Brin: More on the Saudi Connection
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html Some excerpts from this very long piece: A meeting of prominent Saudis occurs in a Paris hotel. Among the attendees is the head of Saudi intelligence, Turki bin Faisal, and Khalid bin Mahfouz. They meet with a representative of al Qaeda and agree to extend the earlier arrangement made between the Saudi royal family and Osama bin Laden whereby in return for cash, al Qaeda agrees not to attack inside Saudi Arabia. The CIA produces an internal report that documents the numerous Saudi charities that are funding terrorists. Osama bin Ladens name is mentioned. and A third view, explored by the fifth estate, suggests something different altogether: that the evidence pointing to a pending attack was not pursued vigorously (consciously or unconsciously) simply because much of it led back to Saudi Arabia. And that Saudi Arabia holds a special place in the U.S. political, business and intelligence milieu. It's a country that is not held to the same standards of accountability as are other nations. The reason, of course, is Americas enormous dependence on Saudi Arabia for oil. Remember: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. and in 1996, Valerie Donahue, a special agent with the FBI in Chicago, investigates a chemical company that appears to be an investment fraud scheme. The company is owned in part by the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), Saudi Arabias most powerful charity that is funded by members of the Saudi royal family. The IIRO is also one of the biggest distributors of monies to terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Donahue found that large sums of money, in excess of $1.2-million, had been transferred from the IIRO to the Chicago company. Donahues report mentions large amounts going to the IIRO from an account maintained in the United States by the embassy of a foreign government, which has provided IIRO with approximately $400,000. This foreign embassy is most likely the Saudi embassy, given the IIROs close ties to the Saudi government. Chances are, if the FBI had investigated IIRO at this time, and its possible ties to the Saudi embassy, it would have had understood its support of terrorism within America. At the time, the IIRO had its U.S. offices in Falls Church, Virginia, a town where support for the 9/11 hijackers was strong, and where two of the hijackers stayed in the months leading up to 9/11. and much much more. Especially damning for the Bush family is the Charles W. White interview here: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/white.pdf -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yay Alberto!
At 02:28 PM Monday 10/25/04, Alberto Monteiro wrote: The Alcantara Base should give Brazil a strong advantage over competitors. Only 2.3 degrees from the Equator, the base is considered the perfect launch site. It is the best place in the world to launch satellites: close to the equator, dry weater [it almost never rains there] and a huge ocean to the East. Except when they have reason to go Oops! -- Ronn! :) Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever. -- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
At 10:56 PM 10/25/2004 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: Brin has very loudly proclaimed that we're on opposite sides. Well, okay. I know whose side I'm on, though. If he said this, and your response was I'm on America's side, it's easy for me to hear that as implying that David is not on America's side. Is that what you meant? Nick: I can't help but notice that you are asking Gautam this question, and not Dr. Brin.For example, I don't see you asking Dr. Brin: -Are you saying that Gautam is on the side of monsters? -Are you saying that JDG is on the side of traitors? No poster has questioned more people's patriotism on this List than Dr. Brin, and no person has launched more overheated insults than Dr. Brin. And quite frankly, it is a bit appalling when your only response is to go after the *targets* of said comments. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
At 08:15 PM 10/25/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: The unbelievable sanctimony of claiming that one side favors motherhood and apple pie... and claiming that the other side is composed of evil, traitorous monsters? Just wondering... No, just lying. I have ample proof that this is a slander, if by other side you mean conservatives or conservative-leaving voters or Republicans or libertarians. Actually, Dr. Brin you are the one who brought sides into this discussion. Yet, you have the gall to accuse me of lying and slander. In any event, I reposted your comments about *Republicans* yesterday. Your record speaks for itself. If what is meant is the trinity of kleptocrats, apocalypts and neocon maniacs... well then, yes, I consider the first bunch criminal, the middle bunch fanatically retro and the last bunch out of their cotton pickin' minds. But none of them are traitors. Let us review this again, somewhere around 50% of American voters are going to vote for President Bush's electors in one week. What portion of that 50% do you think is covered by the above three groups - especially since the vast majority of them *still* support the Iraq War and at least 20+% of them consider themselves evangelical Christians? If you actually listen to my actual statements. the only ones I am accusing of treason are the team George W Bush has gathered around him. And the facts speak for themselves. The only way our readiness and reserves could be allowed to evaporate in dangerous times is treason. So, at best, you consider around 50% of the American Voting public to be supporters of (dareIsay collaborators of ) treason? The only way we would be doing the exact bidding of a hostile foreign power, weakiening this great nation, bankrupting it, dividing it, corrupting its elections and institutions and recuiting a million new Jihadists per month is... is treason. Again, the only inescapable conclusion from the above is that I, along with the vast preponderenace of Bush voters, is a supporter of treason. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Baseball
Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of Julia Thompson This is why I'm trying to get in as much whining between now and Wednesday night as possible. ;) Ahem. I think I can pretty much guarantee that this will not be a sweep. This series will go back to Boston. Don't get overconfident. Look what happened to...the Yankees! Just in case. If I can whine until sometime Sunday, I'll do so. But I'm only guaranteed whining rights until sometime Wednesday. :) I would like to see the Sox win it at Fenway, so the series going back to Boston would be fine with me. (Also, that gives me more time in front of the TV with a good excuse) I don't think I'll go to the extreme that some fans went to in 1986, getting their kids out of bed to watch what they thought would be a Red Sox victory. Oh, and the Wall Street Journal yesterday had an article about how a Red Sox victory could be bad for a certain segment of businesses, that sell merchandise having to do with the curse. If the Sox win, those business owners (many of them sole proprietors) will have a good excuse to whine. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the monsters
Gautam Mukunda wrote: You know, Dr. Brin, I challenged you on that ludicrous statement, and you didn't back it up. It's pretty obvious that you can't. There are other possible explanations... Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
