Re: Brin: Second Salvo
At 22-10-04 13:30, JDG wrote: There is big-time biological change that occurs at the moment of conception. A zygote is clearly human. A sperm or ovum is clearly not. At the moment of conception, one cell (the sperm) merges with an other cell (the ovum). That's all the change that occurs at the moment of conception. The resulting new cell is not sentient, it's just a cell. For a long time after that, the resulting lump of cells is not sentient, does not even vaguely resemble a human being, but is merely a lump of cells. Where is the big-time biological change in all that? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
At 07:58 AM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten % drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. So, would you argue that compromise is the appropriate long-term solution to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic fundamentalist jihadism, and racist segregation?Or should enlightened humanists always maintain a long-term goal of complete victory in those cases? My point was that everybody has some line where they have drawn between the unpleasant but bearable and the intolerable. Your reaction to the former may be pragmatic compromise aimed at reducing the unpleasant without having to get ballistic over what remains. The latter? You must dig in your heels and fight evil. Problem is that many in our society are unconvinced that God wrote digital laws for a clearly analog world. That's fine. I happen to respectfully disagree. I believe that all people are endowed with unalienable rights - and I believe that those rights don't change just because some people are not like you or I. Given these beliefs, what is my moral obligation to the fact that our civilization is killing over 1 million innocent children each year? I am sure that even you would agree, Dr. Brin, that there are some situations that do not call for pragmatic compromise. For example, if you were a Hutu in Rwanda in the mid-1990's, it would be pragmatic for you to not speak out against the government-sponsored genocide, while also choosing to not participate in the killing of Tutsis with your fellow Hutus. Yet, is this sort of compromise really the appropriate course of action for an enlightened humanist?A similar situation would be in 1930's - as an enlightened humanist, do you give safe refuge to Jews fleeing persecution? Or do you agitate for a pragmatic compromise whereby Jews are taken to camps for hard labor, but without execution? Or do you romantically agitate for the whole loaf - a German society where Aryans and Jews live side by side in peace? In short, I find your distinction between the pragmatic compromise of enlightened humanists and the whole loaf approach of neocon romantics to be utterly unpersuasive.For one thing, it seems to me that the choice between pragmatic compromise and whole loaf is largely determined by the gravity of the situation, rather than ideology. Moreover, if anything, pro-life advocates have taken precisely the pragmatic compromise approach you appear to advocate. I haven't seen a serious push for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution in quite some time. Rather, pro-life advocates have instead persued a ban on the horribly grisly DilationExtraction/Partial-Birth procedure, we have persued parental/judicial notification laws for minors, we have persued mandatory waiting periods for abortions, and soon you will see push for a ban on gender-selection abortions.On the other hand, it has been the pro-choice advocates who have opposed all of these very reasonable and pragmatic compromises at every step of the way. 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: Brin: Second Salvo
At 09:54 PM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you then stick poor moms with) This is just plain false. Pro-Life activists donate extensively to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and charities that supply single mothers with whatever they need, from baby clothes to housing. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
I am sure that even you would agree, Dr. Brin, that there are some situations that do not call for pragmatic compromise. I agree with that leading statements, though it all depends on the pragmatic tradeoffs. Read LeGuin's Those who walk away from Omelas. Indeed, there are many times to take a pure and passionate stand. I am deeply suspicious of the underlying emotional reasons behind the choice of abortion as a stand, which must be ratcheted earlier with each new medical advance, till we must sing (as in Monty Python) Every Sperm is sacred. For example, if you were a Hutu in Rwanda in the mid-1990's, it would be pragmatic for you to not speak out against the government-sponsored genocide, while also choosing to not participate in the killing of Tutsis with your fellow Hutus. Yet, is this sort of compromise really the appropriate course of action for an enlightened humanist? A similar situation would be in 1930's - as an enlightened humanist, do you give safe refuge to Jews fleeing persecution? Or do you agitate for a pragmatic compromise whereby Jews are taken to camps for hard labor, but without execution? Or do you romantically agitate for the whole loaf - a German society where Aryans and Jews live side by side in peace? In short, I find your distinction between the pragmatic compromise of enlightened humanists and the whole loaf approach of neocon romantics to be utterly unpersuasive. For one thing, it seems