK, why isn't this irrational? What makes a belief rational or irrational? > But the second conclusion is based on something that can't actually be > proved. Classical physics would seem to imply that there is no free > will; but QM seems to let it sneak in after all. The way it does it has very interesting consequences...thus my question about the reality of the electron. > It's one of those things that's fun to discuss over a pint of Guinness. Or rigorously in a foundation of physics or philosophy of QM seminar. I've been dabbling in this area for ~30 yearsand took those seminar classes in grad schol ~25 years ago. > Therefore if someone I know does something baffling, strange or > extraordinary, I'm more likely to be forgiving because I know that I > don't always know myself, and it would be unfair, to say the least, of > me to expect others to be perfect. But, we don't expect forest fires to be perfect either. What is the difference? > Does that make sense and/or answer your question? Yes/ no. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:33 PM, Dan Minette wrote: No; it's faulty and arguably inferior. There are two proofs of that, one historical fact and the other a bit more feel-goodish but still valid (IMO). One, the Nazis lost the war. That happened at least in part because of their arrogance and belligerence, but possibly too because of the sense of outrage that formed when it was realized what was really going on over there. Huh? People accepted what was really going on over there after the allies marched into the death camps. Reports had filtered out earlier, IIRC, though I don't think they'd been given much credence. Further, to zeroth order, it was Stalin's USSR that defeated the Nazis. In Russia, on land, sure. But it was US and UK efforts that won the air and sea battles. Not all who sieg heiled were bad people. Its fairly well established Among the brass, certainly -- I was referring to the people in the trenches and the civilians left behind. Two, any social system that attempts to quell diversity will suffer and probably fail when it is forced to compete with another, more cosmopolitan social system. That sounds like arguing what happened must have been inevitable. I think it was inevitable, yes. I presume you agree that, without a powerful United States, it would have been a contest between the Nazis and Stalin's USSR for dominence, right? After WWII, you mean? No -- presumably the USSR would have been carrying on a long war of attrition with the Nazis, but there were really two major powers at work on the side of belligerence. I think the major players would have eventually been whomever won the Nazi/USSR standoff, and Japan/Asia. (The USSR could very well have won the European conflict, I think.) Yes. Cold-blooded killings happen all the time in Texas, as an example, under edict of law. And I say it is wrong. I didn't mean to indicate I thought it was right, only that the decision that killing is wrong is an arbitrary one that is turned away from with well-documented regularity, and not just by individuals. Yes; I intimated one way above. But, that is a very suspect arguement. Very unethical systems have suceeded for centuries. That's true but it doesn't make my way of judging which systems are ethically preferable "suspect". In the absence of competition, a given social system might very well persist for centuries, whether it's relatively more or less ethical. Responsibility -- if there is no free will, then naturally no. Otherwise, yes. OK, does free will exist. You know there is no experimental evidence for it. As I said, I really don't know whether free will exists or not. I believe it does, but if it doesn't then I have no choice but to believe it does -- and since I believe it does, that means I believe responsibility exists as well. But the second conclusion is based on something that can't actually be proved. Classical physics would seem to imply that there is no free will; but QM seems to let it sneak in after all. It's one of those things that's fun to discuss over a pint of Guinness. Reflective self-awareness -- since I use that to arrive at my ethical decisions, I'm inclined to think it exists as well. OK, can you point out the increased predictive power of using "brain + reflective self-awareness" compared to "brain" in modeling observation? Possibly, if I understand your question. Reflective self-awareness lets me understand not only that I sometimes have complex and subtle reasons for the things I do; but that I'm not always consciously aware of those effects. Therefore if someone I know does something baffling, strange or extraordinary, I'm more likely to be forgiving because I know that I don't always know myself, and it would be unfair, to say the least, of me to expect others to be perfect. Does that make sense and/or answer your question? I think this is dependant on the existence of free will, otherwise reflective self awareness is merely an effect. I agree -- it's another case of something that doesn't exist if free will doesn't. -- WthmO "Egalitarianism" does NOT mean "Rule by the least common denominator". -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:03 