Hi David, I think I see a minor inconsistency between two of your recent statements. Your clarification may be useful. *Especially* if you think I misunderstood your positions. On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:02:28 -0700 (PDT) you said: Do I really believe my theory about absolute and knowing treason under orders from Riyadh? In fact, I confess that there is a plausible alternative that fits the facts: towering imbecility combined with Saudi alacrity at taking advantage of a bunch of manaical ideologues. Indeed, were you to ask that I BET, I suppose I'd give slightly better odds to the alternative. (And I kind of agree with it, although giving much larger odds to the incompetence option. I also quibble or observe that insufficient competence, combined with arrogance, greed, and fear, can produce similar results to towering imbecility. I believe that successful, long-term secret conspiracies are very rare, at least because they require an unusually large degree of competence and loyal commitment among the conspirators.) But, later on the same day you said something not fully compatible with the statement above: On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:15:15 -0700 (PDT) you said: If you actually listen to my actual statements. the only ones I am accusing of treason are the team George W Bush has gathered around him. And the facts speak for themselves. The only way our readiness and reserves could be allowed to evaporate in dangerous times is treason. The only way we would have sent our best units to become snared in an attrition land war in Asia, following the exact prescription of Vietnam, is treason. The only way we would be doing the exact bidding of a hostile foreign power, weakiening this great nation, bankrupting it, dividing it, corrupting its elections and institutions and recuiting a million new Jihadists per month is... is treason. The use of the word only in these paragraphs perhaps hints that you are toying with abandoning the incompetent option you previously considered betting on -- perhaps with some reasons that are good to your eyes. Or, more probably, it means that you are somewhat overstating your already very good case: because we don't want incompetents to lead this nation any more than traitors. Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding something; please explain in that case. Go ahead even if that means that we disagree more than I think. I have *deeply* disagreed in politics with at least some of my friends all of my life, I have no personal need to change that now :-) Ruben ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: Bill Clinton on Iraq
Just days after Bush's now-controversial State of the Union Address in 2003, Clinton declared: After what happened on 9/11, the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution, which said clearly that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/32699.htm JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: John Hospers, Libertarian, Endorses Bush
Bush gets a defector of his own, the first Libertarian Presidential Candidate: http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=181 JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
JDG wrote: No poster has questioned more people's patriotism on this List than Dr. Brin, and no person has launched more overheated insults than Dr. Brin. And quite frankly, it is a bit appalling when your only response is to go after the *targets* of said comments. Only response appears to be based on the assumption that you are aware of *all* of my responses, but I don't see how that's possible. Perhaps you have forgotten that when I perceive an unequivocal personal attack, I send an observation of it to the party off-list, as is our list policy. Those matters stay off-list unless the recipient decides otherwise. I'm not sure what you mean by go after. With my last message to Guatam in this thread, my intention was to tell him how his words sounded to me, then ask if I heard him as he intended. I was seeking understanding, not to criticize. (Not that I can boast of any great skill at that.) Taking off my list manager hat... Are you saying that there are victims of David's criticism who have behaved better than he has, so if I ask for clarification from them, I should also ask him? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Bill Clinton on Iraq
Behalf Of iaamoac Just days after Bush's now-controversial State of the Union Address in 2003, Clinton declared: After what happened on 9/11, the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution, which said clearly that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. My only response after reading this article is so? So Clinton doesn't agree with Kerry on Iraq. OK. I don't recall the Democrats demanding all Kerry supports to be in lock step with him in order to support Kerry. Heck, I was grudgingly in favor of the war in Iraq before it happened. Not so much now. OK. Not at all. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
JDG wrote: Again, the only inescapable conclusion from the above is that I, along with the vast preponderenace of Bush voters, is a supporter of treason. Or, as that poll suggests, deluded - not wanting to believe in things that are becoming more and more obvious like the intimate relationship between the Saudis and Bush. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:17 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis Taking off my list manager hat... Are you saying that there are victims of David's criticism who have behaved better than he has, so if I ask for clarification from them, I should also ask him? His flair for the dramatic can be very insulting. I get by very easy because I'm a Kerry voter who thinks that his comments on Bush are akin to those of my dear departed aunt and uncle who were Birchers and convinced that JFK and IKE were both closet communists. He has pretty well stated that this is a bit rhetorical. Standing a bit to the side, it is hard to imagine statements that the ~50% of Americans who will vote for Bush are 1) Crooks 2) Throwbacks 3) Idiots or combinations thereof as anything but inflammatory. I feel that the overwhelming majority of Bush supporters are patriotic Americans who happen to be picking the greater of two evils this election. I think that they are mistaken. I don't see how calling those that differ with you idiots is helpful in maintain dialog. I know as a fact, I work extremely hard when I write to push my dialog with David into a more fact filled area. Even so, what I write is called idioticbut at least I am rewarded for my work with some acknowledgment at the end that it was a bit over the top. BTW, I took Erik's comments on this to heart, when I posed an earlier question. Having argued with alternate thinkers on sci.physics, I really don't mind this: I find it an enjoyable challenge in many ways. But, since my ox isn't getting gored, this is a hill instead of a mountain for me to climb. I find myself arguing someone I think is a bad president is simply a bad president, not a traitor...so my stakes are more analytical than heart felt. (I'm roughly assigning odds of 10^-6 that GWB is actually a traitor). Also, David is an award winning writer. He has the ability to be very insulting without technically insulting someone. If it were someone who was not so good with words, I'd think that poor writing might be the source of the problem. But, I know skill when I see it; and I don't think the overtones are accidental. A quick example of this is, after Gautam said he was a neocon, repeatedly insulting the neocons and then claim that he never insulted Gautam. Finally, Gautam is right in that I, at least, treat David differently than I do any other list member. After the incident around the time I responded to his flame like I would respond to any other flame, I decided that I needed to treat the name member of this list was to be differently than any other member. So, I bend over backwards to gently nudge instead of calling him out. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:14 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis - Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:17 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis Taking off my list manager hat... Are you saying that there are victims of David's criticism who have behaved better than he has, so if I ask for clarification from them, I should also ask him? His flair for the dramatic can be very insulting. I get by very easy because I'm a Kerry voter who thinks that his comments on Bush are akin to those of my dear departed aunt and uncle who were Birchers and convinced that JFK and IKE were both closet communists. He has pretty well stated that this is a bit rhetorical. Standing a bit to the side, it is hard to imagine statements that the ~50% of Americans who will vote for Bush are 1) Crooks 2) Throwbacks 3) Idiots I think I mistated 3. It should be Crazy. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Cassini
