Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I keep thinking there ought to be ones that read My kid is on academic probation at School X or My kid is on permanent detention at School X . . . I *have* seen a My kid beat up your honor student! bumper sticker, at least twice. It's an awful sentiment, but I must admit I laughed... ;} Debbi who remembers being picked on several times for setting the curve __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 10:11 AM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: William T Goodall wrote: On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:34 pm, Kevin Tarr wrote: (I know, English isn't his first language)(And I'm not assuming he is Democrat, but 41 percent of the other teacher's failed and I'd lay odds that more than half of those who failed are.) Because they are college graduates? Nice burn, William. :) Most teachers in the US are Democrats. (Going by the 51% rule, I think that's a fairly safe statement, and my impression, which *may* be wrong, is that teachers are more likely to be Democrats than random people picked out of the general population.) And I'd expect more of them to be so in Massachusetts (where the problem pointed out by the article is), although it's been a number of years since I've lived near enough to there to have a good feel for the political climate. If the probability of failing the exam is independent of political party, then that was a safe bet for Kevin to make. At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education newsletter on the bulletin board in the faculty office area in which the author explained why it was inconceivable that one could be both a college professor and a Republican . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education newsletter on the bulletin board in the faculty office area in which the author explained why it was inconceivable that one could be both a college professor and a Republican . . . Did the author's head explode when he found out about Marvin Olasky? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 09:21 PM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education newsletter on the bulletin board in the faculty office area in which the author explained why it was inconceivable that one could be both a college professor and a Republican . . . Did the author's head explode when he found out about Marvin Olasky? I have no idea. It was just something someone had hung on the board. Most of what I recall of his argument was that college professors need to be open-minded, and Democrats are open-minded while Republicans are closed-minded, therefore . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:21 PM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education newsletter on the bulletin board in the faculty office area in which the author explained why it was inconceivable that one could be both a college professor and a Republican . . . Did the author's head explode when he found out about Marvin Olasky? I have no idea. It was just something someone had hung on the board. Most of what I recall of his argument was that college professors need to be open-minded, and Democrats are open-minded while Republicans are closed-minded, therefore . . . So he's closed-minded to the idea that maybe perhaps a *few* Republicans might be open-minded? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his son, why were you putting the loosing articles up? Fair and balanced reporting? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 12:49 AM 8/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: At 09:21 PM 8/30/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At one institution where I was filling in for their astronomy prof while he was on sabbatical, someone had posted an article from some education newsletter on the bulletin board in the faculty office area in which the author explained why it was inconceivable that one could be both a college professor and a Republican . . . Did the author's head explode when he found out about Marvin Olasky? I have no idea. It was just something someone had hung on the board. Most of what I recall of his argument was that college professors need to be open-minded, and Democrats are open-minded while Republicans are closed-minded, therefore . . . -- Ronn Did anyone write a rebuttal? Was it obvious who posted the article? Where I have worked, everything had to be pre-approved, with a set posting date. Even if you were selling a car or announcing a co-worker having a baby. Where I'm at now, there are no rules. Postings go up that have no relevance to anything. One proud parent was putting up articles from a newspaper whenever his son won a wrestling match. That stopped when someone put up articles whenever his son lost. (Adopting lil' devil look. Best $7.50 I ever spent, the losing articles were ripped down pretty quickly and I needed 15 papers before the parent gave up.) No big deal. You said you were just visiting. Heck, I don't know what your views are. Kevin T. - VRWC Penn State sucks maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Kevin Tarr wrote: Did anyone write a rebuttal? Was it obvious who posted the article? Where I have worked, everything had to be pre-approved, with a set posting date. Even if you were selling a car or announcing a co-worker having a baby. Where I'm at now, there are no rules. Postings go up that have no relevance to anything. One proud parent was putting up articles from a newspaper whenever his son won a wrestling match. That stopped when someone put up articles whenever his son lost. (Adopting lil' devil look. Best $7.50 I ever spent, the losing articles were ripped down pretty quickly and I needed 15 papers before the parent gave up.) So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his son, why were you putting the loosing articles up? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his son, why were you putting the loosing articles up? Fair and balanced reporting? If there's a limited amount of bulletin board space and someone's taking up more than their share for that sort of thing, I might be secretly cheering on the person posting the losing articles even if I knew and liked the kid in question. (This from someone whose parents never bragged *that* overtly, but would proudly give info if anyone *asked* after one of us. And I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole My kid is an honors student at school X bumper sticker phenomenon - I think it's a little tacky to be running around town with that plastered to the back of a minivan.) Julia at least the dad wasn't bringing in the trophies to show them off, was he? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 12:52 PM 8/31/2003 -0500, you wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his son, why were you putting the loosing articles up? Fair and balanced reporting? If there's a limited amount of bulletin board space and someone's taking up more than their share for that sort of thing, I might be secretly cheering on the person posting the losing articles even if I knew and liked the kid in question. (This from someone whose parents never bragged *that* overtly, but would proudly give info if anyone *asked* after one of us. And I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole My kid is an honors student at school X bumper sticker phenomenon - I think it's a little tacky to be running around town with that plastered to the back of a minivan.) Julia at least the dad wasn't bringing in the trophies to show them off, was he? No trophies to show, he was just a member of a wrestling team. I was only doing it as a joke. They wrestle twice a week. When I noticed that the article stayed the same for a week I got some back issues and saw he lost. So the next time he lost, I waited a day then put up the new article. (I didn't remove the old article, in case the parent was saving them.) It was gone within an hour. I don't want to say it thrilled me, but I thought A challenge!. I can't help it. Kevin T. - VRWC. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his son, why were you putting the loosing articles up? Fair and balanced reporting? If there's a limited amount of bulletin board space and someone's taking up more than their share for that sort of thing, I might be secretly cheering on the person posting the losing articles even if I knew and liked the kid in question. (This from someone whose parents never bragged *that* overtly, but would proudly give info if anyone *asked* after one of us. And I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole My kid is an honors student at school X bumper sticker phenomenon - I think it's a little tacky to be running around town with that plastered to the back of a minivan.) Julia at least the dad wasn't bringing in the trophies to show them off, was he? If there was limited space on the board or if said parent was bragging incessantly about his kid in addition to posting the article, I can understand. Otherwise I would think the articles would be pretty easy to ignore. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 12:52 PM 8/31/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 09:34:45AM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: So the parent was putting up the articles 'cause he was proud of his son, why were you putting the loosing articles up? Fair and balanced reporting? If there's a limited amount of bulletin board space and someone's taking up more than their share for that sort of thing, I might be secretly cheering on the person posting the losing articles even if I knew and liked the kid in question. (This from someone whose parents never bragged *that* overtly, but would proudly give info if anyone *asked* after one of us. And I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole My kid is an honors student at school X bumper sticker phenomenon - I think it's a little tacky to be running around town with that plastered to the back of a minivan.) I keep thinking there ought to be ones that read My kid is on academic probation at School X or My kid is on permanent detention at School X . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:34 pm, Kevin Tarr wrote: At 01:10 PM 8/29/2003 +0100, you wrote: On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's where his power comes from. I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we continue this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered elite in any sense of the word. You can read and write. That's pretty elite for a Republican :) -- William T Goodall We could say the same thing about a Democrat that can read or write, but it wouldn't be a joke http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0815/p03s01-ussc.html (I know, English isn't his first language)(And I'm not assuming he is Democrat, but 41 percent of the other teacher's failed and I'd lay odds that more than half of those who failed are.) Because they are college graduates? -- 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: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
William T Goodall wrote: On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 09:34 pm, Kevin Tarr wrote: (I know, English isn't his first language)(And I'm not assuming he is Democrat, but 41 percent of the other teacher's failed and I'd lay odds that more than half of those who failed are.) Because they are college graduates? Nice burn, William. :) Most teachers in the US are Democrats. (Going by the 51% rule, I think that's a fairly safe statement, and my impression, which *may* be wrong, is that teachers are more likely to be Democrats than random people picked out of the general population.) And I'd expect more of them to be so in Massachusetts (where the problem pointed out by the article is), although it's been a number of years since I've lived near enough to there to have a good feel for the political climate. If the probability of failing the exam is independent of political party, then that was a safe bet for Kevin to make. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's where his power comes from. I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we continue this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered elite in any sense of the word. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's where his power comes from. I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we continue this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered elite in any sense of the word. You can read and write. That's pretty elite for a Republican :) -- 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: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Doug Pensinger wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's where his power comes from. I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we continue this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered elite in any sense of the word. Pretty obvious, Doug. Anyone who disagrees with my statements (which of course all right thinking people would agree with) is elitist because they think they know better than the rest of us. Regards, Ray. Useless Definitions-R-Us. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 01:10 PM 8/29/2003 +0100, you wrote: On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's where his power comes from. I can see we're going to need a definition of elite before we continue this discussion. I don't know how I could be considered elite in any sense of the word. You can read and write. That's pretty elite for a Republican :) -- William T Goodall We could say the same thing about a Democrat that can read or write, but it wouldn't be a joke http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0815/p03s01-ussc.html (I know, English isn't his first language)(And I'm not assuming he is Democrat, but 41 percent of the other teacher's failed and I'd lay odds that more than half of those who failed are.) Kevin T. - VRWC Not a joke when you have to explain it ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: No, I think the guy that has an audience of millions that take him very seriously and lies about a hell of a lot more than the poverty rate in the '50s is far worse than some guy most of us haven't even heard of who says ridiculous things like the above that no one in their right mind can take seriously. Much, much, much worse. Doug Which one of them can speak at any university in America to a rousing reception? Which one is the most cited intellectual in America? They both routinely have books on the bestseller list. Of course Rush has a larger audience - however much you want to deny it, the _people_ of America are pretty conservative. Chomsky just speaks to elites - like you. That's where his power comes from. The careful and purposeful exclusion of conservative voices from elite American institutions - to the extent that it is literally impossible for a conservative to get a position in a humanities faculty in any major university in America - is why there's actually political balance in this country. If it was about _what the people actually wanted_ it wouldn't even be close. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: They do. One says that Pol Pot was a pretty good guy. The other was wrong about poverty rates in the 1950s. Do you really think that they're the same? No, I think the guy that has an audience of millions that take him very seriously and lies about a hell of a lot more than the poverty rate in the '50s is far worse than some guy most of us haven't even heard of who says ridiculous things like the above that no one in their right mind can take seriously. Much, much, much worse. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see the difference between not criticizing Chomsky, and not criticizing Limbaugh. They both spout a lot of kooky things. Your argument about speaking without a script is a rationalization -- if Limbaugh cannot avoid ad-libbing all the nonsense that he does, then he should use a script or only make inane ad-lib comments rather than trying to ad-lib something meaningful and getting it wrong. No script is not an excuse. They do. One says that Pol Pot was a pretty good guy. The other was wrong about poverty rates in the 1950s. Do you really think that they're the same? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable. Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the above is true, or your own statistics that use the same gathering techniques or that make the necessary corrections. And even if gathering techniques vary, I doubt they would wipe out a 18% difference. No, it is not my duty to do that study. It is the duty of those making the claim to do the study in such a way that there is no other resonable explination for the results. Comparing statistics gathered in two compleatly different ways is esentaily useless for comparison. FREX two studies ask what percentage of a population like Sci-Fi. Study 1 askes how often the individual watches the Sci-Fi channel, Study 2 askes how many books by Asimove the individual has read. The results can be very different in the same population. Comparing study 1 from population (a) and study 2 from population (b), is compleatly useless. You may in fact be correct, but you can not use two seperate studies of this nature to support it. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:40:27PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Given that the total number of known human¹ deaths due to being struck by a meteorite stands at zero, of what meaning is the figure they quote? A number of cars have been struck by small meteorites over the years, according to car insurance companies. This (and the total number of cars) gives an estimate of the rate of meteorite hits per area. Multiply that by the area of all the people, and assume some fatality rate if you are hit, and you get an estimate for the death rate. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 05:15 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: -Original Message- From: David Hobby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 6:57 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination No, David, you proved my much larger point. Congratulations, _you_ are the perfect example for why the left has no relevance to American politics today. You pegged it in one - I do say you're an extremist too. If you really feel that it's reasonable to call the American flag a symbol of hatred - which you have just repeatedly said you do - you have just proven my larger point about the collapse of the left far better than I ever could. Out of your own mouth. I couldn't have _asked_ for a better post to make my point. = Gautam Mukunda Yes, I feel it is reasonable to call the US flag a symbol of hatred, in the sense that many who wave it most fervently do so partially out of hate. Wait a sec... I see 50% of all automobiles with at least an American Flag decal, and a fair percentage with an actual flag. Those that use the flag in hate are such a small percentage, it probably can't be measured ... And so far, unlike the example of the Confederate flag in the school logo I mentioned I my reply to Ritu, I don't recall anyone being shot because he was driving down the street with an American flag on his vehicle. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If the asterisks are supposed to refer to a footnote, the footnote is missing. He did give a URL. ** Standard Population is 2000, all races, both sexes. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the only people you want carrying guns is criminals? You want everyone else, every law abiding citizen to be at the mercy of gun toting criminals? I think I'm being baited here, because I don't see any other way what I'm saying could be so completely misunderstood. But just in case this is a genuine misunderstanding: No. I don't want ANYONE to carry guns. Certainly not criminals. Okay? Get it? I DON'T WANT CRIMINALS TO HAVE GUNS. Have I made myself clear? My whole point is to try to keep guns OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS. And before you say that that is impossible, unworkable and therefore not even worth trying - it may be difficult, it may not be possible to achieve in full, but why not at least TRY? Every gun we get out of the hands of a criminal is a step in the right direction. At this point we actually make it easy for criminals to get guns. Why not start reversing that? ... Tom, reading your reply, the questions that occur to me are: - If guns were made completely illegal (which I gather is your preference from the I don't want ANYONE to carry guns statement), do you think that would keep them out of the hands of criminals? My thought is that many drugs are easily available despite their illegality; why would it be different for guns? Might it not increase crime by creating a new black market for a previously legal product, the way prohibition did with alcohol? - How many gun-toting criminals actually bought their guns legally? What is that as a percentage of all guns bought legally? Also, what percentage of gun crimes used legally purchased guns? It'd be very interesting to know these numbers: if the percentages are high, that would certainly argue in your favor, or against you, if they are low. - If guns were kept legal, but just made much harder to get, wouldn't potential criminals still be able to get guns legally, if they had a prior clean record? ... Cut down on the number of cheap gun imports, cut back on the incredibly lax gun laws in certain states, begin to stress gun responsibility instead of gun rights. I don't see why we can't - or shouldn't. I think that some gun rights advocates have almost the same slippery slope mentality that some abortion rights advocates do, where even moderate and seemingly resaonable laws are fought against tooth and nail by the pro-* side, because they fear that *any* legislation against their position will start a downward trend, paving the way for more and more restrictions or outright criminalization. _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 3:20 AM Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable. Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the above is true, or your own statistics that use the same gathering techniques or that make the necessary corrections. And even if gathering techniques vary, I doubt they would wipe out a 18% difference. No, it is not my duty to do that study. It is the duty of those making the claim to do the study in such a way that there is no other resonable explination for the results. But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies. Until you do provide data, you're claims are bogus. Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed society would be any more or less polite. Those are your words. You are taking the words I say, relating them to a position you know and reaplying the buzz from that position to what I have said, generalizing to a fault. It disapoints me to see someone who I respect making this error. Further more logic is all that is required for a situation such as this. Data is only necisary when logic fails, or when one wishes to attempt to debunk a logical argument. If one requests data as a precondition to accept a logical argument then they are practicing sudo-science. This kind of situation is a beakon for the scetic. Well, you and I have very different understandings of science. What is your basis for defining science? Logic gets you from A to B. It does not, by itself, allow for any conclusions concerning the emperical world. The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are the criminals. The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the very people we would prefer did not have that power. The police have guns. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important Chomsky is one of the most important thinkers of our time but it his contributions to linguistics not his political views that have influence. You evidently haven't had any sort of political discussion with some of the people I end up in political discussions with. Granted, the ones big on Chomsky are pretty far off to a fringe, but there *are* people who take his political views very seriously. And a number of them are activists. So while his political views may not make a big impact except at a local level, there are localities where his views are influencing things at least somewhat. I haven't read anything of his, but I don't entirely respect him, on the basis of 2 incidents about 4 decades apart that I heard about second-hand, in which someone asked a question about something that might challenge him, and instead of taking on the *argument*, he tore (rather viciously in both instances, apparently) into the *asker*, which is a great way to get onto the Julia has less respect for you now list, especially when I have no other data about the personality of the person in question. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies. Until you do provide data, you're claims are bogus. Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed society would be any more or less polite. Those are your words. You are taking the words I say, relating them to a position you know and reaplying the buzz from that position to what I have said, generalizing to a fault. It disapoints me to see someone who I respect making this error. I apologize for using the word polite, I should have said: But you made the claim that an armed society is a _more peaceful and more equal_ society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies. Further more logic is all that is required for a situation such as this. Data is only necisary when logic fails, or when one wishes to attempt to debunk a logical argument. Which I did. Beyond that, you made statements of fact such as Texas and Nevada have less violent crime but have not supported those statements. If one requests data as a precondition to accept a logical argument then they are practicing sudo-science. This kind of situation is a beakon for the scetic. I didn't ask for data as a precondition, I provided data that I believe contradicts your statements and then, when you told me my data wasn't relevant, I asked you to provide backing for your statements of fact One can claim that 2 plus 2 is not allways 4 for every type of item and then request those who logicaly argue to the contrary to show data prooving that whenever you have 2 items of a type and 2 more items of the same type that you will infact have 4 items of that type. But the act of gathering that data is a fools errand. Likewise for statistical analisis on systems with infinate variables. No answer is ever the truth is such cases. The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are the criminals. You see, that's a false statement. Other people, have guns, most of them aren't packing, but they do have them. And still others are permitted to carry concealed weapons The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the very people we would prefer did not have that power. Again, false. With conceled carry there is a balance of this power. In fact i would argue that there is a greater power in the hands of the law abiding citizen specificaly becouse the criminal would never know who was carying and who was not. Everyone might be a hard target. This is a logical argument for which there are no statistics. If you disagree it is your responsability to show that this argument is wrong, or show how it is not logical. It isn't that it isn't logical, its that it is far too simplistic. It assumes from the outset that there is a clear boundary between criminal and law abiding citizen. In fact all of us have the capacity to break the law, and this capacity becomes more likely in certain situations. The phenomenon known as road rage is a good example. People who are otherwise upstanding citizens loose their cool and commit violent criminal offenses. Furthermore, you seem to assume that if both criminal and victim have a gun then neither of them will use one, and the number of violent acts will decrease. I don't agree that this logically follows. It seems to me that the more people with easy access to guns, the greater the likelihood that people will use the guns if only because , and the greater the likelihood that a criminal will feel he needs a gun to commit his crime with an increased tendency to get the jump on his victim. This jumpiness could then transfer to non criminals to the point of innocents being hurt or killed as a result of misunderstanding. As for logical arguments, they are only as good as the facts that verify them. I could make logical arguments about the sun rotating around the earth or the moon being made of cheese but without facts they are malarkey. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:20 am, Jan Coffey wrote: The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are the criminals. The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the very people we would prefer did not have that power. With conceled carry there is a balance of this power. In fact i would argue that there is a greater power in the hands of the law abiding citizen specificaly becouse the criminal would never know who was carying and who was not. Everyone might be a hard target. This is a logical argument for which there are no statistics. If you disagree it is your responsability to show that this argument is wrong, or show how it is not logical. Because criminal is a type of act and not a type of person? And if you arm everybody, more otherwise 'law abiding citizens' can potentially perform criminal acts with guns. Due to road rage, or finding the spouse in bed with the maid or whatever... Sorry criminal IS a type of person. Law abiding itizens don't commit crimes, so you don't have to wory about them using a gun to do something they were not going to do anyway. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 03:47 PM 8/5/03 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:15 PM 8/4/03 -0700, Chad Cooper wrote: Wait a sec... I see 50% of all automobiles with at least an American Flag decal, and a fair percentage with an actual flag. Those that use the flag in hate are such a small percentage, it probably can't be measured ... And so far, unlike the example of the Confederate flag in the school logo I mentioned I my reply to Ritu, I don't recall anyone being shot because he was driving down the street with an American flag on his vehicle. People opposed to the US flag may be less likely to own firearms than people opposed to the Confedrate flag. I thought it was people who fly the Confederate flag who were more likely to not only own firearms but to have a rifle on a rack in the back window of their truck . . . I Can Say That Because I Live Here Maru -- Ronn in Birmingham, AL :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
In a message dated 8/10/2003 3:55:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This very concept is now being chalanged. Not the spoken ability, but the assumption made by chomsky et. al. that writen ability is also inate is now under an increasing amount of attack. I am no linguist but I don't think Chomsky has suggested that writing is inate. Certainly Steven Pinker the major populizer of the idea that the ability to learn language is instinctual would not agree. Written language is so new (less than 5000 years that it could not an instinct at all. It is a cultural invention that to be sure requires certain inate ability but it is not an instinct. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 09:20 am, Jan Coffey wrote: The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are the criminals. The power of leathal force is in the hands alone of the very people we would prefer did not have that power. With conceled carry there is a balance of this power. In fact i would argue that there is a greater power in the hands of the law abiding citizen specificaly becouse the criminal would never know who was carying and who was not. Everyone might be a hard target. This is a logical argument for which there are no statistics. If you disagree it is your responsability to show that this argument is wrong, or show how it is not logical. Because criminal is a type of act and not a type of person? And if you arm everybody, more otherwise 'law abiding citizens' can potentially perform criminal acts with guns. Due to road rage, or finding the spouse in bed with the maid or whatever... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds language. Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 01:20 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies. Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed society would be any more or less polite. Those are your words. Actually, they are Heinlein's words, and the full quote is: An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond the Horizon, 1942 -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable. --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (And, oh yes: Texas does not have less crime than other states.) For instance, the murder rate in Texas in 2000 was 5.9 http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexas/00CrimeSection_U.pdf While the rate in New York for the same year was 5.0 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [someone else wrote:] How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? No. I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to handle the gun and have them pledge to keep it safely locked up except when being used for hunting, target practice, etc. snip I've said this before, but I'll repeat: for personal protection, a gun unloaded and locked up is no help when you're confronted by a home invader. Here in the Denver area there has recently been a number of home invasions with rape involved, and denizens have been advised to keep their windows (and doors of course) locked up. With temperatures hitting the high '90s daily, and many folks without air conditioning, this is completely impractical. If someone invades my house through a window at night (I do close and lock them in the day), I can't expect the police to arrive in 60 seconds or less, but I *can* be fully awake and functional in 5-6 seconds, and I will defend myself with deadly force if required. (As I noted in a prior post, I have trained with a professional in gun use/safety, and practice under supervision ~ yearly; if I had children I'd have to change the current conditions for safety's sake, and probably add a large dog to the household.) Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
So the only people you want carrying guns is criminals? You want everyone else, every law abiding citizen to be at the mercy of gun toting criminals? I think I'm being baited here, because I don't see any other way what I'm saying could be so completely misunderstood. But just in case this is a genuine misunderstanding: No. I don't want ANYONE to carry guns. Certainly not criminals. Okay? Get it? I DON'T WANT CRIMINALS TO HAVE GUNS. Have I made myself clear? My whole point is to try to keep guns OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS. And before you say that that is impossible, unworkable and therefore not even worth trying - it may be difficult, it may not be possible to achieve in full, but why not at least TRY? Every gun we get out of the hands of a criminal is a step in the right direction. At this point we actually make it easy for criminals to get guns. Why not start reversing that? Cut down on the number of cheap gun imports, cut back on the incredibly lax gun laws in certain states, begin to stress gun responsibility instead of gun rights. I don't see why we can't - or shouldn't. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable. Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the above is true, or your own statistics that use the same gathering techniques or that make the necessary corrections. And even if gathering techniques vary, I doubt they would wipe out a 18% difference. No, it is not my duty to do that study. It is the duty of those making the claim to do the study in such a way that there is no other resonable explination for the results. But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies. Until you do provide data, you're claims are bogus. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (And, oh yes: Texas does not have less crime than other states.) For instance, the murder rate in Texas in 2000 was 5.9 http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexas/00CrimeSection_U.pdf While the rate in New York for the same year was 5.0 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ray Ludenia wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Most definitely not! Anyone who wants to own a gun demonstrates a mental or emotional illness and has delusions of inadequacy. Furthermore, they are very likely to commit violent crimes because they can, even though they are just pussycats without the artificial enhancement of a gun. OK, then, how do you feel about edged weapons? :) I wanna hear the whole spiel on *that*. Regards, Ray. PS: Are the legs getting longer yet??? I feel like mine are *shrinking*, but it's just that another part of me has gotten so huge and weighty. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Jan Coffey wrote: statistics gatheing techniqes vary and therefore are not comparable. Bullsh*t. Or at least bullsh*t until you provide evidence that the above is true, or your own statistics that use the same gathering techniques or that make the necessary corrections. And even if gathering techniques vary, I doubt they would wipe out a 18% difference. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 11:07 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: The simple truth is that without conceled carry, the only ones with guns are the criminals. You see, that's a false statement. Other people, have guns, most of them aren't packing, but they do have them. And still others are permitted to carry concealed weapons I think what he is saying is When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. IOW, if owning a firearm or carrying one on your person or in your car is prohibited by law, then by definition any otherwise law-abiding citizen who has a firearm or carries his firearm with him is now de jure a criminal. If the penalties for illegal possession of a firearm are severe enough, most law-abiding citizens who have too much to lose (job, family, reputation, etc.) by being convicted of a crime, fined heavily, and/or imprisoned will decide not to possess a firearm. Criminals, however, who have already made the decision to risk conviction, fines, and imprisonment because they think the rewards (your money, basically) are worth the risk will see little additional risk to their lifestyle in possessing a firearm, particularly when they can use that firearm to threaten their victims who they know will not have firearms available to defend themselves. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 12:43:07PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: half that wide). Similarly, had the man in Spain (sorry, I forgot his name) lost control of his car and been killed in the wreck, he could have been counted as a person killed by a meteorite. So with such a small No, that would not be death by being struck by a small meteorite. sample size, and dumb luck being a factor in both incidents, istm that it's hard to come up with any hard numbers. Not so hard. The number calculated by cars seems reasonably accurate.. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:20 AM 8/11/03 -0700, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you made the claim that an armed society is a polite society. You haven't backed up that claim with _any_ statistics or studies. Sorry I never made that claim. I did not and do not believe that an armed society would be any more or less polite. Those are your words. Actually, they are Heinlein's words, and the full quote is: An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond the Horizon, 1942 I do in fact agree with Heinlein on many things. And while we have some agreement on this issue, (we would be on the same side of the arguement here). I do not exactly agree with this statement. While the implication may have a true value, the right side is not necisarily caused by the left. While I may believe that the first sentence is true I would never make that statement becouse of the assumed association to the second sentence. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 12:40 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (And, oh yes: Texas does not have less crime than other states.) For instance, the murder rate in Texas in 2000 was 5.9 http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/crimeintexas/00CrimeSection_U.pdf While the rate in New York for the same year was 5.0 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm That can be attributed to more stringent NY state laws for gun ownership instituted in the '90's as well as a mayor who was serious about reducing crime. I was/am wholeheartedly in favor of both. I believe I posted a somewhat lengthy mail a few months back about NYS laws regarding gun control. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 09:01 PM 8/8/03 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: No. On the flip side, if I'm a law-abiding citizen who knows how to handle and use a gun, should I be relegated to second-class status because I choose to own and carry a gun? From an earlier post of mine: All that being said, there are too much a cult of arms in this country to make firearms illegal. Though the courts have ruled that the second amendment does not allow unlimited access to firearms people continue to believe that deadly force is their right. So be it. What we need to do is to encourage responsibility with the law. Weapons should be registered. Owners should be trained. Penalties for abuse should be persuasive. And the laws should be homogenous so that individuals can't skirt them by driving a few miles. How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Subject to reasonable regulation, sure. I would hope we work diligently to create a society that doesn't feel it needs such deadly force, I agree wholeheartedly. So what do you (or anyone on the list) recommend that we do to prevent those who now choose to commit crimes from making that decision and acting on it in the first place, so the law-abiding, innocent citizens like Debbi won't need to defend themselves and their loved ones from criminals? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 09:23:46 EDT How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? No. I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to handle the gun and have them pledge to keep it safely locked up except when being used for hunting, target practice, etc. I would also require them to purchase insurance against any misuse of the gun - by them or by anyone else. And I would increase the penalties for misuse of guns, even accidental. You have to have insurance to operate a car, and a license - surely we can and should require no less for guns. And I would still change the laws that make it possible for anyone to drive to Virginia, buy as many guns as they want, and then go home. Or to sell them at totally unregulated gun shows where they don't even check to see that the purchaser is not a criminal or mentally ill. I'm in complete agreement with this. Since someone had mentioned this, I thought I'd post it. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html Will give US accidental gun death statistics for years through 2000. For 2000 Number of Deaths 776 Population 275,264,999 Crude Rate 0.28 Age-Adjusted Rate** 0.28 Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: No. On the flip side, if I'm a law-abiding citizen who knows how to handle and use a gun, should I be relegated to second-class status because I choose to own and carry a gun? From an earlier post of mine: All that being said, there are too much a cult of arms in this country to make firearms illegal. Though the courts have ruled that the second amendment does not allow unlimited access to firearms people continue to believe that deadly force is their right. So be it. What we need to do is to encourage responsibility with the law. Weapons should be registered. Owners should be trained. Penalties for abuse should be persuasive. And the laws should be homogenous so that individuals can't skirt them by driving a few miles. How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Subject to reasonable regulation, sure. I would hope we work diligently to create a society that doesn't feel it needs such deadly force, but obviously were a long way away from that. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? No. I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to handle the gun and have them pledge to keep it safely locked up except when being used for hunting, target practice, etc. I would also require them to purchase insurance against any misuse of the gun - by them or by anyone else. And I would increase the penalties for misuse of guns, even accidental. You have to have insurance to operate a car, and a license - surely we can and should require no less for guns. And I would still change the laws that make it possible for anyone to drive to Virginia, buy as many guns as they want, and then go home. Or to sell them at totally unregulated gun shows where they don't even check to see that the purchaser is not a criminal or mentally ill. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Most definitely not! Anyone who wants to own a gun demonstrates a mental or emotional illness and has delusions of inadequacy. Furthermore, they are very likely to commit violent crimes because they can, even though they are just pussycats without the artificial enhancement of a gun. Regards, Ray. PS: Are the legs getting longer yet??? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important Chomsky is one of the most important thinkers of our time but it his contributions to linguistics not his political views that have influence. Ironically his contribution (that humans are born with an inate ablilty to create and use language - a language learning module if you will) This very concept is now being chalanged. Not the spoken ability, but the assumption made by chomsky et. al. that writen ability is also inate is now under an increasing amount of attack. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 5:29 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination snipsnip I'm in complete agreement with this. Since someone had mentioned this, I thought I'd post it. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html Will give US accidental gun death statistics for years through 2000. For 2000 Number of Deaths 776 Population 275,264,999 Crude Rate 0.28 Age-Adjusted Rate** 0.28 If the asterisks are supposed to refer to a footnote, the footnote is missing. What do crude rate and age-adjusted rate refer to, and what is the difference between them? Erik already posted an answer (and enhanced the statistics, too. Thanks!) but I'm sorry I missed that, Ronn. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
In a message dated 8/3/2003 12:54:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important Chomsky is one of the most important thinkers of our time but it his contributions to linguistics not his political views that have influence. Ironically his contribution (that humans are born with an inate ablilty to create and use language - a language learning module if you will) has been used more by what would superficically be considered part of the right wing approach to human existance. It it is one of the pillars of the nature side of the nature versus nurture debate. Now the characterization of nature advocates (see Steven Pinker,s The Blank Slate and Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nuture for a more nuanced discussion of this topic) as conservatives is actually unfair but Chomsky's work has not translated into a political agenda. As far as I can tell it is viewed as something seperate from his work and it is his work not his politics that are influential. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 10:57 PM 8/10/03 +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? Most definitely not! Anyone who wants to own a gun demonstrates a mental or emotional illness and has delusions of inadequacy. Furthermore, they are very likely to commit violent crimes because they can, even though they are just pussycats without the artificial enhancement of a gun. I thought it was because of the special radio transmitter chip built into the grip of every gun at the factory which continuously broadcasts a subliminal message which cannot be heard consciously but works on the subconscious mind until the owner or someone else finally picks up the gun and kills him/herself or someone else. Regards, Ray. PS: Are the legs getting longer yet??? Daddy longlegs is starting to look like Cotton Hill. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about if we change Jan's statement to something like: C) everyone [who wants to own a gun and who has not been convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a serious mental or emotional illness] should [be allowed to choose to] have a gun. Can we all agree with that? No. I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to handle the gun Ok why not. and have them pledge to keep it safely locked up except when being used for hunting, target practice, etc. So the only people you want carrying guns is criminals? You want everyone else, every law abiding citizen to be at the mercy of gun toting criminals? I would also require them to purchase insurance against any misuse of the gun - by them or by anyone else. And I would increase the penalties for misuse of guns, even accidental. You have to have insurance to operate a car, and a license - surely we can and should require no less for guns. Please! Insurence is a scam. It's simply a way for people in power to take money from other people. Don't get me started on insurence. They are running good doctors out of buisness, steeling from every motorist..*sigh* I would agree with non profit insurence. where no one can be turned down for any reason -no fault- flat fee. But not what we have now. It's rediculous. They take more from you in 2 years than what the polocy is even worth, and they make so many clauses and rules that they never end up paying you anyway. I had a perfectly good 1981 Fiat Turbo Special Eddition worth 16k. I had full insurence (over 1k a year) did everything I could to take care of the car, keep it legal, and pristeen. An guy in a Honda Civic ran a stopsign and totaled it. I got 2k only. They wouldn't even let me keep the car. They gave me 2k, fixed it up, and sold it for 16k. And the law backed them up on it every step of the way. If that isn't THEFT then I don't know what is. My friend is a doctor he had a patient (who was terminal anyway and he was tring only to prolong the patience life) die on him in the OR. The family suied for mal-practice and LOST. But never mind that they lost, the insurence doubled. The next year his office partner had the same thing happen, once again the insurence went up by more than double. So in 2 years they pay more than 4 times the insurence. My friend quit and is no-longer a doctor becouse to afford it he would have to take more patience than he thinks 1 doctor can (or should) handle. His ex partner now refuses to operate on anyone except those he is certain will survive the operation, even when the patient will die without the operation. Many middle class people would love to own a high end sportscar. It isn't that they can not afford to BUY the car, it't that (becouse if insurence etc.) they can no afford to OWN the car. The Elite see to it that they stay eliete? Many middle class families in California would like to buy a home (not a condo, a _home_). It's not that they can't afford the home, it's that they can not afford the ~insurence~ they are required -by law- to have on the home. So insted they are forced to own a townhome or condo. Besides which insurence company is going to insure gun ownership? It's not going to happen, and if it does, the cost would be preventative. Another case of the elite resuving all power for themseleves? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 10:03:03AM -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: I'm in complete agreement with this. Me too. I first heard the idea of licensing guns similar to cars from a post by David Brin here. Sounds like a good system to me. Since someone had mentioned this, I thought I'd post it. http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html Will give US accidental gun death statistics for years through 2000. For 2000 Number of Deaths 776 Population 275,264,999 Crude Rate 0.28 Age-Adjusted Rate** 0.28 Note that deaths are usually quoted as a number per 100,000 people, which is the case above. For comparison, below I've listed some other death rates (mostly from NSC's web page). Note that the rate for deaths from falls is 20 times that quoted above for accidental gun death. I don't have a number handy for homicide by gun, but that would be an interesting addition to this table. deaths per hundred thousand per yearcause - 870U.S. death rate (total for all causes) 200coronary heart disease 16motor vehicles 12suicide 8homicide 6falls 1.4 fire 0.4 air or space transport 0.3 struck by falling object (NOT meteorite!) 