Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Gautam, now you are getting plain silly. Making personal insults directed at me is hardly a response to my long list of GOP sillinesses. I don't think I'm personally insulting you, actually. In fact, I had 4 years of ROTC training and would have gone to Vietnam if I did not perceive that war as the worst inanity, falling for a KGB trap of sucking America into a land war in Asia. (In fairness, I blame JFK for that one. Specifically his inaugural address daring all comers and proclaiming macho over brains.) So, you had the training and in war didn't go? This does not exactly strengthen your case, Dr. Brin. Now, if I argued the way you did I'd say you were consistent - you didn't care about what happened to the people of Vietnam, and you didn't care about the people of Iraq. I don't think either of those are the case, though. The question is why you insist on describing people who disagree with you in that sort of malign terminology. Which is irrelevant. The things I accused W and his crowd of are specific (you answered none) provable and actually rather MILD compared to the absolutely insane series of spewing rants that were aimed at the Clintons, accusing them of everything from murder to molestation to having a bad marriage. (That last swipe, vicious, had no basis bust became the core mantra of a religious movement.) Since at least one member of the family is a friend, I'm not going to comment on their marriage. But they aren't particularly specific, and they're only provable to _you_, and people with your rather far-out viewpoint. You have to address the central point, Dr. Brin, that some very intelligent and able people completely disagree with you. As long as you insist on arguing that someone like Rice is an idiot, well, you're arguing that I am too - because I would say I'm at least as able to see through propaganda as you are. And I don't think she is - she's at least as smart as I am. Or, I dare say, as you, Dr. Brin. If you want to use the sort of terms and inflammatory rhetoric that you do, you aren't just insulting the President and his aides, you're insulting everyone who supports them - because you're pretty clearly saying that only a fool or a villain could agree with them. Say that if you wish, but don't think I'm going to respect your opinions afterwards. The dopiest thing is to sigh, wave your hands in the air and declare it pointless to argue. Feh. What's the argument? DB: All conservatives are interested in concentrating wealth in the hands of their frat buddies. I immediately disproved your argument. I'm a conservative, and I'm not. So I guess I win the argument? How exactly do I respond to that? But fundamentally this isn't about conservatism. It is about kleptocracy. They hated him as much as all the other war heroes, like Kerry and Clark. You mean like George H.W. Bush? He would be a war hero too, after all. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
At 12:52 AM 1/30/04, Davd Brin wrote: In fact, I had 4 years of ROTC training and would have gone to Vietnam if I did not perceive that war as the worst inanity, falling for a KGB trap of sucking America into a land war in Asia. I'm curious: what did you do to fulfil your obligation? (I'm assuming that you meant you had four years of college-level ROTC, and if the requirements were the same as they were when I got my commission through the AFROTC program, taking the last two years of ROTC obligated one to serve in some capacity: in fact, if one dropped out or flunked out after starting those last two years, one was technically obligated to serve as an enlisted person.) Oh... and IF ONLY McCain had been the nominee in 00. But fundamentally this isn't about conservatism. I agree. Conservative .NE. Republican. One can be conservative without being a member of the Republican party or always voting for Republican candidates. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Folks, With respect to the ongoing debate about Left vs. Right, the the current administration's willingness to trade freedom for security, consider the following quote, and try to guess who said it. The URL of a web page with the answer is at the end of this email. You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. A Libertarian friend urged me to be skeptical of the false dichotomy of Left vs. Right. Some of you may be familiar with the Nolan Chart, or diamond quiz created by Libertarian party founder David Nolan. It measures political beliefs on two axes: personal liberty and economic liberty. It neatly preserves the prevailing Left-center-Right axis, from the left (people who place high value on personal liberty, less on economic liberty) to the right (high value on economic liberty, less on personal liberty). The new vertical axis runs from Libertarian at the top (value both personal and economic liberty) to Authoritarian at the bottom (at least the trains run on time). The origin of the quote at the top of this email is at http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm. I know almost nothing about the publishers of the page that contains the quote above. If you see something there that you like, feel free to let them know. If something there pisses you off, feel free to take it up with them. Dave Dave Land[EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Ooooh you guys caught me. It was late at night when I scribbled the ROTC without mentioning it was High School. I was signed up for a 6 year stint as a nuke officer aboard a sub... when many things happened to change that life course. Nothing shameful, just things. But really, what bullshit. I opposed that war and would NOT fight in it. It was treason to cooperate with that trap -- which damaged America almost to the breaking point, exactly as its KGB planners hoped. John Kerry was absolutely right and patriotic to fight against it when he got home. I don't think I'm personally insulting you, actually. What baloney. Your letter made it personal, as does most of your [EMAIL PROTECTED]@ below. if I argued the way you did I'd say you were consistent - you didn't care about what happened to the people of Vietnam, and you didn't care about the people of Iraq. what sophistry. I cared very much about the hell on Earth we made of Vietnam, by refusing to allow the free elections we had promised at the time of the partition. True, in those elections the people would have made a horrible mistake. They would have chosen Ho and Communism. We now know THAT A COUNTRY CAN OUTLAST THAT FEVER. We had too little faith in our side and our civilization to keep with George Marshall's plan and wait it out. I don't think either of those are the case, though. The question is why you insist on describing people who disagree with you in that sort of malign terminology. Feh. You are doing that to me. Note you ONLY feel that way when I diss things your side believes, and not when I diss the other side, which I can PROVE that I do almost equally. Not entirely equally. Because the present bunch in DC are classic standard aristo coup-plotters. I recognize them from every generation since Adam. Which is irrelevant. The things I accused W and his crowd of are specific (you answered none) provable and actually rather MILD compared to the absolutely insane series of spewing rants that were aimed at the Clintons, accusing them of everything from murder to molestation to having a bad marriage. (That last swipe, vicious, had no basis bust became the core mantra of a religious movement.) Since at least one member of the family is a friend, I'm not going to comment on their marriage. But they aren't particularly specific, and they're only provable to _you_, and people with your rather far-out viewpoint. Sweet. In fact, we had 8 years of utter slander aimed at a nice couple who raised a nice daughter and stayed together despite his alpha male wanderings. Which is more than can be said of his 'prosecutors' assigned by the House GOP... MORE THAN HALF of whom had had horrible and scandalous divorces. Of how do I know? I once saw the Clintons through slats in some bleachers, before going on stage (him with saxaphone.) They were alone, nobody (to their knowledge) watching. I saw her reach up and BITE his ear. Sexy as hell. But the bitchy right kept telling for 8 years that they had separate bedrooms. It's not as bad a lie as the million other spread by Rush and co. But it is so indicative of the utter, maliscious meanness. You have to address the central point, Dr. Brin, that some very intelligent and able people completely disagree with you. As long as you insist on arguing that someone like Rice is an idiot, well, you're arguing that I am too - because I would say I'm at least as able to see through propaganda as you are. Crap, total crap. I cannot believe you would stoop to such drivel in order to argue. Whining and taking personal dudgeon because I call someone's POLICIES idiotic? Yet you defend people who regularly spread genuine libel like RAPE and MURDER at the (then) president of the United States? How much hypocrisy are you going to try fortonight, Gautam? And I don't think she is - she's at least as smart as I am. At last. I can go with that. Or, I dare say, as you, Dr. Brin. If you want to use the sort of terms and inflammatory rhetoric that you do, you aren't just insulting the President and his aides, you're insulting everyone who supports them - Total garbage. This is the lamest argument I have ever heard. Instead of ARGUING with me like coming up with a counter example to the list of accomplishments I listed... or showing me one other industry than energy that Republicans ever deregulated... Or showing me the weapons of mass destruction... or defending the decision to drive the Iranian people into the arms of their mullahs by that axis of evil ditiziness... no, you whine If you call my leader's policies stupid then you are calling ME stupid and I'm not stupid, so that proves you wrong! because you're pretty clearly saying that only a fool or a villain could agree with them. Say that if you wish, but don't think I'm going to respect your opinions afterwards. The dopiest thing is
apologies
I want to apologize. Everything I said should have been said in a softer tone of kindness and reason. Late at night, the worst email diseases can get ahold of any of us. Please accept that I respect Gautam and consider him to be a friend. Oh, the Nolan 2-D political diagram is notoriously one of the worst. It is utterly tendentious, designed to make its designer automatically look good. There are some decent expanded political landscapes. I have done one of my own. The test is tendentiousness. Would almost anyone (reluctantly) agree with where you choose to place them? Ah, but I've had things to say to libertarians http://www.davidbrin.com/opinionarticles.html db ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: best SF e-zine?
