non-SAVIG
We should have some pronouncible abreviations for discussions of security oriented foreign policy. IG (Islamic group) VIG (violent Islamic group) SAIG (sayg or sa-ig, state affiliated Islamic group, usually a political party) SAVIG (sah-vig: state-affiliated violent Islamic group. This would include semi-official paramilitary groups or Pakistan sponsored Kashmiri separatists. It would also include groups seeking to overthrow a state government, like Algeria's Armed Islamic Group, a group like Hezbolla trying to force invaders to leave the territory of a state, and possibly a group like Hamas fighting a war of national liberation.) non-SAIG (non-state affiliated Islamic group. eg. Tablighi missionaries.) non-SAVIG (non-state affiliated violent Islamic group. eg Al-Qada) Example: Benjamin and Simon are critcal of the international security and international relations community of not taking macro-terrorism threats from non-SAVIGs more seriously. They are highly critical of the W. Bush administration for not listening to their peers in the Clinton administration durring the transition when the Clintonistas warned about how they had come to fear operations by non-SAVIGs. Since 9/11 not only the transparently carreerist Benjamin and Simon criticized the Bush administration for trying to turn the threat from Al-Qaeda and other non-SAVIGs into an old-fashioned state-to-state conflict, but pundits like Joyce M. Davis and Thomas Friedman have done the same. All insist that even if Iraq had WMD, the Baathist regime was inherently derterable and essentially irrelevant to the non-SAVIG security threat behind the 9/11 attack. They all point out that non-state actors, including non-SAVIGs are inherently NOT deterable. (Indeed, prior to the invasion of Iraq Friedman called war with Iraq a desirable elective war.) In short, this host of moderately liberal analysts and commentators believe that the W. Bush administration has failed to come to terms with the fact that the fundamental security threat to the USA is from non-state actors--more specifically non-SAVIGs. It is not clear whether this is an inadvertant failure on the part of the W Bush administration or an intentional policy tack indicative of the W Bush foreign affairs and international security wonks discounting non-SAVIGs as a bigger strategic security concern than traditional states. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Quiz
In a message dated 1/11/2004 8:42:00 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So what was their explanation for claiming that the correct answer should be true? -- Ronn! :) You took the test at night, right? No comprehende. -- Ronn! :) That's when thet turn the sun off ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Quiz
Kevin Tarr wrote: http://intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html 80%. Two of the questions I missed because I did understood the answer differently, but I dispute some of the others. Not that the answers were wrong, but the way the question read. 92.5% - and /me too, some questions were badly written [but I can't blame my 3 mistakes on them O:-)] Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official
At 10:23 PM 1/11/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: John wrote: If you go back and look at almost any major speech on the subject by the Bush Administration, you will not find the case presented as you did above. Sorry, John, this is completely revisionist. I posted a URL to Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. several months back while discussing this topic. He spent about 95% of the speech pointing out the evidence for WMDs in order to justify the invasion. There was one paragraph relating to the plight of the Iraqi people. The Bush administration sold this war to us by telling us Iraq was a threat. Period. any attempt to deny this is . Well, first of all, I disagree with your characterization of 95%.But, even conceding that for a moment. what, does the other 5% suddenly not count any more? Secondly,if you go back to Colin Powell's speech, I think that you will clearly find COPIOUS references to the legal justifications for the war based on Iraqi noncompliance with UN resolutions. The same is true for Bush's speech to the United Nations. In both cases, Powell and Bush asserted that the UN's credibility was at stake by not enforcing Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions.Tom, however, ommitted these legal reasons. Furthermore, what about the two reasons for this war that the Bush Administration couldn't publicly admit, because to do so would completely undermine those very same reasons? I would also add a third reason to that list in that the Bush Administration could certainly never *say* that Well, the record of our intelligence services is complete and utter failure in keeping track of the nuclear programs of Pakistan, India, Iran, the DPRK, and indeed, pre-war Iraq and since it is undipsuted that Iraq wants to acquire nuclear weapons, and since we don't have great confidence in our ability to *know* how close Iraq is, especially with the Iraqis clearly trying to hide something from us. Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F. but we recognize that reason D is a bit complex/disputed, and that D is the reason that skeptics would be most receptive to, and so we are going to spend most of our timearguing for D as that is the reason that will get us the most votes? It is the nature of the republic and the nature of the United Nations that you don't spend a lot of time making a case based on reasons that *you* believe, but aren't like to convince many of the swing-congresspersons and swing-ambassadors who will be doing the voting. 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: Physics Quiz