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I'm merely exploring the logical consequences of the beliefs of others. Yes, we both are. I'm not calling my understanding "objective reality" and insulting all those who differ with me. :-) It's a good thing I'm not either, huh? -- WthmO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> > No; it's faulty and arguably inferior. There are two proofs of that, > one historical fact and the other a bit more feel-goodish but still > valid (IMO). One, the Nazis lost the war. That happened at least in > part because of their arrogance and belligerence, but possibly too > because of the sense of outrage that formed when it was realized what > was really going on over there. Huh? People accepted what was really going on over there after the allies marched into the death camps. Further, to zeroth order, it was Stalin's USSR that defeated the Nazis. >Not all who sieg heiled were bad people. Its fairly well established > Two, any social system that attempts to quell diversity will suffer and > probably fail when it is forced to compete with another, more > cosmopolitan social system. That sounds like arguing what happened must have been inevitable. I presume you agree that, without a powerful United States, it would have been a contest between the Nazis and Stalin's USSR for dominence, right? > Yes. Cold-blooded killings happen all the time in Texas, as an example, > under edict of law. And I say it is wrong. > > No, but it's harder to nail down the particulars because there are so > many situations in which different conclusions can be reached to the > same dilemmas (well, superficially the same anyway). > Yes; I intimated one way above. But, that is a very suspect arguement. Very unethical systems have suceeded for centuries. > > That doesn't affect the fact that your right to life doesn't exist as > anything but a human-defined idea, not a law of nature. Right, it is not deducable from observation. > > Does free will exist? Does responsibility exist? Do reflective > > self-awarenesses exist? > > Ah, I see what you were asking, sorry. Free will -- good question. I > honestly don't know, though it sure seems like it exists. > > Responsibility -- if there is no free will, then naturally no. > Otherwise, yes. OK, does free will exist. You know there is no experimental evidence for it. > Reflective self-awareness -- since I use that to arrive at my ethical > decisions, I'm inclined to think it exists as well. OK, can you point out the increased predictive power of using "brain + reflective self-awareness" compared to "brain" in modeling observation? I think this is dependant on the existence of free will, otherwise reflective self awareness is merely an effect. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 5:46 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good and evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not objectively exist. So, an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as valid as one in which genocide is wrong? I'm not sure how you arrived at that finding; would you care to trace your path of reasoning to that conclusion? Certainly. In one ethical system (Nazi Germany's), it was a moral imperative to kill the evil Jews. In another, say the one described by "We hold these truths to be self-evident...", it is wrong to kill other people in cold blood. Granted. But I don't understand how you go from these historical facts to the conclusion that "an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as valid as one in which genocide is wrong". Certainly you could not have derived it from anything I've said on either the topics of Jewish people or of genocide. (Or are you just jumping past several stages of net debate deterioration and laying the groundwork early for declaring me a Nazi bastard? ;) No; I would guess that you would argue that, in your ethical system, genocide is wrong. But, is the Nazi system just different from yours? No; it's faulty and arguably inferior. There are two proofs of that, one historical fact and the other a bit more feel-goodish but still valid (IMO). One, the Nazis lost the war. That happened at least in part because of their arrogance and belligerence, but possibly too because of the sense of outrage that formed when it was realized what was really going on over there. Unfortunately that didn't seem to really gather steam until after the war, but it's also possible that the Nazis themselves were demoralized by what was going on, and a demoralized army doesn't fight very well. Not all who sieg heiled were bad people. Two, any social system that attempts to quell diversity will suffer and probably fail when it is forced to compete with another, more cosmopolitan social system. For instance the collapse of Communism in Russia was more or less preordained; as soon as it became a thought-control, monotonous experiment, all original thinking -- which is crucial to keep a society going artistically, technologically and so on -- was crushed. (The ridiculous attempts to force Lysenkoism into agriculture are an extreme example of how backwards such systems can become.) Hence genocide is less ethically supportable than promotion of freedom to