Jan Coffey wrote: That web site as you probably can tell is the web presence of the Sci- Fi channel, and Sci-Fi Mag. I don't know what your deffinition of mainline SF magazines is, but I would think that this particulare one, while not what I would consider to be mainline, it's kind of in the oposite direction on that axis from the direction your request seemd to imply you were requesting. Actually it isn't. It is the address of Scifiction (or SCIFICTION as the editor Ellen Datlow would have it), an independent ezine funded and hosted by The Sci-Fi Channel. I'm unable to decode exactly what you are trying to say in your last sentence but I notice you don't make any alternative suggestions. For me the mainline SF magazines clearly implies Asimovs, Analog, FSF and the like. So let's recap: newer ezine? Check. Hot and with-it? Check. Good fiction with media coverage that brings in a young crowd? Check. Paying market? Check. --Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
At 02:06 AM 1/30/2004 -0800 Davd Brin wrote: Yet you defend people who regularly spread genuine libel like RAPE and MURDER at the (then) president of the United States? But Dr. Brin, aren't you engaging in exactly the sort of left-right dichotomy that you have earlier rejected?The people who raised the rape and murder charges were a tiny minority by almost any measure. Yet, by painting myself and Gautam as being of the same stripe as the Vince-Foster-was-murdered conspiracy nuts, aren't you justlumping all of us into the right?And by the same token, aren't leftists just as responsible for the ravings of Cynthia McKinney and Howard Dean, and those who beleive that Bush let the attacks of September 11th happen? And out of curiosity, does Anita Hill count as being genuine libel as much as Kathleen Willey in your book? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
At 09:38 PM 1/29/2004 -0800 Davd Brin wrote: I should have known better. Sigh. I said that left-vs.right is a cosmically stupid way for immature political minds to identify themselves... and you guys rush right ahead and blare me right and me proud! In fairness, after bashing the left-right dichotomy, you then proceeded to launch into a fairly one-sided rant against conservatives and the Republican Party, which most people idenify synomously with the political right. For example. But in fact, I do have one 'standard' political opinion. That the current GOP is dominated by kleptocratic frat boys with NO other agenda but stealing 4 TRILLION DOLLARS from our grandchildren. You should probably amed that statement since most people would not consider the current GOP as going back to the time of Hoover. Nevertheless, unless you believe that there are conservatives in the Democratic Party, most people interpret your bashing of the GOP as a bashing of the political right in general. You will find NO policy of theirs that violates this fundamental principle. Not one. No Child Left Behind Faith-Based Initiatives AIDS Fund Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Promotion of Abstinence-Based Education School Vouchers for DC To just use examples of policies promulgated by the current administration. Oh. School VOUCHERS! Wow! BIG IDEA! Huge! How magnificent. Why, it makes all of the following ideas pale in comparison. Containing communism public universities medical research exploring space exploring the oceans saving the bald eagle and other endangered species increasing basic literacy from 15% to 95% and college attendance from 2% to nearly 50% rural electrification fiber optics opposing fascism and defeating Hitler promoting democracy overseas antitrust rules to encourage market competition supporting Israel civil rights bringing women into echelons of power ensuring that all children go to school freedom of information sunshine laws letting citizens view their own credit records the Internet increasing the number of engineers, doctors and scientists 1000 fold social security reducing or eliminating the lock on power and justice that local gentry had in every village, from the dawn of civilization nuclear power, solar power, modern wind and geothermal power professionalizing the police resisting Japanese imperial ambitions before during WWII lifting both our allies enemies back up after war NATO Yup. Those were pretty lame things... because every single one of them arose out of Democratic administrations. I hate to say this Dr. Brin, but it at least appears arguable to me that you are engaging in some Golden Age thinking above.All of the above ideas are at least 10 years old, and most of them are nearly 40 or more years old. Where are the big ideas from the Democratic Party today? I presented specific examples of innovative ideas to the central problems of national defense, health care, pension solvency, education, and air pollution that are affecting our civilization today. I can say with a lot of confidence that the central core of the solutions being proferred by Democrats to the above five problems are simply to spend more money on them with little-to-no innovation. Even conceding your above list (and I do find some of the items, like exploring space, to be rather specious - the Republicans surely would have done the same thing had they been in power) they so far seem to represent merely a Golden Age of the Democratic Party, and do not seem to contradict my central point that agree-or-disagree the Republicans are at least coming up with creative solutions to tackle our fundamental problems, and the Democrats simply want to tax, spend, and regulate. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Speaking iof bolstering the numbers in the Army, I just saw this on CNN.com today: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/29/sprj.nirq.army.strength/index.html Damon. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: ... I think the best empirical evidence that falsifies your above conclusions is to simply compare the number of public policy think tanks on the right vs. those of the left. All funded by Billionaire Right-Wing Sugar Daddies, Like Moon, Sciafe, Ahmanson, Coors. That was my gut reaction, but then I got stuck trying to figure out how the Cato Institute was funded. Do you have anything to back this up? I'm sure Nick will be glad to wax lyrical about Scaife, but here are a few introductory links. I've read better articles about it but these are ones I saved: http://hnn.us/articles/1244.html http://seetheforest.blogspot.com/ http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/scaife.html http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2003_11_01_barchive.html#10692847996787435 4 http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/reports/tort/tortreport.html http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/borosage-r.html http://www.publiceye.org/research/policy.html You can also probably find more articles by searching google for 'right wing wurlitzer' ... Emissions Trading Sure lets do more to help destroy the planet. I mean with that whole armegediin thingamgo we don't need to be stewards and property caretakers, we loot and pillage and destroy as much as we want. ... Wait a minute, I LIKE economic solutions to social problems. Properly done, emissions trading would help to make the market more responsive to environmental costs. (Improperly done, it could be an easy way to weaken environmental laws. But you can't really blame that on the idea itself.) ---David Posting on politics = avoiding work? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Irregulars Question: raising the dead in the sims
My 10-year-old daughter accidentally killed my 4-year-old's character. Is there any way to raise de dead? Alberto Monteiro in panic mode PS: yes, I know the sims is evil and must be eradicated ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On strong words and apologies
I'm always happy to see David Brin engage with our little community here... but I'm often simultaneously worried that it'll be the last time. It is a rare on-line community that enjoys the participation of the person who inspired its birth. The more well-known that person and the longer the community exists, the less likely he or she is to show up. The best way for me to be able to respond gracefully to strong words and apologies from David is to practice doing so with everyone. Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All funded by Billionaire Right-Wing Sugar Daddies, Like Moon, Sciafe, Ahmanson, Coors. As opposed to left-wing ones like Soros? http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2003_11_01_barchive.html#10692847996787435 4 God knows there are so many billionaires behind defense transformation :-) Many leftists have recently publicly mourned the relative lack of ideas from the left compared to those of the right. Um. No. One of the dumbest things you've ever said. Not at all. I'm sure he can dig up cites if you want, but that's a fairly common complaint on the left. I've heard plenty of people make it. There's a whole think tank that has just been founded to try and fix that problem. Military Transformation Sure, lets take our lean mean capable machine, and bloat it up, and draft people who don't particularly want to serve. Those draftees who will be coming (after the election) will be SO much better of a fighting force than the voluntary one we have now. Fool, let me suggest something. Learn a tiny little bit about a topic before you make comments like this. Wasn't it just yesterday that it was being reported that Good ole Rummy decided to increase the Armed forces by 3? Wasn't it just several months ago that the Draft boards came back from the dead? All while we're sending entire division to Iraq with the proper equipment, so we can build more nuclear weapons and more hare brained missile defense systems, while our borders are like swiss cheese and only 2% of cargo containers are searched. Because the world faced fascism once, and we want to prevent it from ever happening again. Yes, 6 million dead Jews is definitely the same thing as Retirement Savings Accounts. Do you have any idea how stupid and offensive that sort of comparison is? Thats not the part I am talking about. The curtailment of rights and liberties and authoritarian control is the bit I am referring to. If we roll back the Shrub tax cuts for the millionaires the entire deficit goes away. No amount of 'spending' cuts, discretionary and/or mandatory does that. Again, learn something about the topic. This is factually not true. The Congressional budget office thinks you are wrong: http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/bushdeficit.gif http://angrybear.blogspot.com/budgetcause1.jpg http://angrybear.blogspot.com/budgetcause2.jpg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Even George Bush was a fighter pilot in the National Guard - not what you choose to do if you want to avoid all danger. No, you just go AWOL for a year. Nice having politically powerful parents to help you out isn't it? http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