Ronn Blankenship wrote: No comprehende. Which language is this supposed to be? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [GoBills] Divisional Playoff Pics
John D. Giorgis wrote: Well, I went 3-1 last week... Excruciatingly close this weekend too. But you get extra credit for this remark. Carolina at St. Louis - I see the Panthers' defense keeping it close, the underrated Steve Smith giving the Panthers a chance to score but nevertheless falling short of the Rams who have just too many weapons. Pick: RAMS Bill ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Extraordinary Rendition
As opposed to impeaching someone for a blowjob? And here I thought it was because he lied under oath... Damon. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Danger of US military overextension
According to http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/12/1073877763863.html A scathing report published by the Army War College criticises the US's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an unnecessary war in Iraq and pursuing an unrealistic quest against terrorism that may lead to US wars with nations posing no serious threat. The report, by Professor Jeffrey Record, of the war college at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the US Army is near breaking point. Professor Record's chief criticism is that the Administration is biting off more than it can chew. He likened the US's ambitions in the war on terrorism to Hitler's overreach in World War II. A cardinal rule of strategy is to keep your enemies to a manageable number, he said. The Germans were defeated in two world wars because their strategic ends outran their available means. The essay concluded with several recommendations, including one that the US scale back its ambitions in Iraq and be prepared to settle for a friendly autocracy there rather than a genuine democracy. This is a serious issue. I know both that the US Army does not want the draft reinstalled, because the draft brings in people who are not so good soldiers as they currently get, and that the Army is being stressed by the size of the current deployments. It looks to me that some kind of mobilization is necessary, whether a sharp increase in army pay to attract more people (requiring much more government spending) or a draft, perhaps with the draftees put into a somewhat different catgory (like `peace keeper') so as not to clash with current Army people. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Danger of US military overextension
I don't think a draft is a good way of putting more men into uniform to fight wars, at least with the type of war that we're engaged in now. However, I absolutely do agree (and I've been saying tis publically on the list for as long as I've been a member) that Clinton's military cuts went too deep. I am partially reminded of the situation during the Interwar period (1919-1941), where the Army was drawn down to an almost token force, a cadre to manage rapid expansion when war did come. However, if it wasn't for the far-sightedness of people like Roosevelt, the US would have been in serious trouble when war did come, totally lacking in any medium tanks (FREX) and planning a war against an army that was one of the most advanced on the world at that time. I think the situation in Iraq, plus the ongoing War against Terror, combined with the fact that national Guard units are being federalized in order to cover our commitments elsewhere (the 28th Infantry Division of the Pennsylvania National Guard is due to rotate out to the Balkans to serve with SFOR, and other units are going to Europe to man the bases there) I think indicates the overextension of the Army. Finally, if we keep asking our current Active units to stay deployed for extended periods of time, not only will this hurt morale, but the increased operational tempo will break down equipment and hurt training in other military operations, so that as a whole the Army will be less capable of transitioning from one operation to another. Thankfully nothing happened in any other part of the world (like say Korea); with current deployments we would be incapable of meeting that challenge with the forces in theater (2nd ID, plus supporting elements), which is what the Clinton administration intended the smaller army of today to do. Damon, we could use around 3 more divisions. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SCOUTED: Poincare Conjecture (Really) Solved?
Julia Thompson wrote: David Hobby wrote: No, I won't define sphere. And I suppose you won't define noncompressible and cow, either. Julia These must be from a different Poincare Conjecture. ---David (Insert bad homogenized joke here.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Wining with Dan
As was mentioned here recently, Dan Minette's wife gave him a trip to Napa for his 50th. Cindy and I met them there yesterday and had a good time wine tasting, munching and talking. This may eventually result in the Arnett/Minette (hey, rhythm!) combination spiritual retreat center and spa. Ascetics need not apply, I guess. Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ha Ha! At Last!