http://tinyurl.com/62zsk For the first time in the history of astronomy, scientists are about to glimpse the mysterious surface of Titan, Saturn's haze-shrouded moon. The spacecraft Cassini, flying in orbit around the planet since it first entered Saturn's icy ring system last July, will speed within 745 miles of Titan's unseen surface at precisely 9:44 a.m. Pacific time today, and scientists have readied the most sensitive instruments aboard Cassini for a series of hit-or-miss attempts to gain their first clear understanding of the tantalizing moon. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 2:11 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis But, in fact, isn't it just possible that with the right amount of political pressure, brought to bear by a coalition of concerned governments, that we could have forced greater political reforms on Riyadh than the window dressings that have been altered? The world is full of possibilities Doug, but this is a long shot. Political pressure comes from leverage. Who would we get involved in a coalition to push on Saudi, and what would be the leverage. It would certainly not be Europe. Europe bends over backwards to not antagonize the Arabs. What are they going to use as leverage, threatening an economic boycott of Saudi oil? If there was a second oil embargo right now, who would be hurt worse: the Saudi government who could wrap themselves in Arab solidarity...and gain at least a few months of breathing room, or the Western world who would find themselves very short of fuel? It would not be Japan, for close to the same reasons. The only country with any leverage at all is the US...and that leverage is the defense it supplies to the Saudi government. But, that leverage is minimal. I think there is little argument on this list that the Saudi government, before 9-11, played tribute to AQ as part of an agreement to leave them alone. This isn't so much support as submitting to blackmail. In short, I'm frustrated with an argument that political pressure might work without some detailed discussion of how such pressure can be obtained. Stern notes from all NATO members is really not much pressure. There has to be some significant negative consequences to back up the pressure. Otherwise it's not pressure. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Dan wrote: I find myself arguing someone I think is a bad president is simply a bad president, not a traitor...so my stakes are more analytical than heart felt. (I'm roughly assigning odds of 10^-6 that GWB is actually a traitor). So what, to you, are the repercussions if it is shown that Bush is protecting the Saudi government - members of the Saudi royal family that were directly funding the 9/11 terrorists? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Dan wrote: 1) Crooks 2) Throwbacks 3) Idiots I think I mistated 3. It should be Crazy. I think you should add 4. Deluded. I know people that still think Nixon was a good president. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:49 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis Dan wrote: 1) Crooks 2) Throwbacks 3) Idiots I think I mistated 3. It should be Crazy. I think you should add 4. Deluded. I know people that still think Nixon was a good president. As far as defining your viewpoint, no argument. But, I was trying to parse the clearest meaning of David's text. BTW, the scientist in me would like to see a similar questionnaire with Kerry supporters to see if there is a significant difference in knowledge. The questions would have to be different, reflecting the political prejudices of the left instead of the right, but I'm sure it could be done. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:47 AM Subject: Re: Br!n: On the Saudis Dan wrote: I find myself arguing someone I think is a bad president is simply a bad president, not a traitor...so my stakes are more analytical than heart felt. (I'm roughly assigning odds of 10^-6 that GWB is actually a traitor). So what, to you, are the repercussions if it is shown that Bush is protecting the Saudi government - members of the Saudi royal family that were directly funding the 9/11 terrorists? It depends on what he got in exchange for it. If it can be shown that the protection money paid by the Saudis did fund the terrorists, then I would expect him to demand as much as possible from the government in exchange for his cooperation. But, at the same time, I realize that there is a good chance that AQ, or fellow travelers, can now topple the Saudi government and become the new Saudi government. Thus, in his place, I'd be careful contributing to the downfall of the present government. David's theory requires two generations of traitors in the Bush family. It requires either 1) That these traitors to convince very bright people around them that they are actually working for the US or 2) That a number of other traitors have existed in the government for years. Then, one would have to argue what would two generations of an old money, old prestige family gain in exchange for dropping the Bush name from one of the premier names in the history of the US to one that will live in greatest infamy. Why would Bush Sr. risk his own presidency in order to have protect Bush Jr. from having embarrassing party photos shown. The chance that the Saudi's had these photos, while no one else did, is pretty long too. David mentions Occam's razor. There is no way that I can reconcile his claims with the use of this principal. Its like arguing that you found fractional charge before checking for mundane backgrounds. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Br!n: On the Saudis
Behalf Of Dan Minette I think you should add 4. Deluded. I know people that still think Nixon was a good president. As far as defining your viewpoint, no argument. But, I was trying to parse the clearest meaning of David's text. I've always got the impression that David thought that 50% who are going to be voting for Bush to be misled. They are intelligent people and he can't understand why they are voting for these guys. They should know better. There are always going to be party faithful who will defend and vote for their guy no matter what. Heck, I voted for Dukakis. (Ick.) He's trying to reach them and say hey, take off the blinders and really look at what's happening. At least in my reading of it. Maybe that's what you meant by deluded but that's too strong a word for me. Yes, David can be a bit over the top. But it does make for entertaining reading, even if I never want to get into an argument with him... grin - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Dan Minette wrote: His flair for the dramatic can be very insulting. I see it that way, too. I don't see how calling those that differ with you idiots is helpful in maintain dialog. Me, neither, which may reflect a certain idiocy on my part, but I doubt it... ;-) Also, David is an award winning writer. He has the ability to be very insulting without technically insulting someone. If it were someone who was not so good with words, I'd think that poor writing might be the source of the problem. But, I know skill when I see it; and I don't think the overtones are accidental. A quick example of this is, after Gautam said he was a neocon, repeatedly insulting the neocons and then claim that he never insulted Gautam. Wisdom that I do well to continue taking to heart. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:21:47 -0500, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His flair for the dramatic can be very insulting. I get by very easy because I'm a Kerry voter who thinks that his comments on Bush are akin to those of my dear departed aunt and uncle who were Birchers and convinced that JFK and IKE were both closet communists. He has pretty well stated that this is a bit rhetorical. Standing a bit to the side, it is hard to imagine statements that the ~50% of Americans who will vote for Bush are 1) Crooks 2) Throwbacks 3) Idiots I think I mistated 3. It should be Crazy. You also mistated the number of Americans who will vote for Bush. It will be nowhere near ~50% of Americans, it will be ~50% of voters. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
His flair for the dramatic can be very insulting. I see it that way, too. Hate to post a me too message but... What bothers me is his penchant to post rebuttals to arguments with words like pathetic rather than deconstructing the argument and presenting a counterargument. He could go back and claim he's attacking the ideas rather than the person, that's not particularly obvious. It did bother me a bit that he didn't bother to read a post he responded to, but instead latched onto the first sentence I wrote. That to me shows he either doesn't care or is being to irrational to engage in debate. FWIW. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Legends Aussie Centurion Mk.5/1 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 197, Issue 9
JDG wrote: It strikes me as a fair reading of Dr. Brin's comments to this List for some time now - that Republicans are enemies of the United States, and Republican policies are never the product of rational thought, but are instead the product of this enmity. Dr. Brin can correct the record if he feels that I have misinterpreted him on this point. This is not a fair reading of Dr. Brin's comments. There are republican leaders whose policies, statements, and decisions DB has agreed with. There are Republicans who he holds in high regard. Without doing any research, two that come to mind, for example, are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Colin Powell. It is not a fair reading of Brin's statements to attribute that hyperoble to DB. Trying to paint anyone, let alone Brin, into a straw-man corner is just dumb. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