0.02 lightning 0.003fireworks 0.1 struck by small meteorite http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm http://www.stats.org/spotlight/2200.html -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 05:57 PM 8/8/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 04:40:27PM -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Given that the total number of known human¹ deaths due to being struck by a meteorite stands at zero, of what meaning is the figure they quote? A number of cars have been struck by small meteorites over the years, according to car insurance companies. This (and the total number of cars) gives an estimate of the rate of meteorite hits per area. Multiply that by the area of all the people, and assume some fatality rate if you are hit, and you get an estimate for the death rate. Yes. My point is that the weak link in that chain is the assume part. Had the meteorite in question (I've seen it as well as talked to some who investigated the incident at the time¹) hit Mrs. Hodges directly instead of losing kinetic energy by bouncing off the radio first, she might well have been killed, particularly had it hit her in the head or other vital spot. As it was, despite the fact that she was covered with two heavy quilts at the time (it can get cold even here in Alabama in November), she had a bruise the size of a dinner plate on her flank where it hit (I have a BW photograph of her taken in the hospital which shows a black mark above her left hip bone that is at least a foot long by about half that wide). Similarly, had the man in Spain (sorry, I forgot his name) lost control of his car and been killed in the wreck, he could have been counted as a person killed by a meteorite. So with such a small sample size, and dumb luck being a factor in both incidents, istm that it's hard to come up with any hard numbers. _ ¹I was indeed alive at the time, but, although precocious in various ways, I was not yet old enough to travel from Birmingham to Sylacauga and ask questions, or for that matter walk across the room or construct complete sentences . . . ;-) Just Shows What You Get By Choosing To Live Across The Street From The Comet Theatre Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 12:28 PM 8/8/03 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Note that deaths are usually quoted as a number per 100,000 people, which is the case above. For comparison, below I've listed some other death rates (mostly from NSC's web page). Note that the rate for deaths from falls is 20 times that quoted above for accidental gun death. I don't have a number handy for homicide by gun, but that would be an interesting addition to this table. deaths per hundred thousand per yearcause - 0.3 struck by falling object (NOT meteorite!) 0.1 struck by small meteorite Given that the total number of known human¹ deaths due to being struck by a meteorite stands at zero, of what meaning is the figure they quote? _ ¹The meteorite which fell in Nakht, Egypt in 1911 which later analysis showed came from Mars killed a dog when it hit. I am aware of two people who were hit and injured by meteorites: Mrs. H. Hodges of Sylacauga, AL, who in November of 1954 was bruised by a meteorite which came through the roof of her home, struck a large console radio, and ricocheted to hit her in the side, and a man who in 1994 was driving near Toledo, Spain, when a rock that turned out to be a meteorite came through the windshield of his car and struck his hand where he was holding the steering wheel, breaking his little finger. -- Ronn! :) Ronn Blankenship Instructor of Astronomy/Planetary Science University of Montevallo Montevallo, AL Disclaimer: Unless specifically stated otherwise, any opinions contained herein are the personal opinions of the author and do not represent the official position of the University of Montevallo. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Will give US accidental gun death statistics for years through 2000. For 2000 Number of Deaths 776 Population 275,264,999 Crude Rate 0.28 Age-Adjusted Rate** 0.28 Note that deaths are usually quoted as a number per 100,000 people, which is the case above. For comparison, below I've listed some other death rates (mostly from NSC's web page). Note that the rate for deaths from falls is 20 times that quoted above for accidental gun death. I don't have a number handy for homicide by gun, but that would be an interesting addition to this table. deaths per hundred thousand per yearcause - 870U.S. death rate (total for all causes) 200coronary heart disease 16motor vehicles 12suicide 8homicide 6falls 1.4 fire 0.4 air or space transport 0.3 struck by falling object (NOT meteorite!) 0.02 lightning 0.003fireworks 0.1 struck by small meteorite Looks like we need sidewalk insurence before we bother with gun insurence. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Guatam wrote: I don't doubt that Limbaugh makes mistakes. He speaks for, what, 2 hours a day, five days a week, 40+ weeks a year, without a script? _Of course_ he makes mistakes. I have a memory for policy minutiae that verges on the photographic, and I make mistakes on this list. I shudder to think how many I would make speaking as much as he does, without the chance to Google for research. I understand mis-stating something on the radio; I worked in radio for 5 years on-air, and another year volunteering as a producer and commercial coordinator for a local sports talkshow hosted by a couple of my friends. But go back to my post and take a good close look at the end of each of Limbaugh's comments. The ones that say Ought to Be and Told You So are from books. He didn't have time to use Google when writing a book? How about he either didn't do the research or deliberately misrepresented the available research. In short, he lied _in print_, for which there is no excuse. Also, just for the record, while I lean liberal on more issues than I lean conservative, I also lean pretty strongly conservative on somethings and libertarian on others. You may or may not remember that I support the recent war in Iraq, although not for the same reasons as Bush. I'm not sure just exactly how you could characterize me as a knee-jerk leftie, as you did in your email. But I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt, you probably don't have time to read everything on this list, so you might have missed that. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
IOW, you (pl.) say you don't prefer it if ONLY criminals carry weapons, you (pl.) just want to change the law so everyone who carries a weapon is by definition a criminal . . . I didn't say that, and I didn't say anything about criminalizing guns. It is my belief that there are relatively very few individual who can demonstrate an actual use for a personally owned gun - hunters, target shooters, for the most part - and we can devise ways to enable them to own guns while trying to keep guns out of the hands of those who really should not have them. I don't think it's unreasonable or unconstitutional to try to do that. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 06:31 PM 8/4/03 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:24:34 -0400 On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Reggie Bautista wrote: LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks. (Ought to Be, p. 135) Methinks Mr. Limbaugh was buying the cheaper condoms at some point in his life. :) So was his Dad, apparently! :-) *dirty joke alert* Reminds me of a poster I once spotted in the Village (and now really wish I'd bought) that had a drawing of a certain president on it with the caption, Mr. Nixon, Pull Out Like Your Father Should Have. Which of course brings us to the joke about LBJ that begins Why is Vietnam pregnant? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: I don't doubt that Limbaugh makes mistakes. He speaks for, what, 2 hours a day, five days a week, 40+ weeks a year, without a script? _Of course_ he makes mistakes. I have a memory for policy minutiae that verges on the photographic, and I make mistakes on this list. I shudder to think how many I would make speaking as much as he does, without the chance to Google for research. Aren't most of the quotes posted taken from Libaugh's books? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:57 PM 8/3/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I respect with things I don't believe in? IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? I think that's pretty much what David is trying to say. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I respect with things I don't believe in? Nothing. But then again, there is nothing unfair in it either. It's *their* interpretation of the symbol. You may challenge it if you wish to but that doesn't mean that they are being unfair in interpreting it their way. IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? Only one reason would make sense: that you believe in fighting fair and do not wish to pattern your behaviour on other people's less than stellar behaviour. Many non-Christians are offended by the use of the cross as a symbol (and some Christians are offended by some of the uses others make of it because some seem to use it in ways they do not find respectful of its meaning) The use of Om and Vedic Hymns in the orgy scenes of Kubrick's last movie [_Eyes Wide Shut_? Can't recall the name but it was something like that and starred Kidman and Cruise] would fall in the latter example. I recall a lot of people got offended over here. Does that mean that those who believe in those things and the positive meanings of those symbols must not display the symbols where anyone who may be offended (or claim to be offended) has a chance of seeing them (e.g., only display the flag inside one's private home or wear a religious symbol under one's street clothes)? I think that would be silly. Display and interpret any symbol the way you wish to. If others get offended, it is their problem, not yours. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 03:23 PM 8/4/03 +0530, Ritu wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I respect with things I don't believe in? Nothing. But then again, there is nothing unfair in it either. It's *their* interpretation of the symbol. You may challenge it if you wish to but that doesn't mean that they are being unfair in interpreting it their way. IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? Only one reason would make sense: that you believe in fighting fair and do not wish to pattern your behaviour on other people's less than stellar behaviour. Nice guys finish last, hunh? ;-) Many non-Christians are offended by the use of the cross as a symbol (and some Christians are offended by some of the uses others make of it because some seem to use it in ways they do not find respectful of its meaning) The use of Om and Vedic Hymns in the orgy scenes of Kubrick's last movie [_Eyes Wide Shut_? Can't recall the name but it was something like that and starred Kidman and Cruise] would fall in the latter example. I recall a lot of people got offended over here. Yes, that was the title. I did not see that film, so I didn't know about the music used. Does that mean that those who believe in those things and the positive meanings of those symbols must not display the symbols where anyone who may be offended (or claim to be offended) has a chance of seeing them (e.g., only display the flag inside one's private home or wear a religious symbol under one's street clothes)? I think that would be silly. Display and interpret any symbol the way you wish to. If others get offended, it is their problem, not yours. Unfortunately, it may be more than just an issue of offense: sometimes it may be a safety issue. For example, a couple of years or so ago in some town in either Kentucky or Tennessee, a man was shot and killed while driving down the street in his truck which had a sticker in the window with the logo of the local high school football team on it, which logo included the Confederate flag. Whether or not the team should change its logo because some people find that flag offensive, should someone have been murdered for having it on his truck? And then there have been any number of cases when a Jewish boy who wore his yarmulke to school had it ripped off his head and stomped into the ground by a group of bullies who then proceeded to beat him up simply for being different . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? Only one reason would make sense: that you believe in fighting fair and do not wish to pattern your behaviour on other people's less than stellar behaviour. Nice guys finish last, hunh? ;-) Zigackly! *g* The use of Om and Vedic Hymns in the orgy scenes of Kubrick's last movie [_Eyes Wide Shut_? Can't recall the name but it was something like that and starred Kidman and Cruise] would fall in the latter example. I recall a lot of people got offended over here. Yes, that was the title. I did not see that film, so I didn't know about the music used. You probably wouldn't have noticed the hymns or the Gita shlokas. Though I think 'Om' might be a familiar enough word - it is often used as the chant for satanic cults in Hollywood movies. :) I did see the movie, primarily to see what had people marching on the streets, and I'll say one thing: the pronounciation of the Sanskrit verses was flawless. It was also a very nice rendition with the tabla and the tanpura. Unfortunately, it may be more than just an issue of offense: sometimes it may be a safety issue. snippage of the examples That is true and apparently the precise problem some of my friends in the US are facing. They are Sikhs and their turbans and beards have suddenly become a security problem for them. Some of them chose to cut their hair and shave their beards. Others prefer to take the risk of being mistaken for an Arab by some lunatic bigot than to abjure the marks of their religious identity. It is sad and reprehensible the way some people react to differences but I can't think of any answer other than an individual assessment of the importance of openly displaying your symbols and the environment you are living in. The best answer, of course, would be everyone learning to respect both the differences and the essential sameness. But I am not holding my breath, waiting for that day to dawn. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Display and interpret any symbol the way you wish to. If others get offended, it is their problem, not yours. As long as *all* they do is feel offended. There have been reports, for example, of Jews in some European countries being attacked for wearing kippot, stars of David, and other Jewish symbols. My rabbi, when he was in Germany, was warned not to wear his kippah on the street. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended or anything like that. The antidote to offensive speech is MORE speech, not less. I think sometimes people misinterpret politeness and civility as silence. Although I agree people should not go out of their way to offend, I also think they should not have to hold back lest they offend. As long as we ascribe honorable motives to each other and a presumption of sincerity, we should be able to say and respond to anything here without fear of being branded with calumny and excoriation. Disagree with me, however vigorously - as long as you let me disagree with you. (Although I hope we will all consider what everyone else is saying before reflexively disagreeing.) Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Tom Beck wrote: The antidote to offensive speech is MORE speech, not less. I think sometimes people misinterpret politeness and civility as silence. And silence as acquiescence. This is something I completely agree with. Silence often ends up meaning that one lets the ridiculous memes hold sway. That serves no useful purpose. These memes have to be countered by other, more rational memes. Disagree with me, however vigorously I disagree *very* vigorously! (Although I hope we will all consider what everyone else is saying before reflexively disagreeing.) Spoilsport! ;) Ritu GCU Had To Be Done ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you mean there are certainly _individual_ conservatives who support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right.? JDG You're exactly right. Oops :-( = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He loves America - while hating all kinds of Americans who don't happen to be exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to the public, by pandering to their prejudices and to their completely misplaced resentments and grudges and envies and greeds. Instead of inspiring them to be better people, he tells them it's just fine to be selfish, greedy, stupid, ignorant shits. How arrogant. Basically your argument is that Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case better than I ever could. Why is it arrogant to believe that a lot of people don't like to think to carefully about a lot of issues and long-term implications of their stance on the same and generally tend to listen to emtoional arguments and be swayed by the prettiest, most emotionally resonant turn of phrase? I consider this to be a fact of political life. At least that is what life, books, history, current affairs and participation in political process have taught me. In the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson, when told that every thinking person was voting for him replied that unfortunately, he needed a majority. It is, of course, impossible to imagine Eisenhower (or Reagan) saying such a thing. They may not have said it but are you quite sure that they did not think so? I find it hard to believe that any politician naive enough to expect the electorate to think carefully would be able to make it that far up on the political ladder. Second, the automatic condescension that most Americans don't think. Apparently nothing has changed since then. If you subsitute the word 'people' for 'Americans', do you find the idea any more palatable? More akin to reality than to arrogance and condescension? There's a point where the argument that criticism is patriotic becomes stupid, not meaningful. If you see Saddam Hussein's Iraq and George Bush's America and can't choose between them because Bush's America isn't perfect, it doesn't make you a patriot who nobly criticizes his country. It makes you someone without the ability of a chimpanzee to make moral distinctions. And just how do you rate the ability of a chimpanzee to make moral judgments? :) When the response of so many to September 11th was to say that we deserved it, or it was a product of our actions, or (as Michael Moore did) that the attacks were mistargeted because they didn't kill Republicans, they weren't prophets engaging in self-criticism. They were self-hating bigots who seek to weaken the defense of Western civilization against those who would destroy it. The first and the last responses to 9/11 which you mention are despicable and not worth any kind of a serious debate. But as far as those who say that it was a product of US actions go, could they not be just people who appreciate the link between Bin Laden and CIA as well as the link between certain foreign policy measures of the US and the support Laden recieves from normal people in some parts of the world? I have not read much of what the American left has had to say about 9/11 but if they care to make the distinction between blaming US for Laden's psychoses and appreciating how US policies might have contributed to Laden's rise, then they may not be self-hating bigots. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He loves America - while hating all kinds of Americans who don't happen to be exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to the public, by pandering to their prejudices and to their completely misplaced resentments and grudges and envies and greeds. Instead of inspiring them to be better people, he tells them it's just fine to be selfish, greedy, stupid, ignorant shits. Guatam replied: How arrogant. Basically your argument is that Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case better than I ever could. Guatam, have you ever actually *listened* to Rush Limbaugh? He regularly states facts that are boldfaced lies or misleading generalizations. Here are a few examples from http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html#sec1.1 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?X24916D75 LIMBAUGH: Banks take the risks in issuing student loans and they are entitled to the profits. (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Summer/93) REALITY: Banks take no risks in issuing student loans, which are federally insured. LIMBAUGH: Don't let the liberals deceive you into believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation in America [in the '80s] resulted in a bigger gap between the haves and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth. (Ought to Be, p. 70) REALITY: CBO figures do nothing of the sort. Its numbers for after-tax incomes show that in 1980, the richest fifth of our country had eight times the income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more than 20 to one. LIMBAUGH: Comparing the 1950s with the present: And I might point out that poverty and economic disparities between the lower and upper classes were greater during the former period. (Told You So, p. 84) REALITY: Income inequality, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, fell from the 1940s to the late 1960s, and then began rising. Inequality surpassed the 1950 level in 1982 and rose steadily to all-time highs in 1992. (Census Bureau's Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States) LIMBAUGH: Oh, how they relished blaming Reagan administration policies, including the mythical reductions in HUD's budget for public housing, for creating all of the homeless! Budget cuts? There were no budget cuts! The budget figures show that actual construction of public housing increased during the Reagan years. (Ought to Be, p. 242-243) REALITY: In 1980, 20,900 low-income public housing units were under construction; in 1988, 9,700, a decline of 54 percent ;Statistical Abstracts of the U.S).In terms of 1993 dollars, the HUD budget for the construction of new public housing was slashed from $6.3 billion in 1980 to $683 million in 1988. We're getting out of the housing business. Period, a Reagan HUD official declared in 1985. LIMBAUGH: The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe. (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Huh? The average cash income of the poorest 20 percent of Americans is $5,226; the average cash income of four major European nations--Germany, France, United Kingdom and Italy--is $19,708. LIMBAUGH: There's no such thing as an implied contract. (Radio show, quoted in FRQ, Spring/93) REALITY: Every first year law student knows there is. [snip] LIMBAUGH: It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]. (Radio show, 4/29/94) REALITY: Nicotine's addictiveness has been reported in medical literature since the turn of the century. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's 1988 report on nicotine addiction left no doubts on the subject; Today the scientific base linking smoking to a number of chronic diseases is overwhelming, with a total of 50,000 studies from dozens of countries, states Encyclopedia Britannica's 1987 Medical and Health Annual. LIMBAUGH: We closed down a whole town--Times Beach, Mo.--over the threat of dioxin. We now know there was no reason to do that. Dioxin at those levels isn't harmful. (Ought to Be, p. 163) REALITY: The hypothesis that low exposures [to dioxin] are entirely safe for humans is distinctly less tenable now than before, editorialized the New England Journal of Medicine after publishing a study (1/24/91) on cancer mortality and dioxin. In 1993, after Limbaugh's book was written, a study of residents in Seveso, Italy had increased cancer rates after being exposed to dioxin, The EPA's director of environmental toxicology said this study removed one of the last remaining doubts about dioxin's deadly effects (AP, 8/29/93). LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guatam replied: How arrogant. Basically your argument is that Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case better than I ever could. Guatam, have you ever actually *listened* to Rush Limbaugh? He regularly states facts that are boldfaced lies or misleading generalizations. Here are a few examples from http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html#sec1.1 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?X24916D75 Yes, actually, although not often. I don't have a car, and therefore little reason to listen to the radio. I would point out, btw, that if you are relying on FAIR as a non-partisan source, you're going to be in a lot of trouble. I don't doubt that Limbaugh makes mistakes. He speaks for, what, 2 hours a day, five days a week, 40+ weeks a year, without a script? _Of course_ he makes mistakes. I have a memory for policy minutiae that verges on the photographic, and I make mistakes on this list. I shudder to think how many I would make speaking as much as he does, without the chance to Google for research. In fact, however, you (like Tom) display the usual leftists contempt for those who disagree with you - including the American people. Do you really think Eisenhower won because he lied to the American people? Or do you think that maybe Stevenson's sentiment that most of the American public didn't think had something to do with it? I would posit that the results of the election suggested that they thought pretty well - they certainly thought well enough to vote for someone other than Adlai Stevenson! Have _you_ ever listened to Limbaugh? He's not popular because he lies, he's popular because, first, he's a gifted entertainer, and second, because he speaks to people in a voice that is almost nonexistent in other forms of the mass media - the voice of a patriotic middle American. Not something you can get on NPR - and I _do_ listen to NPR a lot. Limbaugh, like Fox News, is popular because he brilliantly figured out how to provide something that the market wasn't - not unbiased news, but news that lacked the pervasive liberal bias of most of the mass media. On radio, of course, Limbaugh had a particular advantage, where he competes in news terms against the ludicrous NPR. When the left understands that the reason people disagree with you isn't because its smarter than them, or because they're evil liars only seeking power, or as Tom says, shits, then it will start towards political relevance. Until then, Fox News is going to keep beating the snot out of CNN, not because it's biased, but because it understands its audience. Tom likes to talk about Limbaugh hating, btw. When Limbaugh went deaf (in two weeks!) but was treated by a cochlear implant, Eric Alterman's (currently employed by MSNBC, so clearly his dissent was punished harshly - punish me in such a way, please!) comment was that he wished Limbaugh had gone deaf, because the country would be better off without him and his 20 million listeners. Limbaugh's done quite a few reprehensible things. Making fun of Chelsea Clinton on TV, for example, was contemptible. I somehow don't recall him ever wishing that one of his opponents was stricken with deafness, or stating that America would be better off without 20 million of his fellow Americans. Who is more driven by hatred here, exactly? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Reggie Bautista wrote: LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks. (Ought to Be, p. 135) Methinks Mr. Limbaugh was buying the cheaper condoms at some point in his life. :) Julia Snide Remark Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:24:34 -0400 On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:21:37PM -0500, Julia Thompson wrote: Reggie Bautista wrote: LIMBAUGH: The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane -- or put your children on a plane -- if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks. (Ought to Be, p. 135) Methinks Mr. Limbaugh was buying the cheaper condoms at some point in his life. :) So was his Dad, apparently! :-) *dirty joke alert* Reminds me of a poster I once spotted in the Village (and now really wish I'd bought) that had a drawing of a certain president on it with the caption, Mr. Nixon, Pull Out Like Your Father Should Have. :-D Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 07:34:51PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, but it seems to me you are quite close to arguing a tautology: those on the Left do not criticize Leftist extremists, and those who don't criticize Leftist extremists are lumped into the Left. I have certainly read and spoken to a number of conservatives who do not criticize Coulter and Falwell, so the same argument could be made for the Right. Hi Erik. No, I don't think I'm arguing that. There are certainly _individual_ conservatives who don't support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right. They have no constituency, no influence. Michael Moore - Coulter's best counterpart - is lionized, by contrast. I don't see the difference between not criticizing Chomsky, and not criticizing Limbaugh. They both spout a lot of kooky things. Your argument about speaking without a script is a rationalization -- if Limbaugh cannot avoid ad-libbing all the nonsense that he does, then he should use a script or only make inane ad-lib comments rather than trying to ad-lib something meaningful and getting it wrong. No script is not an excuse. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. I can't even reply to the other points, most of which seem to be personal attacks. However, The Nation is not the most important magazine of the left. It has a tiny circulation. I can't even remember the last time I snuck a peak at it. The magazines I read with political content are The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, Dissent, and Tikkun. I'd say any of them has more influence among liberal and left-leaning people than The Nation. As for the right denouncing Ann Coulter, I guess you haven't been watching Fox News Channel recently, where she is a heroine. And that reaches far more Americans than the National Review. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:54:16PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: They _are_. But their counterexamples aren't. You, Tom, are so far gone in your hatred of everyone who disagrees with you that you can't see that there are people on your side of the fence who are equally vile as Coulter and Falwell. But unlike Coulter and Falwell, people like Chomsky, Pollitt, and Michael Moore are lauded as heroes. That's the difference, and it's why all your rage and venom has about as much relevance to what's really going in American civic discourse as, well, Chomsky and Pollitt. Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important. Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, but it seems to me you are quite close to arguing a tautology: those on the Left do not criticize Leftist extremists, and those who don't criticize Leftist extremists are lumped into the Left. I have certainly read and spoken to a number of conservatives who do not criticize Coulter and Falwell, so the same argument could be made for the Right. As a sidenote, do you consider me part of the Left? I do share a number of positions with the Left, being in favor of a liberal society, but I also think Chomsky is a kook when he writes about politics (I don't have an opinion on Pollitt, I don't think I've ever read anything by Pollitt). Just wondering. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 08:40:53AM -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, but it seems to me ^^^ Gautam Sorry about that! -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
No, David, you proved my much larger point. Congratulations, _you_ are the perfect example for why the left has no relevance to American politics today. You pegged it in one - I do say you're an extremist too. If you really feel that it's reasonable to call the American flag a symbol of hatred - which you have just repeatedly said you do - you have just proven my larger point about the collapse of the left far better than I ever could. Out of your own mouth. I couldn't have _asked_ for a better post to make my point. = Gautam Mukunda Yes, I feel it is reasonable to call the US flag a symbol of hatred, in the sense that many who wave it most fervently do so partially out of hate. You seem to have removed all of the modifiers from your restatement. For comparison, part of my original post is quoted below. ---David P.S. Do you use extremist as more than a label for those you disagree with? If you define it as more than 3 sigma from the mean, or something, then we could continue this discussion. But if someone is an extremist just because you say so, I really have no opportunity to reply. Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. ---David - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I feel it is reasonable to call the US flag a symbol of hatred, in the sense that many who wave it most fervently do so partially out of hate. You seem to have removed all of the modifiers from your restatement. For comparison, part of my original post is quoted below. ---David P.S. Do you use extremist as more than a label for those you disagree with? If you define it as more than 3 sigma from the mean, or something, then we could continue this discussion. But if someone is an extremist just because you say so, I really have no opportunity to reply. No, I don't. I use it for people who are completely out of the mainstream - which you have dramatically demonstrated you are. One of the reasons that people like Rush Limbaugh are so successful at speaking to the American public is that - unlike their opponents - they _like_ the public. I have lots of problems with Rush. But he loves America, and he loves Americans. The American people rather like that and they (correctly) completely reject people who believe that it is reasonable to say the American flag is a symbol of hatred. You have demonstrated my point better than I ever could have. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
One of the reasons that people like Rush Limbaugh are so successful at speaking to the American public is that - unlike their opponents - they _like_ the public. I have lots of problems with Rush. But he loves America, and he loves Americans. The American people rather like that and they (correctly) completely reject people who believe that it is reasonable to say the American flag is a symbol of hatred. You have demonstrated my point better than I ever could have. He loves America - while hating all kinds of Americans who don't happen to be exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to the public, by pandering to their prejudices and to their completely misplaced resentments and grudges and envies and greeds. Instead of inspiring them to be better people, he tells them it's just fine to be selfish, greedy, stupid, ignorant shits. I love America, too, you know. Liberals love this country - we wouldn't try to save it if we didn't. It is possible to love your country while being critical of it. In fact, it's part of the prophetic tradition to tell your people not what they want to hear, but what they don't want to hear - what they very much want NOT to hear - but NEED to hear. William Bennet is permitted to grump publicly about how everything is awful and going to hell - why can't liberals? Do Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell love America, after saying the despicable things they did after 9/11? Okay, I'm rambling here. It's late and I'm very tired. But don't ever tell me that liberals don't love America. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps I've misunderstood your argument, Gauatam, but it seems to me you are quite close to arguing a tautology: those on the Left do not criticize Leftist extremists, and those who don't criticize Leftist extremists are lumped into the Left. I have certainly read and spoken to a number of conservatives who do not criticize Coulter and Falwell, so the same argument could be made for the Right. Hi Erik. No, I don't think I'm arguing that. There are certainly _individual_ conservatives who don't support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right. They have no constituency, no influence. Michael Moore - Coulter's best counterpart - is lionized, by contrast. My real question point, though, is to try and answer the question Michael Walzer posed in _Dissent_. http://www2.kenyon.edu/depts/religion/fac/Adler/Politics/Waltzer.htm Walzer is the editor of Dissent, one of the more influential magazines of the left. His question was Can there be a decent left? First, it's worth noting that someone like Walzer - a self-avowed member of the left - found it necessary to ask that question. The answer, the year and a half since September 11 has revealed, appears to be no. There can't be. Not that it isn't _possible_, but that it doesn't seem to be possible with the people who make up the modern left. This is a tragedy - it's not that what are generally recognized as leftist principles don't contribute something worthwhile to politics. They undeniably do. It's that today's left doesn't believe in them. The _only_ principle of today's left seems to be antagonism to the United States. As a sidenote, do you consider me part of the Left? I do share a number of positions with the Left, being in favor of a liberal society, but I also think Chomsky is a kook when he writes about politics (I don't have an opinion on Pollitt, I don't think I've ever read anything by Pollitt). Just wondering. Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think so, no. You seem to be something of a libertarian, so far as I can tell. I don't think you share many positions at all with the Left, actually, because I see no signs that the left is committed to a liberal society in anything but rhetoric. When it actually comes down to it, what are PC and sensitivity training but thought policing enforced with whatever institutional power the Left can pirate? I would actually say that in the US - as opposed to Europe - being a classical liberal usually puts you on the right of the political spectrum. This is part of the classic conservative conundrum. There are two types of conservatives. There are those opposed to change in general, on general principles. And there are those opposed to the Left -that is, those opposed to specific types of change, but not opposed to change in general. Most conservatives have a foot in both camps, but they usually have a primary emphasis. I am (generally) a member of the second. In the US that means commitment to liberal ideals - the basic freedoms enshrined in the Constitution (political _and_ economic) and an embrace of equality of opportunity over that of results. So (for me, for example) being a conservative is perfectly consistent with a commitment to gay rights. Other conservatives, who oppose change on general and legitimate principles, are more opposed to them - not necessarily out of homophobia (although some are, of course) - but because they genuinely (and correctly, imo) feel that the preservation of old social mores is a vital role of conservatism in a society. Being a member of the left, since the Vietnam War at least, seems to me to be opposing the basic tenets of the American creed. Not always in rhetoric, but almost always in practice. Not because they are bad in and of themselves - although some members certainly seem to think so - but because they are American, and that by itself is enough to oppose them. It showed up before. If the left is about egalitarianism - which it claims to be - there was not a less egalitarian society in the world than the old USSR. But, as Walzer mentions (but sort of understates) most of the world's left ranged from being neutral between the US and the USSR to aggressively opposed to the US. We saw something similar in the buildup to Iraq - something that you and I both commented on. People who never cared about the people of Iraq in the least before the US moved against Saddam were willing to riot in the streets to prevent it from doing so, claiming that they were doing so on behalf of Iraqis. This didn't make sense, as we both saw. It wasn't about anything but opposition to the United States. That's all that's left. Walzer was hoping that his essay would trigger reform and self-examination. The very lack of response and change to it suggests, to me, that instead there isn't anything remaining to build upon. I can't close with anything