G. D. Akin wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 50 + one day And I do not brpth act the oldest. William Taylor -- A Belated Happy Birthday. George A Happy Birthday! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Errant E-Mail Shames RFID Backer
I'm really only mildly concerned about the RFID menace, but this kind of thing really yoinks me off: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,61868,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4 The sleazy tidbit from the article: -- The Grocery Manufacturers of America this week inadvertently sent an internal e-mail to CASPIAN suggesting it was looking for embarrassing information about the group's founder, Katherine Albrecht. The e-mail, written by a college intern at GMA, reads, I don't know what to tell this woman! 'Well, actually we're trying to see if you have a juicy past that we could use against you.' The intern earlier had asked Albrecht to produce her personal biography, as part of an RFID research project, and became frustrated when Albrecht asked what GMA planned to do with the information, according to GMA spokesman Richard Martin. -- The article tries to give a positive spin on the outcome, suggesting that the embarassment might cause the GMA to work more closely with CASPIAN. I'm more cynical than that and would bet that the mumblings about maintaining a dialogue, etc are purely for show. -bryon _ Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software optimizes dial-up to the max! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-uspage=byoa/plusST=1 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Edmunds Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 07:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review *grin* I love being inconsequential. It takes all the responsibility off me ^_^ lol That my friend, is an interesting statement. I hope you don't terribly mind if I use it my travels? As for the responsibility of this particular topic in the here and now, it falls to you. A question has been left unanswered... Nah, go ahead. When my name change goes through, though, just make sure to continue creditting Jeffrey Miller ;) As to your question, I'm lame and delete email consistently. If you resend it to me privately, I promise I'll repond :) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
World leasehold ratings (was Habitable Planets)
Based on and updates: http://www.geocities.com/allianceforprogress/encyclopedia/places/wrldrtng.html#A_Class World leasehold ratings There are about 500 * 10^9 stars in the five galaxies. Among all these stars, only 2_810_000 planets naturally support life sufficiently complex that the planet is suitable for colonization. Fortunately, many planets have been terraformed over the ages and 16_900_000 are class B or C grade planets. A planet is normally only leased about 1/8 of the time. Most of a planet's life-span is spend in GIM enforced fallow. At any given time, 2_110_000 planets are leased from the Galactic Institute of Migration on class B, C, or Homeworld terms. Thus, the average O-2 citizen race has 10.6 planets on B, C, or Homeworld lease. A typical race might have 3 class B leaseholds, 5 class C leases, 1 class C leases of garden world quality, and a Homeworld. Races vary greatly in the degree that they use A-minus and A class leases. A-minus worlds: Any habitation on a planetary body should be leased from the GIM. Of course, most planets are not suitable for terraforming, let alone for immediate colonization. Leasing desert worlds, like Mars, greenhouse world, like Venus, iceball, rockball, and scorchball worlds is a formality. The only exception are when occupation of a desolate world might impinge on H-2 areas or, more rarely, encroach on a Machine Reserve Area. Triton like worlds are unusual because they are difficult to lease. A worlds: Planets largely devoid of life and requiring terraforming, but consequently free of most Institute of Tradition and Migration restrictions. In addition, A Class Leases are durable and negotiable. A race that successfully terraforms an A Class World can keep the world as long as it likes or transfer it to another race on Class C terms. Mars would not qualify as an A class world. It is too hostile to life and too difficult to terraform. B worlds: In O-2 space the standard remediation lease is called a Class-'B' leasehold and is issued for 50 KY. It is renewable. Progress in actively monitored by the GIM. Examples include Deemi and Garth. The GIM has trouble finding takers for B Class Leases. They are seen as involving a lot of risk and liability with relatively little prospect for reward. If bio-remediation fails the tenant might be subject to fines or other discipline. If it works, the GIM will probably let the leasehold end and return the planet to fallow status. Powerful races often try to persuade the GIM to issues leases to B grade worlds with either a Class A or Class C lease. Ready willingness to take on Class B leases in good faith is a sign of good citizenship. About 1/3 of all grade B and C planets are grade B. C worlds: Residence on Class C colony worlds is limited to no longer than 300 million years. This is the standard habitation permit issued by the G.I.M. for most O-2 planets with mature, stable biospheres. Unlike Class B leaseholds, Class C leaseholds are in short supply. Garden worlds: A semi-official classification designating particularly desirable Class C worlds. About 1/3 of all Class C worlds can be regarded as garden worlds. Garden worlds are in extremely short supply. Calafia and Earth are garden worlds, although most races would regard Calafia as having a shortage of dry land. Home worlds: Each species may designate a home world. Home world leaseholds last for the duration of a race's Main Sequence existence. Earth and Tymbrim are Home worlds. Class T lease: Occasionally a race fails to evacuate a leased world on time. In these cases the GIM often issues a transition lease. These leases last for 4,000 to 10,000 years. At the end of the lease the tenant is expected to have completely vacated the leased world. Because of irregularities stemming from pre-Contact colonization Humans have Class T leases on Atlast, Horst, and NuDawn. Deemi was originally leased as a Class T colony, but the lease was changed to Class B. --- Post-script: With the loss of Galaxy 4, the GIM now has jurisdiction over only 13_500_000 grade B and C worlds. No changes will be made to existing leases, but in the future fewer class C leases will be available. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Falcon V Launch Vehicle From SpaceX
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04b.html Space Exploration Technologies Corporation has announced the details of a substantial upgrade to its Falcon rocket family under development and scheduled for completion in 2005. Drawing from experience with the single engine Falcon I, unveiled in Washington DC last month and due to launch in mid 2004, SpaceX is developing a five engine version that will be the first American rocket with true engine out reliability in three decades. Depending upon the phase of flight, Falcon V will be capable of losing any three of the five engines and still complete its mission. Historically, engine related problems are the overwhelming cause of launch vehicle failures. Not since the Apollo program's Saturn V, developed over three decades ago, will there be this level of reliability available in the United States. Extremely rare among rockets, Saturn V had a flawless flight record, despite having an engine fail on two separate missions. Without engine out safety, the Apollo Moon program would have had two flight failures, possibly with tragic consequences. The Falcon V also significantly increases the capability of the Falcon family, with a capacity of over 9,200 pounds to low orbit and up to a 13.1 foot (4 meter) diameter payload fairing. The vehicle is also capable of launching missions to geostationary orbit and the inner solar system, as well as carrying supplies to the International Space Station with the addition of a lightweight automated transfer vehicle. With firm contract pricing set at $12 million per flight (2003 dollars) plus range costs, the approximately $1300 cost per pound to orbit will represent a new world record in the normally available cost of access to space for a production rocket (excluding only limited use, refurbished military hardware from the former Soviet Union). xponent The Coming Movement Outward Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite
In a message dated 1/11/2004 9:03:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeh, kind of like lying about affairs. So? Clinton had a much higher responsibility, like to faithfully uphold and defend the laws of the United States. And lying about an affair in what way significantly way precludes him from faithfully upholding and defending the laws of the US? We seem back in absolute morality territory here John. So why didn't Bush immediately demand that the leak about Plame, attributed to a white house source, be investigated? Doesn't sound like upholding laws to me. Rush is just a talk radio show host, who has said a lot of intersting things in his life that had nothing to do with drugs. There is nothing about what he was doing with drugs that at all affects the validity or interesting nature of his opinions. Yes he had done lots of interesting tghings including being married several times. As to his opinions, they of course do extend beyond the merely political to all sort of life issues. So I think the fact that he used drugs illegally hid his illegal drug use, that he gave some lame excuse, that he is trying to hide behind some legal manuevers all indicate that he does not behave in any way that approximates his public stance on morality etc. One's views do not have to jibe with one's actions but people who behave like this are by definition hypocrites. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite
In a message dated 1/11/2004 9:11:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me use a relevant example. Would it be hypocrisy for a high school student who believes that the Federal Education Loan program is unconstitutional under the limited powers clause to accept federal education loans to go to college?Even though the existance of these loans have caused the prices of higher education to skyrocket? I answer no to that question it would *not* be hypocrisy in my mind. Indeed, the existance of these loans have so distorted the market for higher education, in terms of driving private loans out of the market and escalating the price that it would be only sensible to accept these loans, even in spite of one's views But of course if one holds strong moral views then one should follow those views. It is of course at least mildly hypocritical to take a loan under these circumstances but it would be much more hypocritical to take such a loan and then having received an education to fight to have such loans eliminated. Of course I do not accept your suggestion that in the abscence of student loan programs there would inexpensive commercial loans. So let me try this another way. If Rush's behavior is not hypocrital than provide me an example of hypocracy. But to make it a bit more challenging to you. The hypothetical hypocricy cannot be the actions of a democrat/liberal that is it cannot be anything like a dirty liberal who says she holds life sacred but accepts abortion for that is not hypocricy that is a different moral position than yours. As opposed to someone who explicitly behaves in a manner that he/she considers wrong. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: J.D. Goes Hard on Conservatives