On Oct 26, 2004, at 8:02 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: Again, the only inescapable conclusion from the above is that I, along with the vast preponderenace of Bush voters, is a supporter of treason. Or, as that poll suggests, deluded - not wanting to believe in things that are becoming more and more obvious like the intimate relationship between the Saudis and Bush. Well, hooray! Becoming dis-illusioned is a good thing. As the illusions that people had about BushCo vaporize, their eyes are opened to other possibilities. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
- Original Message - From: Martin Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 3:22 AM Subject: Re: From the Guardian On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:52:45 -0500, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll stop here and see if you agree with this view of libertarianism, before going on. Yes, I'd say that was classic libertarianism. This is of course very different to the sense in which the Culture list is strongly libertarian. OK, how can one be libertarian and believe in strong government intervention in the lives of individuals? The 2-D cross-plot that was attached to that list is based on a survey that studiously ignores many reasonable questions about government interference in individual lives. In other words, having the government interfere in individual lives when one thinks its a good idea and not interfering when one doesn't think so is not libertarian. So what your saying is you have a problem with the methodology of Political Compass* therefore the Culture list suffers from cognitive dissonance. Unsurprisingly I don't find this very compelling. Either you accept the Political Compass contention that an axis of civil libertarianism exists seperate from economic libertarianism and the list is libertarian or you don't accept it in which case the list is not libertarian. I think the fromer, you think the latter but in both cases your strawman charge of cognitive dissonance dissappears. Well, I obtained my understanding of the 2-D compass from the site: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Let me quote: quote Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (i.e. the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities existed in Spain during the civil war period end quote OK, this differentiation makes sense to me. Economic left-right is whether you believe in individual based or collective based economy, and libertarian/authoritarian is whether you believe that people's actions should be voluntary or controlled by the government. I even have had considerable experience with a voluntary collective. My college was run by the largest individual community in a voluntary collective that has been in existence for 1500 years. I've talked with the monks about their community, and I have a decent feel for the type of discipline that is required for a voluntary collective. Then I go and look at the plot of various Culturenicks on the 2D compass, and compare it with their stated positions on a number of things, and do not see their position on the plot reflecting a differentiation between Stalin's and Gandhi's economic position. Not that they are with Stalin, but they certainly favor many aspects of an involuntary collective. The main form of libertarianism that I see in Culture is a distrust of government actions in the world, a favoring of looser laws concerning drugs, sex, abortion, drinking, and speeding. Considerable governmental control on the economic activities of others are favored. A libertarian/authoritarian score in the middle sounds about right, instead it is near the bottom. There is the dissonance. Voluntary collectives can and do exist. Historically, they require a profound shared belief (monasteries, kibbutz', the Pilgrims), which is the source for the tremendous discipline that is required. If people believe that such collectives can eventually spring up naturally, then I consider them dreamers. People who claim to be libertarians who favor strong government control of the economy (civil axis) have, IMHO, a cognitive dissonance. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cassini
On Oct 26, 2004, at 8:20 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: http://tinyurl.com/62zsk For the first time in the history of astronomy, scientists are about to glimpse the mysterious surface of Titan, Saturn's haze-shrouded moon. The spacecraft Cassini, flying in orbit around the planet since it first entered Saturn's icy ring system last July, will speed within 745 miles of Titan's unseen surface at precisely 9:44 a.m. Pacific time today, and scientists have readied the most sensitive instruments aboard Cassini for a series of hit-or-miss attempts to gain their first clear understanding of the tantalizing moon. But wait, there's more! In about 7-1/2 hours, watch the live webcast on NASA-TV: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/webcast/cassini/ Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
On Oct 26, 2004, at 9:08 AM, Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of Dan Minette I think you should add 4. Deluded. I know people that still think Nixon was a good president. As far as defining your viewpoint, no argument. But, I was trying to parse the clearest meaning of David's text. I've always got the impression that David thought that 50% who are going to be voting for Bush to be misled. They are intelligent people and he can't understand why they are voting for these guys. They should know better. There are always going to be party faithful who will defend and vote for their guy no matter what. Heck, I voted for Dukakis. (Ick.) He's trying to reach them and say hey, take off the blinders and really look at what's happening. At least in my reading of it. Misled is a nice word for it, because it resonates between two meanings: to be intentionally deceived and to be led in the wrong direction. At the risk of putting words in David's mouth, I would be willing to bet that he thinks that both meanings apply to the ~50% who will most likely vote to re-elect the president. I certainly do: It is increasingly clear that Bush company justified the invasion of Iraq with misinformation, possibly intentional. The failure of the follow-up to that invasion is evidence enough that the second meaning applies. Ifni forgive me, but I really have a hard time believing that Mr. Bush is as stupid as the common criticism of him suggests. I do think he's a dupe, in both sense of an easily-deceived person and a person who functions as a tool of another person or power. I don't know who the other person or power is, although I think Michael Moore and David Brin are convinced that we need look no further than Riyadh. Maybe gullible is a good word for Dan's #3. Or credulous. Warily, Dave Not Lazy, Crazy, or Stupid Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
For the record, all attempts by JDG and Gautam to act the victim are simply counterfactual foolishness. They have misrepresented me repeatedly and have flat out attempted to portray me as calling all people who disagree with me traitors. Since http://www.davidbrin.com/ is replete with a myriad examples of joyful argument. I have spent many pages and hours criticizing hypocrisies of the left and I have spoken highly of a great many honorable conservatives and republicans in the past. This means that their attempts to say that I call all opponents traitors amount to a direct attack upon my character. They are trying to discredit my statements about this administration by claiming that I call ALL republicans monsters. A direct and knowing lie. In fact, every movement gets hijacked now and then, by the kind of manipulative criminals and exploiters who took over the left on many occasions in history. It happened to the Right during Watergate... but never so much as right now. If I responded to their intentional slander in too dramatic a manner, I can only apoligize for matters of style, as opposed to the absolutely rotten tactic of saying deliberate falsehoods to misrepresent the opinions of others. I shall now try once again to ignore both of them. I know they will press buttons. But I shall try. Please, when you read something directed at me, simply hear in the background a snort of dismissal. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:54:50 -0500, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is the dissonance. Voluntary collectives can and do exist. Historically, they require a profound shared belief (monasteries, kibbutz', the Pilgrims), which is the source for the tremendous discipline that is required. If people believe that such collectives can eventually spring up naturally, then I consider them dreamers. People who claim to be libertarians who favor strong government control of the economy (civil axis) have, IMHO, a cognitive dissonance. So as I said you have a problem with the methodolgy of the Political Compass. No one has claimed to be a libertarian, the Political Compass has assigned them this value based on their responses to questions. You contend that it has placed them too far down the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis but this cannot reflect any cognitive dissonance. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