So many issues, so little time. What boggles me is that political my side myopia blinds folks to simple, basic pattern recognition. Like that way immigration is handled. Both Bushes totally reamed the Border Patrol, for example. Did you know that? Under both administrations, border patrolling plummetted. Bill Clinton DOUBLED the number of guards at the borders. If you think, really think, you can grasp why. As for George Soros, it's easy to demonify, but I'll match his record at philanthopy against W's pals. Soros went into eastern europe and spent billions stabilizing and helping places like Poland, which are now total bulwark allies. He may be a crackpot, but he knows our only chance is a worldwide open society. Oh but the richest thing is calling the free flying lessons and cool macho flight suits that W got in the Air Guard 'brave service. That wwas after bribing profs and hiring nerds' papers to get the C-, right? But before dad's pals bought him a baseball team? Oh, and today Condi Rice as much as said we deliberately exaggerated. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
IIRC Bush flew either F-102s or F-106s for the Texas ANG. Although a handful were deployed to Vietnam for air defence, the aircraft was designed to be a bomber intereceptor in the event of a Nuclear War. Not really a front line fighter. Not really comparable to, say, George Sr., who flew Dauntless Dive Bombers in the tail end of WWII... Damon. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- John D. Giorgis said In fairness, after bashing the left-right dichotomy, you then proceeded to launch into a fairly one-sided rant against conservatives and the Republican Party, which most people idenify synomously with the political right. You still refuse to even try to define conservative or 'right'. I refuse to engage that dichotomy, which is utterly lobotomized. I addressed the #$#$ Libertarian party as a keynoter, I am starting my own software company and I have spoken to billionaires about philanthropy. I have berated liberals and leftists endlessly. Any attempt to paint me in those colors only makes the painter a fool. My opposition to the current gopper leadership has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with a conspiratorial band of kleptocratic/aristocratic thieves. No minute passes when money isn't taken out of your grandchildrens pockets and put into the moths of their children to make them lords over us all. Yawn, it is EXACTLY the thing ruling cliques have tried to do for 6,000 years. The burden of proof is on you to find other explanations for the behavior we see. For example. But in fact, I do have one 'standard' political opinion. That the current GOP is dominated by kleptocratic frat boys with NO other agenda but stealing 4 TRILLION DOLLARS from our grandchildren. You should probably amed that statement since most people would not consider the current GOP as going back to the time of Hoover. yadda Nevertheless, unless you believe that there are conservatives in the Democratic Party, most people interpret your bashing of the GOP as a bashing of the political right in general. You utterly wipe out of your consciousness things that don't jibe. Like the fact that moderate democrats do ALL of the pro-market reforming. 6 out of 7 deregulated industries, for example. Well, 5 and a half. The Reaganites finished writing the banking regulations after Carter left office, then proceeded to steal/loot half of america's savings and loans. (Ah, Neil Bush.) What do you DO about the fact that govt paperwork declined under one man, Al Gore? What do you do? Wipe it from your mind. You will find NO policy of theirs that violates this fundamental principle. Not one. No Child Left Behind Faith-Based Initiatives AIDS Fund Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Promotion of Abstinence-Based Education School Vouchers for DC Gah! platitudes and fig leaves. You actually, actually, actually can say all this with a straight face? Well, the Aids fund. There are some faith based conservative groups that got very embarrassed and have pushed for real charity work in africa. To just use examples of policies promulgated by the current administration. Oh. School VOUCHERS! Wow! BIG IDEA! Huge! How magnificent. Why, it makes all of the following ideas pale in comparison. Containing communism public universities medical research exploring space exploring the oceans saving the bald eagle and other endangered species increasing basic literacy from 15% to 95% and college attendance from 2% to nearly 50% rural electrification fiber optics opposing fascism and defeating Hitler promoting democracy overseas antitrust rules to encourage market competition supporting Israel civil rights bringing women into echelons of power ensuring that all children go to school freedom of information sunshine laws letting citizens view their own credit records the Internet increasing the number of engineers, doctors and scientists 1000 fold social security reducing or eliminating the lock on power and justice that local gentry had in every village, from the dawn of civilization nuclear power, solar power, modern wind and geothermal power professionalizing the police resisting Japanese imperial ambitions before during WWII lifting both our allies enemies back up after war NATO Yup. Those were pretty lame things... because every single one of them arose out of Democratic administrations. I hate to say this Dr. Brin, but it at least appears arguable to me that you are engaging in some Golden Age thinking above.All of the above ideas are at least 10 years old, and most of them are nearly 40 or more years old. Zowe! These things made the 20th century, transforming it from hell to hope. These things made YOU. Because of them we live free from communism fascism and every gopper has a picture of Martin Luther King on his wall, despite having called him a commie. Excuse me, but TRACK RECORD means something. Anyway, I did not pose that list in order to praise democrats but to show a list of things that GOP VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED! And that's nearly everything on that list. Part of ideas my #$##$# Where are the big ideas from the Democratic Party today? I presented specific examples of innovative ideas to the central problems of national defense, health care,
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 02:06 AM 1/30/2004 -0800 Davd Brin wrote: Yet you defend people who regularly spread genuine libel like RAPE and MURDER at the (then) president of the United States? But Dr. Brin, aren't you engaging in exactly the sort of left-right dichotomy that you have earlier rejected?The people who raised the rape and murder charges were a tiny minority by almost any measure. Yet, by painting myself and Gautam as being of the same stripe as the Vince-Foster-was-murdered conspiracy nuts, aren't you justlumping all of us into the right?And by the same token, aren't leftists just as responsible for the ravings of Cynthia McKinney and Howard Dean, and those who beleive that Bush let the attacks of September 11th happen? I agree, there's a spectrum. The difference is that there is a huge industry of such garbage spilling out of Limbaugh and Fox News and CNN, round the clock. And out of curiosity, does Anita Hill count as being genuine libel as much as Kathleen Willey in your book? Interesting you should mention that. 1) Willey is a liar. Pure and simple. Everyone who knows Clinton knows he is a sex hound, but an exaggeratedly COURTLY sex hound. Gennifer Flowers, who should know, says that Paula Jones and Willey are baldfaced liars because he would never do such things. 2) I sound lefty to you because I am opposing YOUR foolishness. My lefty friends accuse me of being a rightwing nut and here's one example. Even though I believe every word that Anita Hill said, I think SHE is the grotesquely evil figure in the Thomas case. The actions she described as 'harrassment' were dopey crap of the sort addled nerds like CT will always do. It was her job as a feminist then to gently but firmly set him straight. If anyone on the planet was qualified to do that it was a beautiful young black attorney working for the EEOC! SHe betrayed women by letting it all slide then, in order to ride CT's coat tails. Fine, her choice. But to attack him later was pure opportunism. Fie on her. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:38 PM 1/29/2004 -0800 Davd Brin wrote: I should have known better. Sigh. I said that left-vs.right is a cosmically stupid way for immature political minds to identify themselves... and you guys rush right ahead and blare me right and me proud! In fairness, after bashing the left-right dichotomy, you then proceeded to launch into a fairly one-sided rant against conservatives and the Republican Party, which most people idenify synomously with the political right. For example. But in fact, I do have one 'standard' political opinion. That the current GOP is dominated by kleptocratic frat boys with NO other agenda but stealing 4 TRILLION DOLLARS from our grandchildren. You should probably amed that statement since most people would not consider the current GOP as going back to the time of Hoover. Nevertheless, unless you believe that there are conservatives in the Democratic Party, most people interpret your bashing of the GOP as a bashing of the political right in general. Zell Miller, Lieberman and another half dozen bozo's who allowed this Medicare-travesty to pass. You will find NO policy of theirs that violates this fundamental principle. Not one. No Child Left Behind Great Idea. Lets take a person who controlled a massive school-performance fraud in Texas, and make him, head of the education department. Lets take all the failed policies of Texas (one of the worst states educationally) and apply them unilaterally to all states including ones like Iowa and Vermont which have the best Schools in the nation. Lets make it so qualified teacher who have been teaching for years, are no longer qualified,. Lets Make teachers teach to tests which is what standardized testing of this sort does. Lets take schools that are 'failing' and take all the money away from them because we wouldn't want schools to be actually able to hire better teachers and administrators and textbooks. Faith-Based Initiatives Lets just amend that whole first amendment thing away, and give all our money to clergy who only help people fall in line which their IDIOTIC and half-witted dogmas. AIDS Fund Yes. Lets say we want to help people who have AIDS in Africa, then not spend any money that you promised to spend. Lets take away funding from groups that are fighting AIDS in Africa for Dogmatic Religious reasons. Lets enforce the mandated of drug companies and prevent people who are dieing in Africa from getting affordable drugs, because protecting the profits of the most lucrative business is WAY more important than all those black people dieing on that other continent. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Yes lets prevent doctors from being able to save women who would die from birth complications. Lets give individual cells and fetus's more rights than women. Because a stem cell is worth SO much more than the average 20 year old. Promotion of Abstinence-Based Education Oh Yes, Lets go in to schools and not teach kids about sex at all. So the birth rate can sky-rocket in those schools, and STD rate among those students can grow astronomically, because we know, these kids just absolutely HATE having sex. Because we know that some half-witted schizophrenic from 2500 years ago knows more about what is right and wrong than all the scientists and thinkers in the world know today. School Vouchers for DC Yep lets take 33% of the money for public schools and give it to 1% of the students. Real equality there. Lets forget the fact that DC has a larger population than some states, and has 0 congressional representatives. Lets forget the fact that congress unilaterally makes policy for DC, despite the fact that the majority of the population of DC is democratic and not republican. Lets take the poorest students and send them to schools that are actively hostile to science and Evolution. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wasn't it just yesterday that it was being reported that Good ole Rummy decided to increase the Armed forces by 3? Wasn't it just several months ago that the Draft boards came back from the dead? All while we're sending entire division to Iraq with the proper equipment, so we Should Be With-Out. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Quick note under the No Child Left Behind thing. My uncle is an educator, indeed the superintendant of Special Ed in the local school district, so the children he administers over are usually the ones most at need. Recently our state rep (friend of the family and former teacher himself) was discussing what's going on in Harrisburg, and this subject came up. Neither had complementary things to say about the system, and indeed both seem to think it will do more to hurt kids who are NOT at need, than help ones that are. I can't comment further than that, since some of the stuff they talked about I couldn't really understand (lack the professional training, experience, or frame of reference), but my impression is very negative from what I heard. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IIRC Bush flew either F-102s or F-106s for the Texas ANG. Although a handful were deployed to Vietnam for air defence, the aircraft was designed to be a bomber intereceptor in the event of a Nuclear War. Not really a front line fighter. Not really comparable to, say, George Sr., who flew Dauntless Dive Bombers in the tail end of WWII... Damon. And won the DFC, as I recall. He was also (still is, I believe) the youngest person ever to fly an airplane off a carrier, since he lied about his age in order to join the Navy. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] For example. ... AIDS Fund SOTU2003: 15 Billion Pledge http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years, including nearly $10 billion in new money, to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean. Now2004: http://www.globalaidsalliance.org/sotuanniversary.html The White House sent at least three letters to the Congress in 2003 which insisted that the amount of funding the President requested, while a billion dollars less than what Congress had authorized, was perfectly adequate. Fortunately, members from both sides of the aisle rejected this contention and approved $2.4 billion for global AIDS, TB and malaria programs, a 16% increase over the White House proposal. Moderating the highly unilateralist direction of the PresidentÂ’s AIDS plan, they increased the amount for the Global Fund by 175% (from $200 million to $550 million in 2004). These increases are important, though they still far short of what programs could effectively utilize and what the US promised in AIDS spending legislation. And of that Missing 14.5 Billion Promised by The Prevaricator in Chief: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/politics/29AIDS.html President Bush plans to scale back requests for money to fight AIDS and poverty in the third world, putting off for several years the fulfillment of his pledges to eventually spend more than $20 billion on these programs. The Lying Rootless Shrubbery is Exposed Yet Again. --- I Pledge Impertinence to the Flag-Waving of the Unindicted Co-Conspirators of America and to the Republicans for which I can't stand one Abomination, Underhanded Fraud Indefensible with Liberty and Justice Forget it. -Life in Hell (Matt Groening) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
And won the DFC, as I recall. He was also (still is, I believe) the youngest person ever to fly an airplane off a carrier, since he lied about his age in order to join the Navy. And *I* am accused of dwelling on the past? Kennedy was a war hero too. That didn't stop him from being the fool who macho'd us into an idiotic land war in asia. SUmo instead of jiu jistu. Still, nothing, nothing overcomes the shame of what GHWB and his boys did to the people of Iraq. Urging them by radio to rebel and then standing back, verbally okaying Saddam to use his copters to mow them down while our soldiers wept and begged to be allowed to intervene. These same cretins chose the absolutely stupidest war plan last year, attacking through the border narrowest and farthest from Baghdad, ignoring even the possibility of sending feelers to the Iranians, who dreamt of getting revenge on the man who killed a million of their people. I am proud of the 3rd division and the Marine Expeditionary force. Together they used the resources of a rump CORPS to do a job that should have been assigned to an army. Or better yet, that should have been assigned to the IRANIAN army. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Left Vs Right Handedness
Women Hold Babies On The Left To Connect To Emotional Half Of the Brain http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001916.html#001916 Results indicate that women cradle on the side of the body that is contralateral to the hemisphere dominant for face and emotion processing and suggest a possible explanation of gender differences in the incidence of cradling. I think would also partially explain the tendency towards right-handedness, which effects which side of the body a baby would normally be held. Ever notice how girls Vs boy carry books in school? Girls always carry books close on their breast (like carrying a baby), and boys carry books on their hips. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
assigned to an army. Or better yet, that should have been assigned to the IRANIAN army. I'm not so sure that would have been the most successful or wisest choices. Iran is not exactly popular amongst secular Arab leaders, being both Shi'a AND fundie Islamic government. Besides which, the only other choice we had in attacking Baghdad was through Turkey, and they refused to allow us. If you recall the 1st Infantry Division was supposed to invade from the north, pick up forces amongst the local Kurdish fighters, and close in on Baghdad from both the South AND the North, effectively enveloping the city. Of course Turkey refused to allow the US to stage from their terretory, so the division had to be re-routed. Eventually we landed the 173rd Abn Brg as well as Spec Ops to cut off the north. A plan WAS in place, but local politics got in the way. Ultimately, what the Army, Marines, and other Allied forces accomplished with the forces at hand was tremendous. Of course it helped that the Iraqi army had no spine. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Containing communism Dr. Brin, you think the GOP opposed this? You remember the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan said Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. While your favored party imitated Neville Chamberlain? This shows your utterly astounding ignorance. Totally without parallel this week. You win the prize. Fact, Vandenburg and the GOP leaders in 1945 wanted a return to the old American tradition of isolationism. It was The Truman Administration, directed by the greatest man of the 20th Century, George Marshall, who set up NATO, The MArshall plan, fought down communist coups in Greece, Italy and other places, and laid down the basic Cold War plan that Reagan got to reap on his watch. Containing Communism is a term that comes from wait for it... the US LABOR MOVEMENT! The leading force in pushing for aggressive counter moves against Stalin was the AFL CIO. Oh, and later? It was Jimmy Carter who reversed the steady dismantling of the US military that occurred under Gerald Ford. True, many in his party did not like his arms buildup, but THAT was what got the momentum going for Reagan. Gawd what ignorance. public universities This? medical research How much has the NIH budget gone up under Bush? You tell me. And then I'll show you how much has been 'earmarked by the most corrupt and pork-mad Congress in our history. exploring space Who founded NASA? This one's a little weaker. Ike founded NASA, after refusing for 8 years to allow any talk of outer space and getting caught pants down by sputnik. Still, Ike was okay. Human and honest. saving the bald eagle and other endangered species The Endangered Species Act was passed under which President? By whose agenda? Oh, I will admit that Nixon's policies look positively Jesus-like compared to the current brat pack. He proposed universal health care and the overly ambitious dems turned him down. Still, the Goppers in congress fought against the EPA tooth and nail and have, ever since, so drop that one. increasing basic literacy from 15% to 95% and college attendance from 2% to nearly 50% Literacy rates in the US were well over fifty percent before American independence. The Republican Party was founded in 1856. That was a misprint. SHould have been 5o not 15. Though it depends on what you call literacy. By 1870 the GOP had no interest in educating the people they had freed. The GI Bill was passed by a Congress dominated by which party? Democrats. What planet are you on? opposing fascism and defeating Hitler You think the GOP opposed these things? Again, history. Why was foreign policy not an issue in the election of 1940? It was the only way that Republicans could have won - the people were really, really opposed to getting into another European war. 1940 was an abberation. The GOP, in desperation, nominated a truly decent human being, Wendell Wilkie, who became a champion of intervention. Meanwhile, his party was as isolationist as it was in defeating the LEague of Nations. Why wasn't it an issue? It wasn't an issue because the Republicans _agreed_ - they wanted to do something about Hitler as well. Complete ignorance. Complete. Willfull, Total. And at least we're consistent. Republicans still oppose Fascism in Iraq, and were willing to do something about it. After setting up Saddam, breast feeding him, the slapping his wrist and unleashing him on his own people... ...then finally lying like mad to us in order to rush in, instead of having the patience that Clinton and Clark showed in the Balkans, to gradually build up the needed alliance of consensus and do it right, without pissing in the faces of our friends and ruining the western alliance... which we may need any day, since our readiness is now at the lowest level since Pearl Harbor. These are NOT the same complaints as those voiced by Howard Dean. His pusilanimous antiwar position I have no patience for. Saddam had to go. But it is not all or nothing. I can be glad these bozos finally corrected their venial, horrible, treacherous acts of 91... while at the same time despise the way they've done it. promoting democracy overseas antitrust rules to encourage market competition You know, like in Iraq? That doesn't seem to have been a democratic party initiative. Baloney. The GOP has always befriended dictators. Bush Sr. was praising Fidel Marcos weeks before the Phillipino people rose up against him. He praised Saddam for YEARS. Sherman (of the anti-trust act) was a member of which party? I already credited that one to the great Teddy Roosevelt. A man utterly despised by his own party. supporting Israel Clearly, it's the _Democratic Party_, that supports Israel more. It was a Democratic President whom the Israeli government has called one of