live, even if one does not necessarily approve of what "others" might be doing. Is the idea that it is wrong to kill in cold blood aribtrary. Yes. Cold-blooded killings happen all the time in Texas, as an example, under edict of law. Is a discussion of what is right and wrong akin to a discussion of where is left and right held by two people facing each other? No, but it's harder to nail down the particulars because there are so many situations in which different conclusions can be reached to the same dilemmas (well, superficially the same anyway). You don't believe in human rights, I take it. I think it's a lovely idea but it doesn't actually exist outside of the ethical systems that construct it. Put another way I do believe in it, because I have to -- it doesn't exist unless I believe it does. So, if there are many different self consistent ethical systems, is there any way to choose one as better than another? Yes; I intimated one way above. As an example, if you're in the middle of Faulkner's markless trackless unaxed wild and a puma finds and eats you, whither your human right to life? Since pumas do not have free will, they are not acting immorally. A human who does the same would be. That doesn't affect the fact that your right to life doesn't exist as anything but a human-defined idea, not a law of nature. How about free will? Responsibility? Reflective self-awareness? How about them? I'm not sure why or how these things must have ideas such as "morality" (or "good" or "evil") to exist, which is what you seem to be implying. Does free will exist? Does responsibility exist? Do reflective self-awarenesses exist? Ah, I see what you were asking, sorry. Free will -- good question. I honestly don't know, though it sure seems like it exists. Responsibility -- if there is no free will, then naturally no. Otherwise, yes. Reflective self-awareness -- since I use that to arrive at my ethical decisions, I'm inclined to think it exists as well. -- WthmO There is no such thing as "mad vegetable disease." -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:03 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Please don't let's get started on *that* old song again... Listen: some people believe that there are such things as good and evil, and some people don't. This list contains both kinds, and it is extraordinarily unlikely that any more of the endless "yes there are" vs. "no there aren't" arguments will change that. I'm merely exploring the logical consequences of the beliefs of others. I'm not calling my understanding "objective reality" and insulting all those who differ with me. :-) Amen, brother: that you are not. I'm constantly amazed that the most fundamentalist voices hereabouts -- the ones whose knees can be made to jerk most reliably -- are the so-called freethinkers. Praise Jesus, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:40 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good > >> and > >> evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not > >> objectively exist. > > > > So, an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as > > valid as one in which genocide is wrong? You don't believe in human > > rights, I take it. How about free will? Responsibility? Reflective > > self-awareness? > > Please don't let's get started on *that* old song again... > > Listen: some people believe that there are such things as good and > evil, and some people don't. This list contains both kinds, and it > is extraordinarily unlikely that any more of the endless "yes there > are" vs. "no there aren't" arguments will change that. I'm merely exploring the logical consequences of the beliefs of others. I'm not calling my understanding "objective reality" and insulting all those who differ with me. :-) Dan M> ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:39 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > >> I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good > >> and > >> evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not > >> objectively exist. > > > > So, an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as > > valid as one in which genocide is wrong? > > I'm not sure how you arrived at that finding; would you care to trace > your path of reasoning to that conclusion? Certainly. In one ethical system (Nazi Germany's), it was a moral imperative to kill the evil Jews. In another, say the one described by "We hold these truths to be self-evident...", it is wrong to kill other people in cold blood. >Certainly you could not have > derived it from anything I've said on either the topics of Jewish > people or of genocide. (Or are you just jumping past several stages of > net debate deterioration and laying the groundwork early for declaring > me a Nazi bastard? ;) No; I would guess that you would argue that, in your ethical system, genocide is wrong. But, is the Nazi system just different from yours? Is the idea that it is wrong to kill in cold blood aribtrary. Is a discussion of what is right and wrong akin to a discussion of where is left and right held by two people facing each other? > > You don't believe in human rights, I take it. > I think it's a lovely idea but it doesn't