--- Ruben Krasnopolsky is a perfect example of the sort of nit-picking conservative who I pray will step up and rescue the movement. Until a few weeks ago he was holding his nose and leaning toward Bush. Now he's shown the kind of flexibility that I expect from people who can overcome a political reflex in the face of overwhelming evidence. He points out an inconsistency and I bow, admitting it. Of COURSE treason is not the only explanation for these bozos demolishing our military readiness, finacial stability and standing in the world.That was one of my drama queen moments. Exaggeration... but not in an untrue direction. If, instead, they are doing all this - and more - out of a combination of monomania, ideological frenzy, insatiable greed and incompetence, well, then I stand corrected. I do worry about the inevitable number of indictments to come after freedom marches forward and brings about a regime change. I fear it will look like a witch hunt. The San Diego Union is one of the most conservative papers in the country. It is endorsing Bush (tepidly). And yet, every single day it carries reports of more election dirty tricks being pulled by the present GOP. And not yet a single one from the Democrats. Today it's California's biggest broadcaster, Pappas Telecasting, donating half a million $ in free air time to Republican campaigns. They claim the FCC (run by Colin Powell's political hack son) ruled that equal time isn't necessary because it didn't go to the candidates, but instead to the candidates' county committees. Never in my life have I seen anything like this. It isn't politics. It is something else. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Cats in Zero G
Taking a break from the heated political conversations on the list Ever wondered what a cat looks like in zero g? Take a look: http://216.40.242.213/mirror/cat.mov Might *slightly* offend sever cat/animal lovers. I have 3 cats and I thought it was hilarious. In a sick sort of way... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: See Frontline tonight
Like many moderates, I was occasionally irked by the editors of the PBS investigative show FRONTLINE over the years, for a discernible leftward lean. That perception has changed in part because new editors have helped restore balance. But more so since the Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh crowd began making the old Frontline look like Edward R. Murrow. In any event, you could never fault Frontline for lack of thorough detail. Tonights show (9pm PBS) looks likely to be informative about US military readiness - one of my particular interests, now that our best forces are mired and our reserves drained during dangerous times, laying us far more bare than we were before 9/11. Feel free to edit out biased spins. But facts are facts. (400 TONS of military explosives left unguarded and now gone missing? What other October surprises do we have in store?) === Pass it on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
- Original Message - From: David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 1:28 PM Subject: Re: Brin: On the Republicans If I responded to their intentional slander in too dramatic a manner, I can only apoligize for matters of style, as opposed to the absolutely rotten tactic of saying deliberate falsehoods to misrepresent the opinions of others. I must say David, this is not the first time that you have accused them of a crime. While I don't read your posts exactly as they do; I can see how someone might read them that way. Especially if that reasonable person is a self-proclaimed neo-con, and then you make statements that I can only interpret as neo-cons are crazy/poor thinkers etc. That type of rhetoric decreases most people's ability to see that, technically, they have not been personally insulted. I find it ironic that you do this as a public figure, while you accuse the president of the United States with treasonon grounds that I find no more persuasive than the arguments that JFK and IKE were secret commies that I heard from my dear departed aunt and uncle (both Birchers). I'll get back to responding to your post on Bush Sr. taking orders in a bit. I find Gautam, for example, to be one of the easiest people I know to hold a civil disagreement with. He and I have debated over a number of issues, with great joy and comradely. In a sense, my opinion is biased because I consider him a friendbut then again I consider him a friend because we are able to disagree with great mutual respect. I don't think that would be possible if he were as nasty as you imply. I think JDG and I have been a bit more at odds with each other, but I really don't think of him of guilty of much more than bad analysis or maybe stubbornness. :-) As far as his character goes, he's someone who's word I'd trust more than most people I know. Considering the fact that he works for the government out of a sense of duty and holds views that are against his own self-interest, I view him no worse than being a great human being who happens to be mistaken on a few points. He also appears to me to honestly try to parse your meaning. If he is inaccurate, then it might be an indication that the drama has overcome the plot in a few posts. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Cats in Zero G
On Oct 26, 2004, at 12:42 PM, Horn, John wrote: Taking a break from the heated political conversations on the list Ever wondered what a cat looks like in zero g? Take a look: http://216.40.242.213/mirror/cat.mov Might *slightly* offend sever cat/animal lovers. I have 3 cats and I thought it was hilarious. In a sick sort of way... The only thing that bothered me (with two cats in the yard) was the long time they left the poor beast spinning in mid-air. Having just experienced significant vertigo on a spinning turntable thing in a visit to the Lawrence Hall of Science in Berkeley with my 7-year-old son last weekend, I really felt for the creature. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
I accept Dan's mild-mannered and reasoned rebuke. I still resent being told that my (admittedly dramatic) stance toward the core members of the administration was meant by me to apply to anyone who disagrees with me. And THAT most definitely was the phrase used. There is no way on this (still somewhat) green planet that I was unjustified in calling that a damned, knowing lie. And while I have backed off on occasional outbursts, I have yet to hear a scintilla of retraction about that wretched statement. Still. I cannot deny that my own tension over this election has spilled over into hastily typed words on-list. I regret that. As for my position as a public figure, I am willing to undergo sacrifices, if it might draw attention to the intolerable and the obscene hijacking of the right... and our nation. My article at: http://www.davidbrin.com/libertarianarticle1.html shows how deeply committed I am to competition among pragmatic political solutions. My childrens' future is harmed when conservatism, instead of offering right-handed solutions becomes a vehicle for raiding the treasury and wrecking the credibility and safety of Pax Americana. I know I've lost fans and readers by stepping forth so forcefully. But I gotta call it as I see it. I've been active in every election in my adult life, but you'll not find any time that I've used language like this. Oh, here's another datum. Stop looking at the bulge in his back and instead look at his face. We have all seen footage, taken just moments before Dubya's speech to the nation about going to war, with him smirking and mugging and pumping his fist like a boy crowing over touchdowns. It just staggers me that someone responsible for starting a war, seeing the destruction start, wouldn't feel some humility or AT LEAST MORAL SERIOUSNESS about launching a war that will certainly send thousands, including innocent civilians, to their deaths. Reagan and Bush Sr. at least offered sobriety and decorum when they went to war. Eisenhower made this kind of adult behavior an article of faith, modeling it after his hero (and mine) George Marshall. (Three republicans and a democrat.) BTW, this is consistent with Bush's comment when, as governor of Texas, he was asked about the execution in Texas of a woman, Faye Tucker. He MOCKED her in a high, whiny voice, whimpering, please, don't kill me. See the expression on his face at http://www.cuadp.org/bush.html This is a man who can kill people without even a modicum of moral seriousness. Regardless of what kind of religious faith this man may officially profess, you have to wonder... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ready for Faster Check Cashing?