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: assigned to an army. Or better yet, that should have been assigned to the IRANIAN army. I'm not so sure that would have been the most successful or wisest choices. Iran is not exactly popular amongst secular Arab leaders, being both Shi'a AND fundie Islamic government. I am willing to admnit that this idea has flaws and dangers. I would have limited their involvement to the Shia south and then used that invasion as leverage to get sunni generals to rebel. In any event, it should have been DISCUSSED, if for no other reason than the simple fact that Saddam, the enemy, would have one worst nightmare -- a restoration of the old US Iran friendship. A restoration that should be possible, with the Iranian polity teetering on knife edge. We only do the mullahs a FAVOR with 'axis of evil crap. Instead of sumo, a jiu jitsu APOLOGY -- for having toppled Mossadegh and helped the shah -- might do the trick! It is all (officially) they have been asking for since 1979. If rice were a Kissinger, she'd have packed her boss onto a plane to Tehran. And we'd have toppled THREE enemies at a stroke. 1 - the Iranian mullahs would have been out on their ears. A million Iranian expatriates would be pouring in with western ideas. 2 - Saddam would go next. 3 - The Saudi sheiks would piss in pants. We could tell them so far - because you are rich and play golf with our aristos - we have let you have BOTH homes in LAs Vegas and Jihad against out civilization. What a deal! But now you have to choose between the two. And THAT is the reason Condi Rice never packed W off to Tehran. For the same reason his dad stopped short of Basra. Orders from frat brothers in Riyadh. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More News you Wont see on the Front Page or CNN
http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/001069.html#001069 Did you know that a Middle Easterner residing in South Africa has been picked up on federal charges of conspiring to send 200 American-made nuclear weapons detonators to Pakistan? Probably not. It was easy to miss, just a three-paragraph item on page 12 of yesterday’s New York Times, tucked away as an after-thought at the bottom of a much longer story about an atom scientist in Pakistan. One would presume that the suspect, Asher Karni, would be currently awaiting trial in one of John Ashcroft’s undisclosed holding pens while undergoing “intensive interrogation,” but one would presume wrongly. Karni is not a Pakistani or a Moroccan or an American-born Yemeni from Buffalo. He is an Israeli citizen, and he is free on bail at a rabbi’s home in Silver Spring, Maryland. Not to worry, though. The judge ordered him to wear a monitoring device. For a few more details on the case, very few, see this old Reuters story out of Denver. Karni was arrested there on New Year’s day. Surely you remember all the media hullaballoo about it at the time? Me neither. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:48:30 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Return of the King Review Re: my mini review Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:04:51 -0600 The young think they know everything and are uninhibited in expressing that. Generalizing is a bad thing Robert. For me personally, I acknowledge my shortcomings, as well as my own merits. Which is admirable, but you won't totally get it until you're a little older. Unless you're *really* exceptional. I was a fair bit like you seem to be, when I was 20 or 21, and I acknowledge now that I didn't have as much of a handle on it as I do now. Perhaps you are right Julia. And if you are, then I guess I won't understand until I grow up. lol Your merits, as I see them from your posts so far, are laudable. Your shortcomings as they come through in your posts will probably be reduced noticeably in 5 years. Thank you. I do try. Older people are much the same, but experience gives one reason to have doubts that The Facts are set in stone. To me, they seem to be set in silly putty and are waiting for a new days paradigm. I know what you mean, though perhaps in a more shallow frame of reference. I can draw those parallels to myself, from the time I was in high-school up until now. I also realize the deep water is yet to come; or so I'm told. Extrapolate high school-to-now by a doubling, at least, and that's what you can look forward to when you reach the ripe age of 30 or so. At least, this was *my* experience. :) Julia Only time will tell. In closing though, let me just say that I have always had a knack of seeing situations from many angles. The ability to see the world through a childs, adults, seniors or a dead mans eyes has been a gift of mine for quite some time. Even the eyes of an animallol. Perhaps you may one day read that story. Of course I may just be delusional, but I tend to believe in myself at least a little. -Travis thanks for the kind words Edmunds _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Left Vs Right Handedness
From: The Fool [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ever notice how girls Vs boy carry books in school? Girls always carry books close on their breast (like carrying a baby), and boys carry books on their hips. Does that mean that men carry babies on their hips? grin - jmh Obligatory second line. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Stephan King Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:15 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Stephan King First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more subtle ways herself. Knowing as we do that Rice does not work from outlines when writing, and at the onset does not know in any more than the vaguest of ways how the book will progress or end, the matter of Quinns sexuality underwent drastic shifts that were quite pointless, illuminated nothing, and did not progress the story. I don't think it changed at all. Seeing as how Quinn is an Anne Rice character, existing in Anne's Vampire/Mayfair Universe, his sexuality is so open as to be comparable to not have a sexual orientation in the first place. Moreover, it was certainly not pointless for Quinn to explore his sexuality. It was quite simply an element of the character being human. First Quinn is shown to be a stereotypical pantywaist of the type usually accused of being queer (whether it is true or not). At this point the reader is led to believe that Quinn is as gay as most of Rice's Vampires. Up to this point Quinn shows exactly zero interest in women. Then Quinn has a homosexual experience with Goblin, who is male and a ghost. This seems to confirm the readers initial expectations as does a scene where Quinn loudly proclaims himself to be gay. Then Quinn professes great admiration for a male teacher who thinks Quinn is into him, but says he really is not interested in that kind of relationship with this particular person. Then in somewhat quick succession, Quinn Has sex with and fathers a child by a black servant he has known his whole life, has rapturous sex with a devious female ghost who was a prostitute in life, and then falls instantly in love with mad abandon for a witch who also happens to be heir to a massive fortune. There is a point in the book where Quinns sexuality shifts from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. And the only time Quinn is described as bisexual is during the heterosexual part of the story. Exclusively heterosexual. I think not. By one's own extrapolation, it's easy to imigane Quinn (pre vampire) having sex with just about anyone. It's simply a sexed up book, as are all of her books set in this Universe, and sexuality really has no bounds within it. I think that initially Rice intended for Quinn to fall in love with Lestat de Lioncourt (doesn't everyone?), but changed horses in midstream. But doesn't he fall in love with Lestat anyway? But you see one must understand, that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires for example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is complete, they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain a strong male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps more accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and immortal alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with. It's just her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity, if anything, is actually quite clearcut. More so than may of her characters. Yes, that is all true. And yet that is why she has become almost a parody of herself. I do not understand that last statement. Especially since the basis for your argument was firmly planted in your belief that Quinns sexual identity was fumbled. xponent I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru rob lol Forgive me for saying so, but that's just.different. -Travis different yet funny Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Damon Agretto wrote: ... Korea. When the US government has to start tapping guard assets in order to relieve regular army units, then I think we have a manpower problem. I've stated before that we DO need more troops, and I opposed the deep cuts the Clinton administration forced on the Armed Forces from the beginning. Simply put, the Clinton administration cut so deep that the Army of today is unable to fulfil the objective the Clinton administration set for it: to deal with two crises at once. My own cynical theory is that they want to put the guard to work in order to get more out of the poor saps who enlisted in it thinking they wouldn't be sent overseas. In the long run, I imagine that this will be a strong disincentive to joining the National Guard. In fact it has the gaurd is now desperate. The gaurd is ment to protect the our nation while the regular army is away. It may not be completely fair to call the Occupation of Iraq a crisis, since it was