actually exist outside of the > ethical systems that construct it. Put another way I do believe in it, > because I have to -- it doesn't exist unless I believe it does. So, if there are many different self consistent ethical systems, is there any way to choose one as better than another? From your premises, it appears that the answer must be no. > As an example, if you're in the middle of Faulkner's markless trackless > unaxed wild and a puma finds and eats you, whither your human right to > life? Since pumas do not have free will, they are not acting immorally. A human who does the same would be. > > How about free will? Responsibility? Reflective self-awareness? > > How about them? I'm not sure why or how these things must have ideas > such as "morality" (or "good" or "evil") to exist, which is what you > seem to be implying. Does free will exist? Does responsibility exist? Do reflective self-awarenesses exist? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:47 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Dave Land wrote: it is extraordinarily unlikely that any more of the endless "yes there are" vs. "no there aren't" arguments will change that. No it isn't! LESS FILLING! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:40 PM, Dave Land wrote: [...] it is extraordinarily unlikely that any more of the endless "yes there are" vs. "no there aren't" arguments will change that. No it isn't! :D -- WthmO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good and evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not objectively exist. So, an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as valid as one in which genocide is wrong? You don't believe in human rights, I take it. How about free will? Responsibility? Reflective self-awareness? Please don't let's get started on *that* old song again... Listen: some people believe that there are such things as good and evil, and some people don't. This list contains both kinds, and it is extraordinarily unlikely that any more of the endless "yes there are" vs. "no there aren't" arguments will change that. Dave bickering-L Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote: I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good and evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not objectively exist. So, an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as valid as one in which genocide is wrong? I'm not sure how you arrived at that finding; would you care to trace your path of reasoning to that conclusion? Certainly you could not have derived it from anything I've said on either the topics of Jewish people or of genocide. (Or are you just jumping past several stages of net debate deterioration and laying the groundwork early for declaring me a Nazi bastard? ;) You don't believe in human rights, I take it. I think it's a lovely idea but it doesn't actually exist outside of the ethical systems that construct it. Put another way I do believe in it, because I have to -- it doesn't exist unless I believe it does. As an example, if you're in the middle of Faulkner's markless trackless unaxed wild and a puma finds and eats you, whither your human right to life? How about free will? Responsibility? Reflective self-awareness? How about them? I'm not sure why or how these things must have ideas such as "morality" (or "good" or "evil") to exist, which is what you seem to be implying. -- WthmO More fun than a bucket of live bait. But not as much fun as a trailerful of raccoons. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 3:36 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: The question I have is what to do about it -- what if France blocked Yahoo!? I think this is the right solution. Countries that don't have free speech should block the external sites that they find offensive: France should block Yahoo, China should block everything, the USA should block those sites that exchange music, etc. The advantage being that if individuals have a problem with the blockages (and they happen to live in a country that permits its citizens the right to petition their government for redress of grievances), they can take it up with a "local" authority. And companies like Yahoo! can continue to live in the real world, where not everybody shares their desire to piss in the lake. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:08 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good and > evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not > objectively exist. So, an ethics in which it is immoral to allow a Jew to exist is just as valid as one in which genocide is wrong? You don't believe in human rights, I take it. How about free will? Responsibility? Reflective self-awareness? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:58 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Yes, those kinds of lapses are really troubling and hard to understand. Why are they hard to understand? Arabs are committing genocide. Europeans want to be on the good side of Arabs. Who cares about black Africans? OK, not hard to understand in the cynical frame, but hard to understand in the sense that by ignoring any genocides, hypocrisy is betrayed, and *in theory* the "leaership" of any given place shouldn't want to appear hypocritical. It's not a perfect institution, but at the moment the entire planet is verging on slipping into balkanization -- a globe covered with nations engaged in petty squabbles for local and short-lived ascendancy. And how in the world would the UN address that. Remember the UN is an organization of governments, and its first priority is best interest of those governments. Thus, human rights are simply paid lip service, and used as a political tool. This is a good point. As it exists now the UN really isn't much of a much for anything, I'm inclined to agree. It's an interesting question, I think, to consider how something like a UN could exist, could have actual clout, and still not be intolerably totalitarian. Accord is always so much easier to have when everyone's of a like mind. What can't work is the US acting as global cop. It'll make us all targets (we who live here, I mean, but Americans abroad as well); it'll bankrupt us economically; and it'll gain us nil for allies. And there's a danger of going too far in a moment of hubris; with Afghanistan there was *possibly* justification for a counterstrike; we swung right out into lunacy with the attack on Iraq. The General Assembly is even worse, ignoring real genocide and focusing on attacking un-PC ethnic groups. Yes. It's almost identical to the US Congress. The solution is not to unilaterally bomb the Enemy Of The Month. While I agree that Iraq was a mistake, because the US wasn't prepared to deal with the peace afterwards, that's really not a fair description of US foreign policy over the last 15 years. Let's look at a better intervention, in the Balkins. Yeah, OK, that's a good point. Perhaps I should have said Enemy of the Decade, which would have covered Bush I as well and *his* (ahem) early pullout. (Or just "The CinC's Personal Sh*t List"...) The solution *might be* to mobilize the will of nations to conform to the UN charter and to give it enough enforcement power to make its edicts carry some clout. But, the will of the nations is not to do the right thing. Its to preserve the self interest of the governments. Also true; ideally national governments would come to understand that the best way to assure sovereignty is to behave in a circumspect fashion on the global stage. I'm not holding my breath on that one. It's a damned mess, all of it. I've toyed from time to time with formally renouncing my specieshood as h. sapiens and declaring myself a bottlenosed dolphin instead. But they won't let me into any of their club meetings! Actually, its an opportunity to make hard moral choices. Bottlenosed dolphins do neither good nor evil; making no moral choices. I don't make moral choices either, just ethical ones, and both good and evil are human-defined terms that refer to things which do not objectively exist. -- WthmO I've never held an opinion. I give them away freely. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Dan Minette wrote: > > While I agree that Iraq was a mistake, because the US wasn't > prepared to deal with the peace afterwards, that's really not a fair > description of US foreign policy over the last 15 years. Let's look > at a better intervention, in the Balkins. The UN specifically > ordered its troops to step aside and allow genocide. The US > violated international law by acting and stopping genocide. Its > true that NATO finally went along with the US, but that's because > the mess was in Europe...and they were totally unable to handle it. > Are you arguing that Clinton was morally oblidged to accept the UN's > ruling that the genocide must continue? > I have a more cynical take on the Balkan case. I think the only reason was that the intervention favoured the muslim side of the War. I imagine that now that the albanese are happyly exterminating the serbian minority of Kosovo nobody would jump to save the serbians. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > The question I have is what to do about it -- what if France blocked > Yahoo!? > I think this is the right solution. Countries that don't have free speech should block the external sites that they find offensive: France should block Yahoo, China should block everything, the USA should block those sites that exchange music, etc. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:25 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style > On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > >> In situations like this it might make more sense to give some > >> enforcement power to an international authority comprised of member > >> nations from all over the world. Of course the US has decided the UN > >> is > >> bogus, so until we get a little national humility and get rid of a > >> certain arrogant, cowboy Texan in DC, little will change. > > > > But there is an experimental basis for that view of the UN. For > > example, > > the UN is tacitly endorsing the genocide in the Sudan. My Zambian > > daughter > > said that, as much as she hates to admit it, Bush has done more than > > anyone > > to address the situation. > > Yes, those kinds of lapses are really troubling and hard to understand. Why are they