I have been following the Check 21 initiative for about 6 months now and I think this is the beginning of the end for paper checks. I have mixed feelings on this. Even though there will always be people that will want to write a paper check, I suspect that banks will make check writing so unattractive with fees that most will want to switch to a debit card or electronic banking. Now if the US government would only stop companies from charging a fee to pay online, something like this might work... Ready for Faster Check Cashing? Check 21... Oct. 26, 2004 -- Consumers who rely on the float period (the lag time between when a check is deposited and when the funds clear) to get by every month are soon going to find themselves out of luck. Starting Thursday, a federal law called Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act or Check 21, will allow banks to process checks without any lag time. Complete article... http://tinyurl.com/67q5u _ If you can't take the heat, don't tickle the dragon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Technical problem, or something far worse?
I have come to notice that several of the messages I contributed to this list over the past few days still haven't arrived. Is there a technical problem I should look into, or are the local powers-that-be involved in the evil act of censoring? If it's the former, it's a challenge. If it's the latter, I'm shocked, especially since this list's very namesake has always been preaching the free flow of ideas, freedom of speech, transparency and accountability. Censorship seems to go directly against those wonderful principles. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 10:35:38PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: transparency and accountability. So, what's your name and and home address? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hypo-allergenic cats now available to order
Perhaps we will have another cat one day... http://www.allerca.com/html/pricingreserve.html Did I mention here the re-discovery of our disappeared cat? He vanished about two years ago in a winter storm, after having been an indoor cat all of his adult life. And he was declawed, something I'll never, ever have done to a cat again, now having seen the behavior that I eventually realized was the natural result of that foolish move. I found him (at least I think it's him -- the cat sure looks like him, and it has no claws) about a block away. It appears that his main benefactor may be a friend of mine from Apple, who I was pleased to discover living around the corner after we moved here. Chuq feeds strays and ferals in his back yard. We're not tempted to lure him home again -- between his allergen production and getting pissed off, literally, on a weekly basis (which meant that our furniture was getting pissed on), he ceased being any fun to have around. Besides, despite the missing forward grappling hooks, he seems to be thriving as an outdoor resident. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Technical problem, or something far worse?
No message of mine has been lost, but I'm getting a delay of around six hours or so between sending email to the list and seeing it. Maybe you can see that delay in the message headers. I don't know if this delay is a technical problem or it is the expected functioning of the list, maybe part of a trick to prevent spam. It may be that messages are archived following the date when they were *sent*, not the reception date. Have you checked that? Ruben ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:01:29 -0700 (PDT) David Brin wrote: --- Ruben Krasnopolsky is a perfect example of the sort of nit-picking conservative who I pray will step up and rescue the movement. Until a few weeks ago he was holding his nose and leaning toward Bush. I am a nit-picking one indeed, and so I will present the obvious nitpicks on this... I think David is not right if he counts *me*, personally, as a conservative who could rescue any American movement. By ideology, I am not so much a conservative as a centrist. By citizenship, I am not an American, or even a permanent resident of these USA. I guess that David meant not so much me personally, but was thinking about the many people who have political ideas similar to mine, such as the many American independents who did vote for Bush in 2000, or the many conservatives who do not feel the need to tow the party line on every single issue - hopefully, most of them, even most of those who will end up voting for Bush again in 2004. I think he was thinking about people like for instance, Andrew Sullivan: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=qFFINfAm4eR7PMnY1tkQ2m%3D%3D http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ I was the closest example of similar ideas at hand on this mailing list :-) Next closest I *think* is Gautam; even if he still keeps to his pro-Bush stance, I can see he realizes it's not a position free of problems. So, I've said who I am not. Maybe you want to know who I am. David already knows it, but I wanted the list to know it too. Here I try to say who I am: http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~ruben I am an Argentine citizen, did grad school on Astrophysics at Caltech, then a postdoc at UChicago, now I am doing another one at UIUC. Luggage is made for the next job, wherever on this planet that it might be. F1, H1B, and thanks to the INS/USCIS for these many special opportunities: http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/h1b.htm Filling up the 1040 forms was a special thrill too :-) The nomadic existence is good for the soul in many ways, but it's surely not convenient to get seriously into politics. By many Argentine standards I am quite conservative indeed. But for the spectrum of American politics, I am clearly a centrist rather than a doctrinaire conservative. I tend to the right on some issues, to the left on others. I am concerned about the war on terrorism, a global war that potentially hits everywhere, the USA no much more so than many other places. Bush declared being serious and constant about fighting that war; and I welcomed that, just as most Americans did. However, recently I have realized that perhaps the current President might be serious enough, but he's not doing it right by any means. I believe that a change of leadership is needed, and now. I must say that, with all respect due to the President and the Republicans. They are also America too, and as a visitor I respect that. Ruben ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have come to notice that several of the messages I contributed to this list over the past few days still haven't arrived. Is there a technical problem I should look into, or are the local powers-that-be involved in the evil act of censoring? No technical problems. If it's the former, it's a challenge. If it's the latter, I'm shocked, especially since this list's very namesake has always been preaching the free flow of ideas, freedom of speech, transparency and accountability. Censorship seems to go directly against those wonderful principles. Yes, indeed. Sad, isn't it? Are you in fact shocked? If you know this list as well as you seem to be saying, then I think you almost certainly know the circumstances under which messages are moderated, indeed, the circumstances under which people can be banned from the list when moderation failed. Thus, I suspect that since you familiar with the list, taking up arguments with Gautam and JDG almost immediately, and are posting from the Netherlands under an ambiguous return address, you are unlikely to be the least bit surprised to see your postings being moderated. Anyone think I need to explain further? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Technical problem, or something far worse?