to me that the choice between pragmatic compromise and whole loaf is largely determined by the gravity of the situation, rather than ideology. Moreover, if anything, pro-life advocates have taken precisely the pragmatic compromise approach you appear to advocate. I haven't seen a serious push for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution in quite some time. Rather, pro-life advocates have instead persued a ban on the horribly grisly DilationExtraction/Partial-Birth procedure, we have persued parental/judicial notification laws for minors, we have persued mandatory waiting periods for abortions, and soon you will see push for a ban on gender-selection abortions. On the other hand, it has been the pro-choice advocates who have opposed all of these very reasonable and pragmatic compromises at every step of the way. 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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:54 PM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you then stick poor moms with) This is just plain false. Pro-Life activists donate extensively to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and charities that supply single mothers with whatever they need, from baby clothes to housing. Yes, superficial window dressing. Utter sanctimony. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
At 07:13 AM 10/21/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: Indeed, there are many times to take a pure and passionate stand. I am deeply suspicious of the underlying emotional reasons behind the choice of abortion as a stand, which must be ratcheted earlier with each new medical advance, till we must sing (as in Monty Python) Every Sperm is sacred. With all due respect, no logical fallacy gets me more bleepin' pissed off than that old chestnut you repeated. (Sure, its good humor, but as an argument, it is pretty weak.) There is big-time biological change that occurs at the moment of conception. A zygote is clearly human. A sperm or ovum is clearly not. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
At 07:14 AM 10/21/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:54 PM 10/18/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you then stick poor moms with) This is just plain false. Pro-Life activists donate extensively to Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and charities that supply single mothers with whatever they need, from baby clothes to housing. Yes, superficial window dressing. Utter sanctimony. On what basis? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 5:19 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 12:24:08PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: But, the legal system doesn't have murky linesIt can't. The present, But, no. The legal system does have murky lines. In interpretation, yes it does. I was thinking more about age lines. 1 hour before your 17th birthday, it is illegal to see an R rated movie by yourself; on your 17th birthdaty, it isn't. 1 hour before your 18th birthday, you can be arrested for buying cigarettes, on your 18th birthday you can't. 1 hour before your 21st birthday, you can be arrested for buying beer, on your 21st birthday you can't.. Surely you have heard the phrase beyond a reasonable doubt? That certainly sounds like a layman's way of talking about probability. Hmm, I was instructed differently. I was told that reasonable doubt is a doubt that would make you hesitate in going forward with your most serious affairs, like getting married or buying a house. That was fairly understandable to me. I had to interprete it, mind you, but the description was clear. Also, from that jury experience, we got some very clear instructions of what interfering with a police officer was. We had to put some work in to determine the facts, but the law on this was clear and definite...which was very helpful. So, you are right in that I overstated my case a bit. But, in the case of having divisions between when it is legal to do something, the law (I think out of necessity) is arbitrarily precise. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: But, in the case of having divisions between when it is legal to do something, the law (I think out of necessity) is arbitrarily precise. So when, in an arbitrarily precise way, does the law state that aborting a fetus becomes murder? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:55:30AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: But, in the case of having divisions between when it is legal to do something, the law (I think out of necessity) is arbitrarily precise. So when, in an arbitrarily precise way, does the law state that aborting a fetus becomes murder? I've already given the arbitrary precise line between acceptable abortion and murder...in the post you are responding to. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 03:51:10PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: I've already given the arbitrary precise line between acceptable abortion and murder...in the post you are responding to. Whatever. I asked, when does the law state? Which is, of course, a rhetorical quesiton, since the law does not clearly state. That is one reason why there is continuing argument about it (if a Supreme Court ruling is necessitated, the law certainly isn't very precise) -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo Whatever. I asked, when does the law state? Which is, of course, a rhetorical quesiton, since the law does not clearly state. That is one reason why there is continuing argument about it (if a Supreme Court ruling is necessitated, the law certainly isn't very precise) But, aren't Supreme Court rulings part of the law? I was certainly thinking about the present legal climate, after Roe vs. Wade. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 05:55:11PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: But, aren't Supreme Court rulings part of the law? I believe they call them decisions. Interpretations of the law. Which is obviously not sufficiently precise for all situations. Besides, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on everything, has it? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten % drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. So, would you argue that compromise is the appropriate long-term solution to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic fundamentalist jihadism, and racist segregation?Or should enlightened humanists always maintain a long-term goal of complete victory in those cases? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten % drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. So, would you argue that compromise is the appropriate long-term solution to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic fundamentalist jihadism, and racist segregation?Or should enlightened humanists always maintain a long-term goal of complete victory in those cases? My point was that everybody has some line where they have drawn between the unpleasant but bearable and the intolerable. Your reaction to the former may be pragmatic compromise aimed at reducing the unpleasant without having to get ballistic over what remains. The latter? You must dig in your heels and fight evil. Problem is that many in our society are unconvinced that God wrote digital laws for a clearly analog world. In biology things are murky with slow and amorhous dividing lines. Those whose PERSONALITIES make them adamant line-drawers had to choose as the moment of life inception the ridiculous moment of sperm/egg joining. A titanic silliness on dozens of levels, proving how absurd such purist/romantic twaddle can get. (God Himself aborts half of such joinings, which are better called rought drafts of manuscripts for a later human.) It bois down again to personality. Pragmatic enlightenment types what to maximize the overall number of happy children who can compete on a level playing field. Birth control powerfull helps this end. Proved. Aristos dont' want this to happen and have joined forces with fanatics who would impose human being on clusters of cells that clearly are nothing of the kind. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
- Original Message - From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:58 AM Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo --- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten % drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. So, would you argue that compromise is the appropriate long-term solution to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic fundamentalist jihadism, and racist segregation?Or should enlightened humanists always maintain a long-term goal of complete victory in those cases? My point was that everybody has some line where they have drawn between the unpleasant but bearable and the intolerable. Your reaction to the former may be pragmatic compromise aimed at reducing the unpleasant without having to get ballistic over what remains. The latter? You must dig in your heels and fight evil. Problem is that many in our society are unconvinced that God wrote digital laws for a clearly analog world. In biology things are murky with slow and amorhous dividing lines. Those whose PERSONALITIES make them adamant line-drawers had to choose as the moment of life inception the ridiculous moment of sperm/egg joining. A titanic silliness on dozens of levels, proving how absurd such purist/romantic twaddle can get. But, the legal system doesn't have murky linesIt can't. The present, enlightened standard, is a full term fetus that is not delivered is not human; a delivered 10 week premature fetus is human. It is true that biology is (God Himself aborts half of such joinings, which are better called rought drafts of manuscripts for a later human.) Let's look at this logic. Were infants not human in the 18th century? The infant mortality rate was 50% back then http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012030.html It bois down again to personality. Pragmatic enlightenment types what to maximize the overall number of happy children who can compete on a level playing field. So, is infantcide for Down syndrome childen, severly retarded childen, children born with AIDs, children born with alchohol fetal syndrome, etc. , a good idea? If one were to rigorously apply the maxim you just gave, that would be the logical result. No, I'm not accusing you of believing that. I'd guess that you don't. I'm just using the logic A-B ~b therefore ~A Finally, the belief in absolutes is not a Romantic notion. Faith in the trancendental is definatly a part of the enlightenment. Kant, the quintessential Enlightenment philosopher, speaks very clearly towards that. Jefferson penned such a faith statement in the Declaration of Independance. Birth control powerfull helps this end. Proved. Sure. Even though I'm anti-abortion, I'm strongly pro birth control. (I'm also anti death penelty). The reality is that we are in a nation that is divided on abortion. It seems