brought on by America's own actions. It recalls that old quote: Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part. But yes, the US military has a manpower problem. I think it comes down to a question of economics. There are many who would williningly join the gaurd if it would not backrupt them. The Army is getting fewer and fewer intelegent volunteres. Why? becouse those people can make much more money doing somehting else. Not only that, but the guy (gal) who would join the gaurd while working and give 1 month a year to public service (and ern a tiny bit extra) now is looking at erning 1 or 2 orders of magnitude less, and being away from his family for who knows how long. We use to get fresh recruits strait out of highschool. It was atractive becouse it was an opertunity to move up in the world. Now it is an opertunity to move down. More and more people are able to go to college without the gaurd. The gaurd was never a ticket anyway, only assistence. To get new reqruits, the Army needs money (IMO) so they can offer full tuition, a decent salary, support for families left behind during deployment. Better rotations (6 month), more training centers so solders can go home at night to be with their families. You can't ask someone to volunteer when it means selling their home, having their family move in with parents, being gone indefinatly, and haveing to start from nothing when it's all over...if it is ever over. You want good volunteers, you have to give them something for it. Does the average american care about the plight of Iraqi's? ...I am sorry to say, I don't think so. As long as they are not crashing our planes into our buildings, we don't care. The average american would prefer that we just round up all the middle easterners and send them back ,and never let any more in, and be done with it. And if they do gain WMDs then Nuke them. (not my opinion mind you!!!, but when that is the consensous, you really can't ask people to commit to the military life when there are more lucritive options.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wait a minute, I LIKE economic solutions to social problems. Properly done, emissions trading would help to make the market more responsive to environmental costs. (Improperly done, it could be an easy way to weaken environmental laws. But you can't really blame that on the idea itself.) No, it allows one company to destroy the environemnt and or the lives of those near it. Do you think that the max emmisions will actualy be any differnt than simply having no laws at all. Even if they are, it won't be but 5 or 10 years before they alter one little feature and allow companies that could never polute becouse of the market they are in, to sell their quota to companies who do. It's a shell game and you know it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Conseptual lines - Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fool, let me suggest something. Learn a tiny little bit about a topic before you make comments like this. Because the world faced fascism once, and we want to prevent it from ever happening again. Yes, 6 million dead Jews is definitely the same thing as Retirement Savings Accounts. Do you have any idea how stupid and offensive that sort of comparison is? Sorry your crossing conceptual lines!again. Facism and Raceism are two completly seperate things. Your comparison is the one that seems stupid, and actual quite offensive. You have associated facism with racism. It would be equaly valid to make the same accociation of German Nationality and Genocide. As long as you insist on bluring your conceptiual lines, I, and many others I am sure, have trouble taking anything you say seriously. And once again, I do know who you are, what your credentials are, and that proves nothing to me, but that you are fully aware of what you are doing. This conceptual bluring is my bigest pet peve and I will not let it stand when I see it. It's not really personal,,, except that you keep doing it, and I keep pointing it out. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Stephan King
yeah i ahve to agree with Travis on this one, Anne Rice does tend to have very... Racey scenes, however they tend to have no real bearing on the sexual identy of any one characterthat being said, it is important as a venue to prove to the lesser of the Rice inclinded reader, that the love is so profound that they would share that in a ver intimant way. The sharing of blood between Vamp's is such a medium. - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 5:54 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Stephan King Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:52:15 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:16 AM Subject: Re: Stephan King First of all, Quinn is blatantly bisexual. He says so in the book a couple of times, and Anne tells us in more subtle ways herself. Knowing as we do that Rice does not work from outlines when writing, and at the onset does not know in any more than the vaguest of ways how the book will progress or end, the matter of Quinns sexuality underwent drastic shifts that were quite pointless, illuminated nothing, and did not progress the story. I don't think it changed at all. Seeing as how Quinn is an Anne Rice character, existing in Anne's Vampire/Mayfair Universe, his sexuality is so open as to be comparable to not have a sexual orientation in the first place. Moreover, it was certainly not pointless for Quinn to explore his sexuality. It was quite simply an element of the character being human. First Quinn is shown to be a stereotypical pantywaist of the type usually accused of being queer (whether it is true or not). At this point the reader is led to believe that Quinn is as gay as most of Rice's Vampires. Up to this point Quinn shows exactly zero interest in women. Then Quinn has a homosexual experience with Goblin, who is male and a ghost. This seems to confirm the readers initial expectations as does a scene where Quinn loudly proclaims himself to be gay. Then Quinn professes great admiration for a male teacher who thinks Quinn is into him, but says he really is not interested in that kind of relationship with this particular person. Then in somewhat quick succession, Quinn Has sex with and fathers a child by a black servant he has known his whole life, has rapturous sex with a devious female ghost who was a prostitute in life, and then falls instantly in love with mad abandon for a witch who also happens to be heir to a massive fortune. There is a point in the book where Quinns sexuality shifts from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. And the only time Quinn is described as bisexual is during the heterosexual part of the story. Exclusively heterosexual. I think not. By one's own extrapolation, it's easy to imigane Quinn (pre vampire) having sex with just about anyone. It's simply a sexed up book, as are all of her books set in this Universe, and sexuality really has no bounds within it. I think that initially Rice intended for Quinn to fall in love with Lestat de Lioncourt (doesn't everyone?), but changed horses in midstream. But doesn't he fall in love with Lestat anyway? But you see one must understand, that in Rice's Universe sexuality is everything. Take the Vampires for example. Once the transformation from a human to an immortal is complete, they no longer have the use of their sexual organs. Yet they retain a strong male or female identity. BUT, at the same time this identity is not overshadowed so much as it is blended in with asexual, or perhaps more accurately, bisexual behavior. Nearly every character, mortal and immortal alike, has absolutely no inhibitions as to who they have sex with. It's just her style of writing. And in the case of Quinn, his sexual identity, if anything, is actually quite clearcut. More so than may of her characters. Yes, that is all true. And yet that is why she has become almost a parody of herself. I do not understand that last statement. Especially since the basis for your argument was firmly planted in your belief that Quinns sexual identity was fumbled. xponent I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru rob lol Forgive me for saying so, but that's just.different. -Travis different yet funny Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___
Re: Brin: best SF e-zine?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lalith Vipulananthan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: That web site as you probably can tell is the web presence of the Sci- Fi channel, and Sci-Fi Mag. I don't know what your deffinition of mainline SF magazines is, but I would think that this particulare one, while not what I would consider to be mainline, it's kind of in the oposite direction on that axis from the direction your request seemd to imply you were requesting. Actually it isn't. It is the address of Scifiction (or SCIFICTION as the editor Ellen Datlow would have it), an independent ezine funded and hosted by The Sci-Fi Channel. I'm unable to decode exactly what you are trying to say in your last sentence but I notice you don't make any alternative suggestions. For me the mainline SF magazines clearly implies Asimovs, Analog, FSF and the like. So let's recap: newer ezine? Check. Hot and with-it? Check. Good fiction with media coverage that brings in a young crowd? Check. Paying market? Check Well it IS Sci-Fi's website. It doesn't matter what way you orgainize the company, or which bucket the dollors go into or whatever. It's Sci-Fi Channel (Full Stop) I was refering to the axis running from grass roots to plastic- corparat-controlled. Underground to comercial. Inteligent Sci-Fi to Sci-Fi for baffons. And if db was looking to go deeper than mainline, to a grass roots kind of op, Sci-Fi channel would be the exact opposit direction. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conceptual lines - Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^ Yipe! WHo made you the conceptual blurring police, Jan? Fact: nearly all fascist regimes used us-vs-them demonization int order to create an imagined need to all unify and work together. That is what fascism MEANS. I would like to point out that award winning Journalist David Neiwart at http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ keeps track of how eliminationism has crept steadily into right-wing rhetoric and actions. He's even a mini-book about it titled: Rush, NewSpeak, and Fascism http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Rush%20Newspeak%20%20Fascism.pdf It comes from the fasci symbol of ancient Rome, adopted by the first fascist, benito mussolini. An axe blade held by a bundle of tightly bound sticks, each one fragile by itself but strong when united in uniform purpose. The symbol is inherently about showing a strong united face to threatening outsiders. Other nations? SUre. But they more often chose Communists and Jews. and other races... enemies within... because by demonizing them you got to not only strengthen the army but the interior ministry and secret police. Which is what the right is now turning toward to the left to a degree. HimmlerCroft and His patriot Act I II. They are cementing their own power, and turning ever more angry, spiteful, and hateful at people who don't hold their dogmatic views. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conceptual lines - Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Which is what the right is now turning toward to the left to a degree. HimmlerCroft and His patriot Act I II. They are cementing their own power, and turning ever more angry, spiteful, and hateful at people who don't hold their dogmatic views. I do not disagree about the malicious/hateful thinking that spews from Fox, Limbaugh, all the Clinto-Bashers etc. Where I part company with most liberals is over the way they ignore the huge amounts of damage they have done to themselves, as described at: http://www.davidbrin.com/progressparadoxarticle.html Gautam and John are right about one thing, the flow of new ideas has slowed to a trickle... though NOT replaced by anything remotely interesting on the other side. Want my idea for a truly radical step? Banish financial secrecy. ALL of it. Starting with the Swiss Banks etc I dealt with in EARTH. I have talked to economists from Caltech to Harvard to London. Nearly all of them agree that secrecy is the prime enemy of an efficient market, vastly more damaging than taxes or regulation. That tanker that foundered and spilled a gazillion barrells of the most toxic kind of oil across spain france? They STILL have not been able to find out who owned it! Nor found the wealth Marcos, Mobutu, or Saddam stole from starving citizens. Those who defend secrecy of ownership are not defending enterprise capitalism, they are defending feudal privilege. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
I'm only addressing health issues right now, as those are the ones I've researched most thoroughly; I have posted to the List numerous (good) studies supporting this/these positions (I have also posted opposing views/studies where knowledge is not certain -- of course, in medicine information is always altering practice, but to the best of my knowledge what I've posted is current). Right now I do not have the time to find prior posts, as I'm supposed to be packing, but I should be able to find them after I've moved. --- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: most snipped No Child Left Behind Faith-Based Initiatives AIDS Fund Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Promotion of Abstinence-Based Education School Vouchers for DC To just use examples of policies promulgated by the current administration. Re: that last sentence: This administration has been on the incorrect side of multiple health issues, the first of which it had to reverse itself from because of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary: Increase allowable arsenic in drinking water [reversed] Relax acceptable lead levels in children's blood Increase allowable air pollution (particulate non-, IIRC) Removed from official health websites the information that condom use reduces transmission of HIV (I believe this have since been restored) Advocating specifically 'prayer to Jesus' as therapy for PMS/menstrual cramps Forbidding saving of the mother's life in favor of the unborn, if the mother's life is at stake (unless they've amended that since last I looked?) As for endangered species (OK, not precisely a health issue, except obliquely - think 'taxol from CA yew trees'): If we are saying that the loss of species in and of itself is inherently bad -- I don't think we know enough about how the world works to say that. -Interior Department Assistant Secretary Craig Manson, appointed by President Bush to position overseeing the Endangered Species Act, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 12, 2003 Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Left Vs Right Handedness
Folks, I think would also partially explain the tendency towards right-handedness, which effects which side of the body a baby would normally be held. Or is it possible that mothers tend to hold babies on the left side because the heartbeat is more easily heard on the left side Cause and effect could be mixed up here... It could be explained *by* the tendency towards right-handedness. Perhaps the majority of right-handed moms put their little bundle of joy on the left to keep their -- forgive me -- more dextrous hand free to tend to their baby and fend off the world. Interesting with the ongoing ... umm ... conversation about left vs. right that this item should appear. As a left-hander myself, I've occasionally bemoaned the fact that dextrous means skillful and deft, while sinister means evil, not just unskillful or awkward. Dave The Southpaw Will Rise Again Land David M. Land[EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Left Vs Right Handedness
The Fool wrote: Women Hold Babies On The Left To Connect To Emotional Half Of the Brain http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001916.html#001916 Results indicate that women cradle on the side of the body that is contralateral to the hemisphere dominant for face and emotion processing and suggest a possible explanation of gender differences in the incidence of cradling. I think would also partially explain the tendency towards right-handedness, which effects which side of the body a baby would normally be held. Ever notice how girls Vs boy carry books in school? Girls always carry books close on their breast (like carrying a baby), and boys carry books on their hips. 1) I cradle a baby on the left more often because I am more right-handed than left-handed, and it leaves my right hand freer for doing other things. I also do better holding the baby on the left and using the right hand to pat the back for burping. 2) My eldest child objected to being held on the right side starting when he was less than 2 weeks old. I don't know what was up with that, exactly. Any subsequent preference in me *might* be traced back to that. As for the book-carrying methods, look at the differences in hips between males and females, and that's a good part of your answer as to why girls don't carry books on their hips. (I tried a few times. It was not comfortable. My preferred carrying technique is to use a backpack.) Women do, however, carry older babies and young children on their hips. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conceptual lines - Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Conceptual lines - Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 15:01:55 -0800 (PST) Those who defend secrecy of ownership are not defending enterprise capitalism, they are defending feudal privilege. I have no intention of jumping into this, but I must say, that is one of the more truthful statements I have yet witnessed, squeezed out of someone in times of debate. I do hope you wouldn't mind if I were to quote you on that score, sir? -Travis _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science Fiction In General
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:59:33 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 5:52 PM Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:31:24 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 6:24 PM Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:24:15 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 10:42 AM Subject: Re: Science Fiction In General I've read every King book as they were published over the last 30 something years. And I chuckle a bit when I read statements like this. Remember Dickens was subject to exactly the same kinds of criticism you make and so were many books that are now considered classics. A nice, if not relevant comparison. Don't tell me however that King is in the same league as Dickens. Sure, why not? A populist writer who reflects his times quite well, but was often lambasted during his life? I think you could make lots of comparisons. A lot of contrasts too, but that is only natural. I speak of his writing ability. Oh? And Dickens is special exacly how? In his time Dickens was not especially respectedexcept by the general public and even then not by all. There were many writers who were thought to be of higher quality than Dickens, after all Dickens was pandering to the public, but the other writers are not as well known today. What about todays standards Robert? Isn't it the general consensus that Dickens is a great writer? And the general consensus is really of what I speak. Because that is the closest we subjective beings can come to objectivity. King, like most of us is a child of the television era, and like many of us, grew up watching horror movies. This is strongly reflected in his writing and the smell of matinee popcorn wafts from every page. Pure gold in words. I really like that. Thanks, I learned how to write while reading Stephen Kings books. G lol I bet. Speaking of writing, do you? (Fiction that is) Some here, would tell that is all that I write. G (Hi Yall!) Actually we had a little group here writing a sequal to Startide Rising ayear or two ago. Whatever happened to that? I am currently stuck in the middle of a story for the [Janelle] mythos that I can't seem to get to progress. (Its about Brin-L in a parralel world more or less, something that Dr Brin himself actually started..quite by accident G) Do you have anything online? I should truly love to read something if it is available. Travis, what I find objectionable in the above paragraph is that you set yourself up as an objective authority or as a party who has access to objective reality. You aren't and you don't. True. Yet the fact remains that he is indeed mediocre in regard to his writing ability. Unfortunately you cannot make objective statements since you enter with preexisting prejudices. This makes the starting point for your argument a position of weakness. Of course I'm unable to be objective also, but knowing this, I only have to expose your arguments. I don't need to make any claims of my own. Ah but I can. Let me draw out a little analogy. You are taught in school that 2 + 2 = 4, and you tell all your friends about it. You are in fact talking about it when along come Travis. Now Travis looks at you and says: That's not right. You're setting yourself up as an objective authority or as a party who has access to objective reality. You aren't and you don't. Oops. There's the mistake Robert. You see 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4, and to say otherwise is an easy avenue in which to base an argument. But an avenue that's flawed because it denies the truth. So you set up a strawman and then destroy it yourself. Who's side are you on anyway? G Of course I'm not the objective king (pun intended), as it's impossible to be 100% objective, as we humans are subject to exist within the confines of our own little minds, thus rendering us subjective. It's all about perspective really; and when you think about it, perspective is all we have. However, once again we, as humans have to collectively agree upon things. Thus creating truth as we know it. Take language for example.