hard to understand? Arabs are committing genocide. Europeans want to be on the good side of Arabs. Who cares about black Africans? > It's not a perfect institution, but at the moment the entire planet is > verging on slipping into balkanization -- a globe covered with nations > engaged in petty squabbles for local and short-lived ascendancy. And how in the world would the UN address that. Remember the UN is an organization of governments, and its first priority is best interest of those governments. Thus, human rights are simply paid lip service, and used as a political tool. >We (as a planet or as a species) are not capable of sustaining or surviving > perpetual international war, and as imperfect as the UN is, it's what > we've got right now to try to address these kinds of problems. Actually, we have a lot of other ways to adress that. The UN is a useful tool to enforce the collective will of what were the most powerful countries in the world. When the enlightened self interest of the US, China, Russia, France, and Britian align, the UN is a very useful tool. When they don't, it doesn't do anything. The General Assembly is even worse, ignoring real genocide and focusing on attacking un-PC ethnic groups. > The solution is not to unilaterally bomb the Enemy Of The Month. While I agree that Iraq was a mistake, because the US wasn't prepared to deal with the peace afterwards, that's really not a fair description of US foreign policy over the last 15 years. Let's look at a better intervention, in the Balkins. The UN specifically ordered its troops to step aside and allow genocide. The US violated international law by acting and stopping genocide. Its true that NATO finally went along with the US, but that's because the mess was in Europe...and they were totally unable to handle it. Are you arguing that Clinton was morally oblidged to accept the UN's ruling that the genocide must continue? >The solution *might be* to mobilize the will of nations to conform to the > UN charter and to give it enough enforcement power to make its edicts > carry some clout. But, the will of the nations is not to do the right thing. Its to preserve the self interest of the governments. The US has a tremendous self interest in peace and stability. A world in which poor dictatorships become fairly well off liberal democracies (e.g. S. Korea, or Tawain) is in the enlightened self interest of the US. The US will keep its status as the lone superpower for years in such a world. France's self interest is not the same. Dan M. This also means that nations (including the US) which > step out of line need to accept sanction rather than charge off on > their own. > It's a damned mess, all of it. I've toyed from time to time with > formally renouncing my specieshood as h. sapiens and declaring myself a > bottlenosed dolphin instead. But they won't let me into any of their > club meetings! Actually, its an opportunity to make hard moral choices. Bottlenosed dolphins do neither good nor evil; making no moral choices. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In situations like this it might make more sense > to give some > > enforcement power to an international authority > comprised of member > > nations from all over the world. Of course the US > has decided the UN is > > bogus, so until we get a little national humility > and get rid of a > > certain arrogant, cowboy Texan in DC, little will > change. > > But there is an experimental basis for that view of > the UN. For example, > the UN is tacitly endorsing the genocide in the > Sudan. My Zambian daughter > said that, as much as she hates to admit it, Bush > has done more than anyone > to address the situation. > > After long having faith in the UN, she has become > very disillusioned. > > Dan M. Indeed, given the UN's record in this regard (Sudan is, after all, on the _Human Rights_ Commission, having been put there by our European "allies"), it would seem like there is considerable evidence that would suggest that such a power in the hands of an international organization would vastly constrict freedom of speech in the US. In fact, as far as I am aware the US has the most expansive definition of freedom of speech of any nation (it is a sad irony that political speech in the US is more tightly regulated than commercial speech, but both are less regulated than anywhere else) and quite a few countries that would be very powerful in the UN are _actively opposed_ to any form of freedom of speech, while many of the others France are easily bought off, so it's hard to imagine how it would turn out any other way. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Dan Minette wrote: In situations like this it might make more sense to give some enforcement power to an international authority comprised of member nations from all over the world. Of course the US has decided the UN is bogus, so until we get a little national humility and get rid of a certain arrogant, cowboy Texan in DC, little will change. But there is an experimental basis for that view of the UN. For example, the UN is tacitly endorsing the genocide in the Sudan. My Zambian daughter said that, as much as she hates to admit it, Bush has done more than anyone to address the situation. Yes, those kinds of lapses are really troubling and hard to understand. It's not a perfect institution, but at the moment the entire planet is verging on slipping into balkanization -- a globe covered with nations engaged in petty squabbles for local and short-lived ascendancy. We (as a planet or as a species) are not capable of sustaining or surviving perpetual international war, and as imperfect as the UN is, it's what we've got right now to try to address these kinds of problems. The solution is not to unilaterally bomb the Enemy Of The Month. The solution *might be* to mobilize the will of nations to conform to the UN charter and to give it enough enforcement power to make its edicts carry some clout. This also means that nations (including the US) which step out of line need to accept sanction rather than charge off on their own. It's a damned mess, all of it. I've toyed from time to time with formally renouncing my specieshood as h. sapiens and declaring myself a bottlenosed dolphin instead. But they won't let me into any of their club meetings! -- WthmO This email is being broadcast with a 5-second delay. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> In situations like this it might make more sense to give some > enforcement power to an international authority comprised of member > nations from all over the world. Of course the US has decided the UN is > bogus, so until we get a little national humility and get rid of a > certain arrogant, cowboy Texan in DC, little will change. But there is an experimental basis for that view of the UN. For example, the UN is tacitly endorsing the genocide in the Sudan. My Zambian daughter said that, as much as she hates to admit it, Bush has done more than anyone to address the situation. After long having faith in the UN, she has become very disillusioned. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:13 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:00:01 -0700, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I disagree. If Yahoo was polluting a lake on the US/Canada border, would you argue that a Canadian court's attempt to bring the polluter to justice was saying that their laws override the U.S. Constitution? To the French, Yahoo is polluting a space we hold in common, the Internet. The French are concerned that Yahoo is shouting "Movie" in a crowded firehouse. The problem with the "polluted lake" metaphor is that 1) on the internet every nation can and does have its own definition of "pollution", which may be diametrically opposite another nation's, and 2) if you accept that nations have a right to dictate against "pollution" occurring *outside* their borders, then following that to its logical it, it gives all nations say over all internet content. Yeah, it's sticky pretty much every way, and an interesting topic to me too partly because the net is such a major player in cultural conflicts. It's easy for me to imagine someone in Europe or Asia feeling overwhelmed by the flow of materials, much of which carry a distinctly American flavor. Personally I find that troubling because American culture is simply not all-good, all the time, and I'd hate to live in a world where's there's one voice shouting one message. The question I have is what to do about it -- what if France blocked Yahoo!? (Man, it's hard to properly punctuate a company whose name includes a punctuation mark.) Obviously there are *parts* of Yahoo! that couldn't be regarded as objectionable, so I can't imagine anyone wanting a full block. And there it starts getting sticky again. Because then you've got an entire nation (or at least its public facilities) dictating what is and isn't considered acceptable information for its citizens to see. Of course we compromise when living in a society, but at some point compromise becomes egregious and oppressive, though when exactly that might happen can vary for individuals. (One of the compromises we accept is in determining how much compromise we accept.) My concern is that it's not just businesses using the internet for speech. Saying "a big business is being expected to live in the real world." doesn't cover all the cases. What happens when it's not Yahoo getting fined, but a private person threatened with arrest in France or Germany or China because his US web site violates their speech laws? Seems to me that speech laws for corporations need to be made clearly separate from those for individuals. Corporations are not human beings and do not have any rights, at least no inherent ones, as we think humans do. The legal fiction that speaks of corporate "free speech" clouds the issue enormously. Companies now are limited in what they can say -- for examle, tobacco companies cannot advertise that their products will make users immune to herpes, because it's a lie. In day-to-day matters individual people lie all the time. Much more rigorously defined parameters would need to be developed before the discussion could really make sense, and I'd imagine those parameters would be pretty fiendish. (Of course none of the foregoing would be putatively necessary at all if more individuals, including those who ran corporations, would behave in less shortsighted, self-centered ways.) They can do that regardless of this court decision, but it'd be nice if the US legal system gave some better precedent in terms of protecting online free speech in the US from international prosecution rather than just saying they won't get involved unless the US legal system is invoked. In situations like this it might make more sense to give some enforcement power to an international authority comprised of member nations from all over the world. Of course the US has decided the UN is bogus, so until we get a little national humility and get rid of a certain arrogant, cowboy Texan in DC, little will change. -- WthmO It's OK to take the flags down now and begin trying to think again. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:00:01 -0700, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2004, at 10:42 AM, The Fool wrote: > > >> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> The Mercury News wrote: > >> > >>> "Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content > > may > >>> be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting > >>> costs," > >>> Judge Warren Ferguson wrote for a 2-1 majority. > >> > >> While the French censorship attempt is bothersome, this seems to be > >> the > >> real revelation in this story: that a big business is being expected > >> to > >> live in the real world. > > > > No. The point is that France is saying thier laws overide the U.S. > > Constitution, for U.S. companies __IN THE U.S.A.__ And the U.S. court > > of > > appeals says sure that ole constitution don't mean sh!t. > > I disagree. If Yahoo was polluting a lake on the US/Canada border, > would you argue that a Canadian court's attempt to bring the polluter > to justice was saying that their laws override the U.S. Constitution? > To the French, Yahoo is polluting a space we hold in common, the > Internet. The French are concerned that Yahoo is shouting "Movie" > in a crowded firehouse. The problem with the "polluted lake" metaphor is that 1) on the internet every nation can and does have its own definition of "pollution", which may be diametrically opposite another nation's, and 2) if you accept that nations have a right to dictate against "pollution" occurring *outside* their borders, then following that to its logical it, it gives all nations say over all internet content. My concern is that it's not just businesses using the internet for speech. Saying "a big business is being expected to live in the real world." doesn't cover all the cases. What happens when it's not Yahoo getting fined, but a private person threatened with arrest in France or Germany or China because his US web site violates their speech laws? They can do that regardless of this court decision, but it'd be nice if the US legal system gave some better precedent in terms of protecting online free speech in the US from international prosecution rather than just saying they won't get involved unless the US legal system is invoked. -bryon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 25, 2004, at 10:42 AM, The Fool wrote: From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Mercury News wrote: "Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting costs," Judge Warren Ferguson wrote for a 2-1 majority. While the French censorship attempt is bothersome, this seems to be the real revelation in this story: that a big business is being expected to live in the real world. No. The point is that France is saying thier laws overide the U.S. Constitution, for U.S. companies __IN THE U.S.A.__ And the U.S. court of appeals says sure that ole constitution don't mean sh!t. I disagree. If Yahoo was polluting a lake on the US/Canada border, would you argue that a Canadian court's attempt to bring the polluter to justice was saying that their laws override the U.S. Constitution? To the French, Yahoo is polluting a space we hold in common, the Internet. The French are concerned that Yahoo is shouting "Movie" in a crowded firehouse. This is not to say that I think the French are right in this, just that I appreciate the way Judge Ferguson framed the issue. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The Mercury News wrote: > > > "Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may > > be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting > > costs," > > Judge Warren Ferguson wrote for a 2-1 majority. > > While the French censorship attempt is bothersome, this seems to be the > real revelation in this story: that a big business is being expected to > live in the real world. No. The point is that France is saying thier laws overide the U.S. Constitution, for U.S. companies __IN THE U.S.A.__ And the U.S. court of appeals says sure that ole constitution don't mean sh!t. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
The Mercury News wrote: "Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting costs," Judge Warren Ferguson wrote for a 2-1 majority. While the French censorship attempt is bothersome, this seems to be the real revelation in this story: that a big business is being expected to live in the real world. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