reasonable to me, in such a climate, to first get half a loaf, and then work on the rest. Further, since consensus will be required to really end abortion, it makes a lot of sense to keep dialog open. Working together on things we all agree upon to make abortions as rare as possible would seem to to be a good first step for anyone who wishes to end them. I'm anti-abortion, and I've been married to someone who is pro-choice for a quarter century. Although it is not something we discuss a lot, we know that we agree on a great deal...even though we fall on two sides of the fence on this issue. Ending abortion requires convincing people like my wife that is should be illegal. And, there is general agreement among most people on, for example, third term abortions. Most folks agree it should be illegal, except in the case of the mother's life really being at risk. (If you throw health in there, mental health is included...and any therapist worth her salt can find a DSM-IV diagnosis for anyone.) My wife agrees with that. We agree that terminating fetuses past the point of viability is wrong...even though she is pro-choice. The most strident pro-choice advocates fight like the NRA fights for the right to carry a bazooka over thiswhich is not really enlightened. So, in short, I take issue with your picturing of the folks on both sides of the issue. In particular, it appears that you have assigned to the Enlightenment ideas that really were developed fairly long after the Enlightenment. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:24 PM Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo Sorry, I didn't finish a thought. But, the legal system doesn't have murky linesIt can't. The present, enlightened standard, is a full term fetus that is not delivered is not human; a delivered 10 week premature fetus is human. It is true that biology is a bit murkey...but I'd argue that, between the two arbitrary lines, a more consistent arguement could be made for conception than birth. And, if you agree that persons do not exist for as long as there can be twinning, then one allows things like morning after pills, but not abortions performed after a woman knows she is pregnant. In short, the standards of the left look even more arbitrary than the standards of the right do to me. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
And what would you advocate? Converting to humanism by the sword? Better to reach an accomadation and convert by example, or work to improve the world so that those -isms are no longer valid or convincing. ~Maru From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] So, would you argue that compromise is the appropriate long-term solution to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic fundamentalist jihadism, and racist segregation?Or should enlightened humanists always maintain a long-term goal of complete victory in those cases? JDG ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
IMOO, I think the Left is slowly moving, as fast as is acceptable, to a sentience definition of humanity, which is to say, the more counsciousness one possesses, the more 'human'. Now this is defintely slowed by reactions left over from the early IQ tests and Nazis, but I think it is definitely coming (If AI ever get around to being made, they'll bring this to a boil). If all life truly were sacred and valuable, then they'd find it pretty hard to justify eating meat, brushing their teeth, fighting off illnesses (I'm Pro-choice, for anti-biotics!), and allowing pet pounds to euthanize animals (Don't kill them, give them up for adoption!). They clearly see sentience as the issue, but cloak it in religious rhetoric, about man's soul, how the spirit is what separates a human from an animal etc. It applies very easily to abortion: the moment it develops a nervous system, it counts at the very least as much as a dog, or cat. Viability isn't a very good criteria Dan, because the date of viability of pre-emies is constanly moving backwards, and what precisely is viable? A full-term newborn, abandoned to its own devices surely isn't viable. ~Maru From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sorry, I didn't finish a thought. But, the legal system doesn't have murky linesIt can't. The present, enlightened standard, is a full term fetus that is not delivered is not human; a delivered 10 week premature fetus is human. It is true that biology is a bit murkey...but I'd argue that, between the two arbitrary lines, a more consistent arguement could be made for conception than birth. And, if you agree that persons do not exist for as long as there can be twinning, then one allows things like morning after pills, but not abortions performed after a woman knows she is pregnant. In short, the standards of the left look even more arbitrary than the standards of the right do to me. Dan M. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