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: He loves America - while hating all kinds of Americans who don't happen to be exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to the public, by pandering to their prejudices and to their completely misplaced resentments and grudges and envies and greeds. Instead of inspiring them to be better people, he tells them it's just fine to be selfish, greedy, stupid, ignorant shits. How arrogant. Basically your argument is that Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case better than I ever could. In the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson, when told that every thinking person was voting for him replied that unfortunately, he needed a majority. It is, of course, impossible to imagine Eisenhower (or Reagan) saying such a thing. First there's the arrogance of thinking that a non-entity like Stevenson was somehow more intelligent than the man who led Torch and Overlord and wrote _Crusade in Europe_. Second, the automatic condescension that most Americans don't think. Apparently nothing has changed since then. William Bennet is permitted to grump publicly about how everything is awful and going to hell - why can't liberals? No one says they can't. Bennet doesn't say that things are going badly, so there's nothing worthwhile about the US and it stands for nothing worthwhile. A significant difference. Do Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell love America, after saying the despicable things they did after 9/11? No, which is why they were ostracized by the conservative movement, absolutely and completely. Far _more_ harshly criticized on the right than they were on the left, actually. Okay, I'm rambling here. It's late and I'm very tired. But don't ever tell me that liberals don't love America. Tom Beck No one did. The left, though - which is distinct from liberals, although they overlap, and influence each other extensively. There's a point where the argument that criticism is patriotic becomes stupid, not meaningful. If you see Saddam Hussein's Iraq and George Bush's America and can't choose between them because Bush's America isn't perfect, it doesn't make you a patriot who nobly criticizes his country. It makes you someone without the ability of a chimpanzee to make moral distinctions. When the response of so many to September 11th was to say that we deserved it, or it was a product of our actions, or (as Michael Moore did) that the attacks were mistargeted because they didn't kill Republicans, they weren't prophets engaging in self-criticism. They were self-hating bigots who seek to weaken the defense of Western civilization against those who would destroy it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 07:34 PM 8/3/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Hi Erik. No, I don't think I'm arguing that. There are certainly _individual_ conservatives who don't support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right. They have no constituency, no influence. Michael Moore - Coulter's best counterpart - is lionized, by contrast. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you mean there are certainly _individual_ conservatives who support Coulter or Falwell, but on the whole they are persona non grata on the right.? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, I feel it is reasonable to call the US flag a symbol of hatred, in the sense that many who wave it most fervently do so partially out of hate. You seem to have removed all of the modifiers from your restatement. For comparison, part of my original post is quoted below. ---David P.S. Do you use extremist as more than a label for those you disagree with? If you define it as more than 3 sigma from the mean, or something, then we could continue this discussion. But if someone is an extremist just because you say so, I really have no opportunity to reply. No, I don't. I use it for people who are completely out of the mainstream - which you have dramatically demonstrated you are. ... Out of the mainstream? So then we could in principle settle this issue with a poll of American citizens? We ask them Do you agree that many who wave the American flag most fervently do so partially out of hate?, or whatever, and if the percentage of yes responses is more than some cutoff, then I am in fact in the mainstream? Or is the mainstream also something that you and only you get to define? As I've observed in a similar case recently, if you get to define all of the words your way then you will probably win your argument. But you won't have been arguing WITH anybody, because no one else has agreed to your definitions! ---David Beware of circular arguments... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
At 09:57 PM 8/3/03 -0400, David Hobby wrote: Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) What's fair about the others contaminating a symbol I respect with things I don't believe in? IOW, why should I fight fair in defending the good aspects of a symbol if others do not fight fair in contaminating it? Note: I am not referring to anyone here, nor need the discussion necessarily be limited to the US flag. I'm just asking the general question of why I ought to have to give up a symbol because it offends others. Many non-Christians are offended by the use of the cross as a symbol (and some Christians are offended by some of the uses others make of it because some seem to use it in ways they do not find respectful of its meaning), while many are offended by the Star of David or by Islamic symbols. Does that mean that those who believe in those things and the positive meanings of those symbols must not display the symbols where anyone who may be offended (or claim to be offended) has a chance of seeing them (e.g., only display the flag inside one's private home or wear a religious symbol under one's street clothes)? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... Katha Pollitt, among many other things, famously forbade her daughter from flying an American flag after September 11th because it was a symbol of, IIRC, jingoism and hate. If that _doesn't_ bother you, then it explains why the left has no traction in the United States. Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where have you been? Everybody uses symbols differently, of course. But I saw many flying the flag who seemed to do so out of some mix of patriotism, jingoism and hate. (Anyway, they would say things like Kill all Arabs!) When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. ---David The prosecution rests. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. The prosecution rests. Huh? What does that mean? How does what he said prove the case? It seems to me the opposite. She has been put forward as an example of an extremist whom liberals should denounce. But the examples given make her seem somewhat less extreme to me than, say, a person writing a book essentially accusing every liberal in American history of being deliberate traitors, or of a religious leader blaming Americans he disagrees with for a terrorist attack on our country. If you want to argue that the left needs to police itself the way you claim the right does, I would respond that I don't know of too many left-wingers who get the kind of attention that Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson do. Noam Chomsky is an extremist, but he has about as much influence in world politics as I do. It's a simple matter of who is listening - Coulter and Robertson get more attention because they get more attention. They SHOULD be denounced, by everyone. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... When others have contaminated a symbol with things one does not believe in, one reasonable response is to avoid using the symbol. (Another is to attempt to reclaim it, but either should be fair.) So her rhetoric is over-the-top, but her basic position doesn't seem too far out. ---David The prosecution rests. This thread has been snipped too much for most people to follow you, I'm afraid. I would guess that you are trying to say something like the following? Katha Pollit is an extreme Leftist. David Hobby is a Leftist. David Hobby did not criticize Katha Pollit. Therefore, Leftists do not properly criticize their extremists. This argument has many flaws, but the most important one is that I do not have any clear idea of who Katha Pollit is, and might well have misspelled her name repeatedly. : ) I was responding to YOUR examples of her extremism. She might well be extreme, I don't know. But the example you gave of avoiding the symbolism of the American flag does not seem very extreme to me. So either YOU need to provide better examples of her extremism, or I am an extremist too. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This argument has many flaws, but the most important one is that I do not have any clear idea of who Katha Pollit is, and might well have misspelled her name repeatedly. : ) I was responding to YOUR examples of her extremism. She might well be extreme, I don't know. But the example you gave of avoiding the symbolism of the American flag does not seem very extreme to me. So either YOU need to provide better examples of her extremism, or I am an extremist too. ---David No, David, you proved my much larger point. Congratulations, _you_ are the perfect example for why the left has no relevance to American politics today. You pegged it in one - I do say you're an extremist too. If you really feel that it's reasonable to call the American flag a symbol of hatred - which you have just repeatedly said you do - you have just proven my larger point about the collapse of the left far better than I ever could. Out of your own mouth. I couldn't have _asked_ for a better post to make my point. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics, was [L3] Re: fight the evil of price discrimination
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Huh? What does that mean? How does what he said prove the case? It seems to me the opposite. She has been put forward as an example of an extremist whom liberals should denounce. But the examples given make her seem somewhat less extreme to me than, say, a person writing a book essentially accusing every liberal in American history of being deliberate traitors, or of a religious leader blaming Americans he disagrees with for a terrorist attack on our country. Except, of course, every major figure on the right has repudiated both of the people you are referring to. National Review - to pick an example - has run multiple massive attacks on both, making precisely the argument that both of them are a disgrace. Let's see The Nation do that to Pollitt. Oh, wait, she _edits_ The Nation. Hmmm. If you want to argue that the left needs to police itself the way you claim the right does, I would respond that I don't know of too many left-wingers who get the kind of attention that Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson do. Noam Chomsky is an extremist, but he has about as much influence in world politics as I do. It's a simple matter of who is listening - Coulter and Robertson get more attention because they get more attention. They SHOULD be denounced, by everyone. They _are_. But their counterexamples aren't. You, Tom, are so far gone in your hatred of everyone who disagrees with you that you can't see that there are people on your side of the fence who are equally vile as Coulter and Falwell. But unlike Coulter and Falwell, people like Chomsky, Pollitt, and Michael Moore are lauded as heroes. That's the difference, and it's why all your rage and venom has about as much relevance to what's really going in American civic discourse as, well, Chomsky and Pollitt. Now, I think both of them are very important figures, because they are extremely influential. One is the single most cited living intellectual. The other edits the most important magazine of th Left. They influence opinion. But they are also indicators of opinion - and the fact that people who believe what they believe are so adulated by a fragment of the political spectrum - and so completely immune from criticism from _their own side_, as opposed to from the other side, tells us something really important. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