Following up on myself -- these last two messages really came through fast! So it is not always six hours... That's good news. Ruben ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Shocked shocked
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 5:34 PM Subject: Re: Technical problem, or something far worse? No technical problems. If it's the former, it's a challenge. If it's the latter, I'm shocked, especially since this list's very namesake has always been preaching the free flow of ideas, freedom of speech, transparency and accountability. Censorship seems to go directly against those wonderful principles. Yes, indeed. Sad, isn't it? Are you in fact shocked? If you know this list as well as you seem to be saying, then I think you almost certainly know the circumstances under which messages are moderated, indeed, the circumstances under which people can be banned from the list when moderation failed. Anyone think I need to explain further? Not me. But, I'm also shocked, shocked to find you have set up gambling on brin-l. BTW, I'll send you an account off-list where you can send my winnings. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 198, Issue 2
JDG quoted: Just days after Bush's now-controversial State of the Union Address in 2003, Clinton declared: After what happened on 9/11, the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution, which said clearly that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/32699.htm What a bullshit article. It completely ignores the main critism of the Iraq war, and instead tries to create their favorite anti-war strawman to burn. I've heard this time and again from conservative minded people. Once anyone criticizes our actions in Iraq, they immediately jump to the argument We had to do something! How *dare* you suggest that we should have just left Saddam alone. That is a bad argument if I ever heard one. This article tries to paint Democrats with that very straw man: But that was before the antiwar crowd took effective control of the Democratic Party. Suddenly, Kerry was busy parsing words, explaining that he'd only supported the authorization to use force -- not its actual use. If this guy would listen even to Kerry's sound bites, he would know that Kerry supported (and still does) the use of force, just not in the dumb, dumb way it's been used to date. I hope you weren't going to try to use this artcle to attempt the same, John, because it really has nothing to do with the arguments presented here on this list. The main question Iraq critics have is: given what we thought we knew, what was the right way to go about excercising force? The answer that comes to mind, at least to me, requires the Iraq action to involve building a very large international coalition, where the US is a signigicant but far from majority contributor, and clearly communicating our goals both in the US and World courts of public opinion in such a way that the general consensis in both arenas is that immediate action is necessary. The Bush Administration, though it might have made a half-hearted attempt at such a solution, failed miserably in the court of world opinion, and only marginally succeeded in the US. All they had to do to fully succeed with that task in the US was to wait until the UN inspectors *finished* their thorough investigation and reported that there was no proof of the weapons being destroyed. That would have also won over much of the world to the idea of the need for action. Instead, Bush cut the inspectors time short, and never really got the justification in the minds of a large portion of the US populace as well as a majority of the world populace. You might ask what should we care what the world thinks about us? The reason we should care about world opinion is demonstrated every day in terrorist and insurgent attacks. There is a reason why those giving our troops the most trouble in Iraq come from outside countries. Before you trot out the Coalition of the Willing as proof that Bush assembled a large, broad international force, consider what he had to do to get them on board in the first place, and also whether the coalition countries populace was also gung-ho for the operation. Not even in GB, our closest ally, is the war in Iraq popular among the citizens. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ready for Faster Check Cashing?
Gary Nunn wrote: I have been following the Check 21 initiative for about 6 months now and I think this is the beginning of the end for paper checks. I have mixed feelings on this. Even though there will always be people that will want to write a paper check, I suspect that banks will make check writing so unattractive with fees that most will want to switch to a debit card or electronic banking. Now if the US government would only stop companies from charging a fee to pay online, something like this might work... There are situations for which I see no easy replacement for a paper check. I could be wrong. I deposited 2 checks this afternoon. One was from a woman to whom I'd sold a couple of baby swings. The other was from the Mothers of Multiples club I belong to, for my share of the stuff I'd sold in the club's semi-annual sale earlier this month. We've managed to go to online bill paying for most of our bills (I think there are 1 or 2 that we're still writing checks for), direct deposit for payroll checks, using credit cards and debit cards instead of checks at stores, but I don't see how to get around the occasional check such as the ones mentioned above without some major change in the system. To be fair, that change could come sometime in the next 10 years -- but I have no idea what it would be like. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Hypo-allergenic cats now available to order
Nick Arnett wrote: Perhaps we will have another cat one day... http://www.allerca.com/html/pricingreserve.html Wow. That's the only way I'm ever going to have a cat. Wow. Julia not sending in a deposit, but keenly interested to see how this works out ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Technical problem, or something far worse?
Ruben Krasnopolsky wrote: Following up on myself -- these last two messages really came through fast! So it is not always six hours... That's good news. New subscriber posts are moderated initially anyway. Depending on when you post and when moderators are available to vet posts, it could be a very fast turnaround -- or it could be several hours. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
A Question about Tolerance
Hidey-ho. New (digest) list member here. Chad Underkoffler -- pleezedtameetcha. I have a question, and perhaps you folks can help me tease an answer out. In http://www.davidbrin.com/libertarianarticle2.html , Dr. Brin says this: That theme is suspicion of authority -- often accompanied by its sidekick/partner: tolerance. Now (and note, it's been awhile since I've read Otherness), while the suspicion of authority meme is held up for critical perusal -- and with what I felt was a slightly negative perspective -- the tolerance meme is raised and dropped. The first thing I'd like to discuss is Is SoA a positive, negative, or neutral meme? and Can SoA be abused, or is it currently being abused, in our society? The second thing I'd like to discuss is Is tolerance a positive, negative, or neutral meme? and Can tolerance be abused, or is it currently being abused, in our society? Personally and at this point in time, my answers to the first question set are SoA is a positive meme; it is a cultural counteraction to our biological need to follow the alpha primate and Yes, it can be abused, and is being abused, in numerous ways, mostly involving either artificial and impotent SoA groups being created to either vent excess pressure pointlessly or as a direct attempt to depose the alpha primate in favor of another. Personally and at this point in time, my answers to the second question set are Tolerance is a neutral meme; it is a cultural concept for information-gathering and consensus building; mild to severe issues are overlooked in order to properly communicate. I have no answer now for the second part of the question. While I can imagine ways in which actual tolerance -- as opposed to faux-tolerance -- can be abused quite readily, I'm unsure that it is currently being abused. Anywho, just a few thoughts today. Anyone have an opinion? CU = Chad Underkoffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Atomic Sock Monkey Press [ http://www.atomicsockmonkey.com ] ** ** Live Journal [ http://www.livejournal.com/users/chadu/ ] ** Pardon me while I have a strange interlude. -- Groucho Marx ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 197, Issue 9
At 10:22 AM 10/26/2004 -0700 Matt Grimaldi wrote: It strikes me as a fair reading of Dr. Brin's comments to this List for some time now - that Republicans are enemies of the United States, and Republican policies are never the product of rational thought, but are instead the product of this enmity. Dr. Brin can correct the record if he feels that I have misinterpreted him on this point. This is not a fair reading of Dr. Brin's comments. There are republican leaders whose policies, statements, and decisions DB has agreed with. There are Republicans who he holds in high regard. Without doing any research, two that come to mind, for example, are Arnold Schwarzenegger and Colin Powell. It is not a fair reading of Brin's statements to attribute that hyperoble to DB. Trying to paint anyone, let alone Brin, into a straw-man corner is just dumb. Not true on Colin Powell., Colin Powell supported the Iraq war, and Dr. Brin has stated that it is only possible to have supported Bush's policy in Iraq if you are a traitor in the pocket of the Saudis. Come to think of it, Arnold Shwarzenegger supported the Iraq war too. JDG - I'm a traitor, your're a traitor, we're a traitor all, and when we get together, we do the traitor call!, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the monsters