In a message dated 1/11/2004 10:38:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: O.k., in response to Bob Z.'s challenge, I am going to do nothing but criticize conservatives in this post. 1) George W. Bush allowed too many people to be executed in Texas. (I opposed to the death penalty in almost all cases.) 2) Any Republican who criticizes the Bush Administration's recently proposed immigration policy is wrong - this is a great policy that, if anything, does not go far enough. They are doubly wrong if they think that was only proposed to pander to a certain ethnic group. It is the right policy, it is good for America and it is good for Hispanics. They are tripply wrong if they criticize it on the grounds of not respecting the law. America's current immigration laws are disastrous and non-sensical.Perhaps the dumbest comment on this issue comes from Sean Hannity who correctly notes that a guest-worker program is a necessity, but incredibly, proposes to exclude all the illegal immigrants over here who already have jobs. Hannity also incredibly thinks that this is a disastrous thing for our borders - when in fact, by making it much easier to enter the country, the Bush Administration will effectively put the old coyotes - professional human smugglers - out of business, thus making it much harder to sneak into the United States. 3) President Bush is wrong to have underfunded the US National Park System. The crown jewels of America should not be falling into disrepair and suffer from critical understaffing. 4) Any Republican who doesn't admit that the war on drugs is a failure is whistling in the dark. This probably includes just about every politicians in America, sadly, Democrat or Republican. There needs to be a basic recognition that demand creates supply, and prohibition simply increases the price - and incentive to supply. 5) President Bush was wrong to abandon his proposed carbon emissions trading program. 6) The Catholic Church should recognize that non-abortifacent contraceptive pills are not inherently sinful, and are instead a new technological development not forseen by previous theologians. (Note, conservative Catholics love the ban on contraception.) 7) The Catholic Church should welcome homosexuals into the priesthood, as the natural conclusion of the celibate lifestyle it currently teaches that homosexuals are called to. 8) The Catholic Church is far too prone to over-officiousness. The new General Instructions of the Roman Missal, which seems a product of the Church's conservative wing, is entirely symptomatic of this problem. 9) President Bush should have found a way to veto at least one spending bill at some point. A 50% increase in transporation spending since 2000, while an entirely understandable outcome of a nearly 50/50 Congress, still seems like much too much in our current fiscal situation. (Couldn't these Congressmen have been bought off with increased National Park spending? :) 10) I oppose the isolationist wing of the Republican Party who advocate withdrawl from the WTO and opposed the invasion of Iraq and the expansion of NATO. 11) I oppose all anti-sodomy laws that criminalize homosexual behavior. 12) I think that the tablet of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama courtroom was unconstitutional. 13) The National March for Life is wrong to prevent Homosexuals for Life from being an official sponsor of the March. 14) The conservatives who have criticized President Bush for praying in a mosque are wrong. Ditto fot those who criticized the Pope for doing that. Ditto for those who criticized President Bush for calling Islam a religion of peace. 15) President Bush should have pushed harder for his faith-based-initiatives, particularly as a part of tackling the larger problem of urban renewal. 16) I think that I disagree with almost everything that Pat Robertson says. Anyhow, I am sure that there are many more, but I hope that I've made my point JDG Very interesting John, seriously. Thoughtful. Does your dad disagree with you on these topics? But I do think you are on the conservative end of things. I think most americans do not share your view that Clinton should have been removed from office for his sexual escapades and his lies in a civil suit to cover this up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shrub's Conspiracy to Invade Iraq Revealed by Ex-Admin Official
In a message dated 1/12/2004 7:31:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lastly, what is so wrong with the Bush Administration saying that we believe that we should invade Iraq for reasons A, B, C, D, E, and F. but we recognize that reason D is a bit complex/disputed, and that D is the reason that skeptics would be most receptive to, and so we are going to spend most of our timearguing for D as that is the reason that will get us the most votes? It is the nature of the republic and the nature of the United Nations that you don't spend a lot of time making a case based on reasons that *you* believe, but aren't like to convince many of the swing-congresspersons and swing-ambassadors who will be doing the voting. Well one reason is that it is dishonest not to state your real intentions. Another reason is that your true intentions might have convinced quite a few groups and individuals of the correctness of our plan. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