Finally, the belief in absolutes is not a Romantic notion. Faith in thetrancendental is definatly a part of the enlightenment. Kant, the quintessential Enlightenment philosopher, speaks very clearly towards that.Jefferson penned such a faith statement in the Declaration of Independance. Jefferson and Kant are called enlightenment figures because of timing and poor understanding. Jefferson in fact was the last person to straddle both romanticism and the enlightenment comfortably. But soon after the american revolution romantics like Keat saw that democracy was not socrates in togas but shopkeepers, tradesmen and farmers shouting at each other in town meetings. The Romantics turned their backs on democracy. Which is keeping in faith with kings and priests and Plato anyway... The alliance had been a brief one. Oh, and Kant led to Hegel who was the philosophical father of BOTH Communism and Nazism... and the neoconservative movement. Spare me. Oh, you can argue that I misuse the name enlightenment when I describe it in my JRRTolkien paper. Then maybe I need another term for whatever's the opposite in the two sides that posit nostalgia vs progress, past vs future golden ages, feudalism vs democracy, apprenticeships vs professions, crafts vs factories, incantations (of faith, reason or oideology) vs pragmatism. Even under enlightenment the french branch veered off course and resturned to essences and platonism. If our branch does that, Westren Civ will be captive again. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMOO, I think the Left is slowly moving, as fast as is acceptable, to a sentience definition of humanity, which is to say, the more counsciousness one possesses, the more 'human'. yes and this angers those who want prim dividing lines. But That's not what abortion has ever been about. It's about needing some way to seize the moral high ground, given the fact that, if he came back tomorrow, Jesus would be at best a pinko liberal. Stopping baby killers (without ever doing anything to help the babies you then stick poor moms with) seemed an efficient way to seize the high ground so that Jesus would have to sayI disagree with your social policies but I'm with you to save babies! Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it. Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
Here's a link to that book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039332/qid=1098040811/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-6659867-3819261?v=glances=booksn=507846 (Sorry about the length.) ~Maru --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo True enough. A better example of their obsession with form over substance would be abortion. Abortion RATES went down under Clinton and climbed under both Bushes. Pragmatically speaking, lessening the number should be the goal whether achieved by liberal means or not. But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten % drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. Also, you *could* recouncile the neo-cons and the Left Behinders if you push Judgement Day far off enough into the future. After all, you don't need eternity to build a star-going empire led by philospher-kings, just a large but finite amount of time. True, but that takes ALL the wind out of the sails of the apocalypts. Geez the Whore of Babylon Five just sounds too sciencefictional to be taken seriously. Likewise an antimatter anti Christ. Doesn't satisfy as much asThe evil one is already among us. Of course, it does seem a little pointless if God is going to come and make everything way better than mere humanity ever could. And also, I notice you reference the excerpt 'The Philospher of Islamic Terror', but not teh Book (Terror and Liberalism). Why's that? The book is well worth reading too. Got a web site ref? It sounds like a magnificent reach and a diatribe. OH! I am reading COLLAPSE by one of our civilization's real genius-treasures, Jared Diamond (GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL). It covers what factors brought about civ collapse in past societies and what factors allowed others to remain flexible enough to evade disaster. By his standards, this would be a positively insane administration in any measure. But his book has changed my mind. I NO LONGER think that the monsters' worst crime is dissipating our armed forces and deliberately destroying readiness by miring our best troops and using up the reserves. Worse has been the 20 years of lying and obfuscation about climate change. Ten years calling it a hoax. Ten years saying it exists but we need more data... and now yes, it's big and humans did it, but now it's too late to do anything about it. Read Diamond's book. It says NOTHING about todays' politics. It says EVERYTHING about the destruction of our resiliency by morons. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
Thanks. Very interesting. --- Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a link to that book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039332/qid=1098040811/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-6659867-3819261?v=glances=booksn=507846 (Sorry about the length.) ~Maru --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo True enough. A better example of their obsession with form over substance would be abortion. Abortion RATES went down under Clinton and climbed under both Bushes. Pragmatically speaking, lessening the number should be the goal whether achieved by liberal means or not. But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten % drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. Also, you *could* recouncile the neo-cons and the Left Behinders if you push Judgement Day far off enough into the future. After all, you don't need eternity to build a star-going empire led by philospher-kings, just a large but finite amount of time. True, but that takes ALL the wind out of the sails of the apocalypts. Geez the Whore of Babylon Five just sounds too sciencefictional to be taken seriously. Likewise an antimatter anti Christ. Doesn't satisfy as much asThe evil one is already among us. Of course, it does