At 06:45 AM 10/26/2004 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: You know, Dr. Brin, I challenged you on that ludicrous statement, and you didn't back it up. It's pretty obvious that you can't. There are other possible explanations... What's up Nick - are you *really* going to try and defend the outlandish comment from Dr. Brin here that you snipped? --- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To call it rational argument when you deliberately tell falsehoods about other peoples' views. Then use a DOZEN sophistries in just forty words JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
At 08:47 AM 10/26/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: So what, to you, are the repercussions if it is shown that Bush is protecting the Saudi government - members of the Saudi royal family that were directly funding the 9/11 terrorists? Protecting the Saudi government from what? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Bill Clinton on Iraq
At 10:01 AM 10/26/2004 -0500 Horn, John wrote: Behalf Of iaamoac Just days after Bush's now-controversial State of the Union Address in 2003, Clinton declared: After what happened on 9/11, the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution, which said clearly that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions. My only response after reading this article is so? So Clinton doesn't agree with Kerry on Iraq. OK. I don't recall the Democrats demanding all Kerry supports to be in lock step with him in order to support Kerry. Heck, I was grudgingly in favor of the war in Iraq before it happened. Not so much now. OK. Not at all. I think the key point is that Dr. Brin holds up Bill Clinton as the paragon of a good Presidency, and strikes down Bush - particularly the handling of the Iraq War - as a paragon of a bad Presidency. It is interesting to note Bill Clinton's approval of how Bush handled the Iraq situation - especially since Bill Clinton's statements on Iraq are irreconciliable with Brin's statements on Iraq. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the monsters
--- JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's up Nick - are you *really* going to try and defend the outlandish comment from Dr. Brin here that you snipped? --- David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To call it rational argument when you deliberately tell falsehoods about other peoples' views. Then use a DOZEN sophistries in just forty words John's an expert at drawing me back in. 1- It was a deliberate and stinking falsehood to claim in any way that I called anyone who disagrees with me a traitor. It's a lie. A transparently false and deliberate lie. 2- Among the absolutely absurd sophistries in the para in quetion were: The we should wage war on Egypt or Germany because they were also linked to the 9/11 attacks. Just one part of a paragraph that absolutely FIZZED with absurdities. a) I never said we should wage war on the Saudis, only that they are warring on us and we should wake up. b) Don't you deal with the bigger culprits first and in some proportion to their involvement? 15 Saudis among the hijackers plus most of the planners and all of the money, sounds like a pretty high proportion of a tiny population, compared to one egyptian out of a huge Egypt population. c) We only know of the cell in Germany because of vigorous cooperation by the Germans, the OPPOSITE of stonewalling by the Saudis d) that's a response to the litany of evidence of Saudi Jihad? That's a RESPONSE? Al Jazeera rants Jihad by night and the Wahhabi-purchased mosques rant it by day. We have no energy policy and conservation is gutted while oil prices skyrocket pouring billions straight from our SUVs into the pockets of those wanting death for our sons, and THAT paragraph sums up the wisdom offered in response? I don't even have the para in front of me, and it still resonates as so profoundly silly and illogical that it boggles the mind. Almost as much as the idea that I should have to explain my objections to such a rebuttal. Or that John and Gautam would dare to throw it in my face again and again. This is absolutely IT. 1) to say that I call anybody who disagrees with me a traitor was a damned deliberate lie. Either prove it or @[EMAIL PROTECTED] apologize! 2) even if others disagree with my intensity of response to Gautam's para about Egypt and Germany, it is easy for anybody to see that it was an argument rife with flaws and not one to hold up as a paragon of argumentation. Dang, we should ignore a systematic and broad-fronted Jihad BECAUSE AN EGYPTIAN ALSO HELPED? All right, you convinced me. Now leave me alone. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A Question about Tolerance
At 05:03 PM 26/10/04 -0700, you wrote: Hidey-ho. New (digest) list member here. Chad Underkoffler -- pleezedtameetcha. I have a question, snip The second thing I'd like to discuss is Is tolerance a positive, negative, or neutral meme? and Can tolerance be abused, or is it currently being abused, in our society? As I just posted to the memetics list, I think tolerance and other rational type memes are features of unstressed societies, ones with rising income per capita and a rosy future. Stressed human societies, where the future looks bleak, lose tolerance memes in preparation for the warriors of the society killing some alien tribe or internal identifiable group. Dire business. If model is correct, then it provides a science based reason to put shoes on the women (i.e., empower them and be sure they have the technology to limit the number of children they have). Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:56:47 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: directly funding the 9/11 terrorists? Protecting the Saudi government from what? The fact that members of the Saudi royal family and Saudi agents ergo the Saudi government were directly involved in the planning and funding of the 9/11 attacks. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Dan wrote: As far as defining your viewpoint, no argument. But, I was trying to parse the clearest meaning of David's text. BTW, the scientist in me would like to see a similar questionnaire with Kerry supporters to see if there is a significant difference in knowledge. The questions would have to be different, reflecting the political prejudices of the left instead of the right, but I'm sure it could be done. I have no doubt that any portion of the political spectrum can get sucked in. I sure as hell didn't want to believe the Lewinski stuff and deluded myself for a long time. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Dan wrote: The world is full of possibilities Doug, but this is a long shot. Political pressure comes from leverage. Who would we get involved in a coalition to push on Saudi, and what would be the leverage. A trillion dollars worth of investments in the U.S. alone, maybe? It would certainly not be Europe. Europe bends over backwards to not antagonize the Arabs. What are they going to use as leverage, threatening an economic boycott of Saudi oil? If there was a second oil embargo right now, who would be hurt worse: the Saudi government who could wrap themselves in Arab solidarity...and gain at least a few months of breathing room, or the Western world who would find themselves very short of fuel? It would not be Japan, for close to the same reasons. The only country with any leverage at all is the US...and that leverage is the defense it supplies to the Saudi government. But, that leverage is minimal. I think there is little argument on this list that the Saudi government, before 9-11, played tribute to AQ as part of an agreement to leave them alone. This isn't so much support as submitting to blackmail. In short, I'm frustrated with an argument that political pressure might work without some detailed discussion of how such pressure can be obtained. Stern notes from all NATO members is really not much pressure. There has to be some significant negative consequences to back up the pressure. Otherwise it's not pressure. So are you telling me that no matter what Saudi Arabia does, they can get away with it? Is there a threshold that will provoke either political or military action? To me, the 9/11 attacks are a pretty high threshold - to high to ignore _any_ of the participants. If Saudis in the U.S. had been detained and interrogated, if Saudis had been pinpointed as the perpetrators of the attacks, then, with the world behind us in the months after 9/11 then they could have been dealt with by the world as long as it wasn't seen by the rest of the world as a grab for Saudi oil by the U.S. (the way the Iraqi invasion is seen). I don't see any country's role as so special that they can get away with an atrocity and I bet you don't either. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