seem a little pointless if God is going to come and make everything way better than mere humanity ever could. And also, I notice you reference the excerpt 'The Philospher of Islamic Terror', but not teh Book (Terror and Liberalism). Why's that? The book is well worth reading too. Got a web site ref? It sounds like a magnificent reach and a diatribe. OH! I am reading COLLAPSE by one of our civilization's real genius-treasures, Jared Diamond (GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL). It covers what factors brought about civ collapse in past societies and what factors allowed others to remain flexible enough to evade disaster. By his standards, this would be a positively insane administration in any measure. But his book has changed my mind. I NO LONGER think that the monsters' worst crime is dissipating our armed forces and deliberately destroying readiness by miring our best troops and using up the reserves. Worse has been the 20 years of lying and obfuscation about climate change. Ten years calling it a hoax. Ten years saying it exists but we need more data... and now yes, it's big and humans did it, but now it's too late to do anything about it. Read Diamond's book. It says NOTHING about todays' politics. It says EVERYTHING about the destruction of our resiliency by morons. ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
Dr. Brin, good article. But you say that the Fundamentalists are promised the Supreme Court, and then say that all three groups have gotten their reward, but demand more (their in-'satiability' as you put it.). Now, I don't recall any Supreme Court nominations in the past four years, so isn't it a tad inaccurate to say so? Also, you *could* recouncile the neo-cons and the Left Behinders if you push Judgement Day far off enough into the future. After all, you don't need eternity to build a star-going empire led by philospher-kings, just a large but finite amount of time. Of course, it does seem a little pointless if God is going to come and make everything way better than mere humanity ever could. And also, I notice you reference the excerpt 'The Philospher of Islamic Terror', but not teh Book (Terror and Liberalism). Why's that? The book is well worth reading too. ~Maru From: d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] My second Salvo has now been posted at: http://www.davidbrin.com/neoromantics.html It is less tied to this specific election and more about the current style of Neoconservatism that has taken over all three branches of the US government. I try to analyze the three components of this movement... an odd marriage of convenience between three groups whose long term visions of tomorrow could not be more different. Thoughts and comments are welcome. With cordial regards, David Brin www.davidbrin.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Second Salvo
--- Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dr. Brin, good article. But you say that the Fundamentalists are promised the Supreme Court, and then say that all three groups have gotten their reward, but demand more (their in-'satiability' as you put it.). Now, I don't recall any Supreme Court nominations in the past four years, so isn't it a tad inaccurate to say so? True enough. A better example of their obsession with form over substance would be abortion. Abortion RATES went down under Clinton and climbed under both Bushes. Pragmatically speaking, lessening the number should be the goal whether achieved by liberal means or not. But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a ten % drop in the rate would not stop you from being boiling mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. Also, you *could* recouncile the neo-cons and the Left Behinders if you push Judgement Day far off enough into the future. After all, you don't need eternity to build a star-going empire led by philospher-kings, just a large but finite amount of time. True, but that takes ALL the wind out of the sails of the apocalypts. Geez the Whore of Babylon Five just sounds too sciencefictional to be taken seriously. Likewise an antimatter anti Christ. Doesn't satisfy as much asThe evil one is already among us. Of course, it does seem a little pointless if God is going to come and make everything way better than mere humanity ever could. And also, I notice you reference the excerpt 'The Philospher of Islamic Terror', but not teh Book (Terror and Liberalism). Why's that? The book is well worth reading too. Got a web site ref? It sounds like a magnificent reach and a diatribe. OH! I am reading COLLAPSE by one of our civilization's real genius-treasures, Jared Diamond (GUNS, GERMS AND STEEL). It covers what factors brought about civ collapse in past societies and what factors allowed others to remain flexible enough to evade disaster. By his standards, this would be a positively insane administration in any measure. But his book has changed my mind. I NO LONGER think that the monsters' worst crime is dissipating our armed forces and deliberately destroying readiness by miring our best troops and using up the reserves. Worse has been the 20 years of lying and obfuscation about climate change. Ten years calling it a hoax. Ten years saying it exists but we need more data... and now yes, it's big and humans did it, but now it's too late to do anything about it. Read Diamond's book. It says NOTHING about todays' politics. It says EVERYTHING about the destruction of our resiliency by morons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