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am willing to admnit that this idea has flaws and dangers. I would have limited their involvement to the Shia south and then used that invasion as leverage to get sunni generals to rebel. The Iranians would have followed your orders so supinely? In any event, it should have been DISCUSSED, if for no other reason than the simple fact that Saddam, the enemy, would have one worst nightmare -- a restoration of the old US Iran friendship. You were sitting in the Situation Room, Dr. Brin? So you know all the options that were discussed? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This shows your utterly astounding ignorance. Totally without parallel this week. You win the prize. Dr. Brin, do you think that impresses anybody? I've been on the list for how long? What do you think people here think of my knowledge of history? You're not stupid, Dr. Brin. You can accuse me of being ignorant all you want, but no one will believe you. I'd be surprised if anyone even believes that you're serious. I mean, really. I'm not even offended. Something this ridiculous isn't worth it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speaking iof bolstering the numbers in the Army, I just saw this on CNN.com today: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/29/sprj.nirq.army.strength/index.html Damon Damon, have you read _Breaking the Phalanx_? This seems to be at least a little inspired by that book, judging by the concluding paragraphs. If you have, what did you think of it? I'm kind of an agnostic on increasing the size of the military. Historically, I think, military reform only happens during times of great stress. Usually that's budget cutbacks (for example, the American military during the budget cutbacks of the 1930s invented amphibious warfare and strategic bombing), but since those aren't too likely, I'm not sure (from an abstract standpoint - obviously the strain on the force is considerable and something we have to take into account) that the pressure from this sort of deployment isn't a little helpful in spurring the pace of reform. The military bureaucracy is so resistant to change (for good reasons - that's a positive, not a normative statement) that something like that might be the only way to force them to accept it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
The Iranians would have followed your orders so supinely? One could have asked that about the unruly Tajiks, Uzbeks etc in the Northern Alliance. The answer? Make it the only logical choice in their own best interesst. And yes, it woulda worked. They had every motive. In any event, it should have been DISCUSSED, if for no other reason than the simple fact that Saddam, the enemy, would have one worst nightmare -- a restoration of the old US Iran friendship. You were sitting in the Situation Room, Dr. Brin? So you know all the options that were discussed? I know a lot more about what was discussed than you might think. Oddly, that's an easy thing to check. What's not easy is to find out more, once an option is under discussion. But what's excluded and dismissed out of hand? Usually easy to tell with a few contacts. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Truly unbelievable. You know... and know very well that my statement had to do with ignorance ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. In order to refute that assertion of mine, you had merely to demonstrate knowledge ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. Instead, you avoid dealing with any aspect ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. And instead sniff in haughty offense. In fact, I regret the language I used. I have not engaged in an email tussle in many months and the habits of disciplined language control needed in this medium are rusty. I apologize for using a sharp tone. Nevertheless, you made assertions that were diametrically opposite to historical fact, demonstrating (very clearly (and though I like you) ignorance ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. --- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This shows your utterly astounding ignorance. Totally without parallel this week. You win the prize. Dr. Brin, do you think that impresses anybody? I've been on the list for how long? What do you think people here think of my knowledge of history? You're not stupid, Dr. Brin. You can accuse me of being ignorant all you want, but no one will believe you. I'd be surprised if anyone even believes that you're serious. I mean, really. I'm not even offended. Something this ridiculous isn't worth it. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Conceptual lines - Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
-- Those who defend secrecy of ownership are not defending enterprise capitalism, they are defending feudal privilege. I have no intention of jumping into this, but I must say, that is one of the more truthful statements I have yet witnessed, squeezed out of someone in times of debate. I do hope you wouldn't mind if I were to quote you on that score, sir? It's all there in both EARTH and The Transparent Society. Let me revise. hose who defend secrecy of ownership are not defending enterprise capitalism, they are defending feudal privilege. If you praise the creativity of open competition, prove it by playing in the open. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Left Vs Right Handedness
On 30 Jan 2004, at 7:54 pm, The Fool wrote: Ever notice how girls Vs boy carry books in school? Girls always carry books close on their breast (like carrying a baby), That's to keep their wabs under control. and boys carry books on their hips. And that's to disguise the inadvertent woody. This is so obvious I'm embarrassed having to explain it to people who are supposed to be grown up :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Our products just aren't engineered for security. - Brian Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development team. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
From: Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] These are NOT the same complaints as those voiced by Howard Dean. His pusilanimous antiwar position I have no patience for. Saddam had to go. But it is not all or nothing. I feel rather the same way about Dean's Iraq position. Would you care to share which Democratic candidate's Iraq position you prefer? -bryon _ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Frat boys? (was Re: Br!n: LotR and Conservatives)
Davd Brin wrote contemptuously of: Frat boys. What's wrong with being a frat boy? Isn't brotherhood, booze and the pursuit of babes what America is all about? :-) Jim Pi Kappa Phi, Beta Alpha #569 Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Saddam's payoll...
Sorry no cut'n'paste here for this one... http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/saddam_oil_vouchers_040129-1.html The most interesting person listed IMHO is George Galloway, a UK Parliament member who was vociferously anti-war and IIRC was the one who urged UK soldiers to refuse to follow the illegal orders or somesuch. I also think other documents have previously been discovered in Baghdad linking him to payoffs from Saddam, which this seems to corroborate. _ Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. http://wine.msn.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] These are NOT the same complaints as those voiced by Howard Dean. His pusilanimous antiwar position I have no patience for. Saddam had to go. But it is not all or nothing. I feel rather the same way about Dean's Iraq position. Would you care to share which Democratic candidate's Iraq position you prefer? With the news media the way it is -- almost completely dominated by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk -- there is no way a democrat can express an opinion like mine without being labeled as a waffler. I like Kerry Clark. Fighters who hated Saddam but preferred a better approach. Clark has administrative experience. Rhodes scholar. Led the most complicated, delicately fragile and ultimately successful military alliance in all of our history to the most satisfying victory we ever had. = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: A Friendly Drink in a Time of War
http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/wi04/berman.htm A Friendly Drink in a Time of War by Paul Berman A friend leaned across a bar and said, You call the war in Iraq an antifascist war. You even call it a left-wing war-a war of liberation. That language of yours! And yet, on the left, not too many people agree with you. Not true! I said. Apart from X, Y, and Z, whose left-wing names you know very well, what do you think of Adam Michnik in Poland? And doesn't Vaclav Havel count for something in your eyes? These are among the heroes of our time. Anyway, who is fighting in Iraq right now? The coalition is led by a Texas right-winger, which is a pity; but, in the second rank, by the prime minister of Britain, who is a socialist, sort of; and, in the third rank, by the president of Poland-a Communist! An ex-Communist, anyway. One Texas right-winger and two Europeans who are more or less on the left. Anyway, these categories, right and left, are disintegrating by the minute. And who do you regard as the leader of the worldwide left? Jacques Chirac?-a conservative, I hate to tell you. My friend persisted. Still, most people don't seem to agree with you. You do have to see that. And why do you suppose that is? That was an aggressive question. And I answered in kind. Why don't people on the left see it my way? Except for the ones who do? I'll give you six reasons. People on the left have been unable to see the antifascist nature of the war because . . . -and my hand hovered over the bar, ready to thump six times, demonstrating the powerful force of my argument. The left doesn't see because - thump!-George W. Bush is an unusually repulsive politician, except to his own followers, and people are blinded by the revulsion they feel. And, in their blindness, they cannot identify the main contours of reality right now. They peer at Iraq and see the smirking face of George W. Bush. They even feel a kind of schadenfreude or satisfaction at his errors and failures. This is a modern, television-age example of what used to be called 'false consciousness.' Thump! The left doesn't see because a lot of otherwise intelligent people have decided, a priori, that all the big problems around the world stem from America. Even the problems that don't. This is an attitude that, sixty years ago, would have prevented those same people from making sense of the fascists of Europe, too. Thump! Another reason: a lot of people suppose that any sort of anticolonial movement must be admirable or, at least, acceptable. Or they think that, at minimum, we shouldn't do more than tut-tut-even in the case of a movement that, like the Baath Party, was founded under a Nazi influence. In 1943, no less! Thump! The left doesn't see because a lot of people, in their good-hearted effort to respect cultural differences, have concluded that Arabs must for inscrutable reasons of their own like to live under grotesque dictatorships and are not really capable of anything else, or won't be ready to do so for another five hundred years, and Arab liberals should be regarded as somehow inauthentic. Which is to say, a lot of people, swept along by their own high-minded principles of cultural tolerance, have ended up clinging to attitudes that can only be regarded as racist against Arabs. The old-fashioned left used to be universalist-used to think that everyone, all over the world, would some day want to live according to the same fundamental values, and ought to be helped to do so. They thought this was especially true for people in reasonably modern societies with universities, industries, and a sophisticated bureaucracy-societies like the one in Iraq. But no more! Today, people say, out of a spirit of egalitarian tolerance: Social democracy for Swedes! Tyranny for Arabs! And this is supposed to be a left-wing attitude? By the way, you don't hear much from the left about the non-Arabs in countries like Iraq, do you? The left, the real left, used to be the champion of minority populations-of people like the Kurds. No more! The left, my friend, has abandoned the values of the left-except for a few of us, of course. Thump! Another reason: A lot of people honestly believe that Israel's problems with the Palestinians represent something more than a miserable dispute over borders and recognition-that Israel's problems represent something huger, a uniquely diabolical aspect of Zionism, which explains the rage and humiliation felt by Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia. Which is to say, a lot of people have succumbed to anti-Semitic fantasies about the cosmic quality of Jewish crime and cannot get their minds to think about anything else. I mean, look at the discussions that go on even among people who call themselves the democratic left, the good left-a relentless harping on the sins of Israel, an obsessive harping, with very little said about the fascist-influenced movements that have
Re: Stephan King
Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru lol Forgive me for saying so, but that's just.different. It makes *me* wonder if we could get Harlan to write a new short story about AM. :) Jim I hope I'm not seeing reference jokes where there aren't any Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Left Vs Right Handedness
William T Goodall wrote: On 30 Jan 2004, at 7:54 pm, The Fool wrote: Ever notice how girls Vs boy carry books in school? Girls always carry books close on their breast (like carrying a baby), That's to keep their wabs under control. That's what a good bra is for. (See my coment about preferring a backpack.) and boys carry books on their hips. And that's to disguise the inadvertent woody. And anyone who had read enough Judy Blume would know that, guy or not. :) This is so obvious I'm embarrassed having to explain it to people who are supposed to be grown up :) :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Left Vs Right Handedness
William T Goodall wrote: This is so obvious I'm embarrassed having to explain it to people who are supposed to be grown up :) Wait, we're supposed to be grownups? Did I miss another memo? :) Jim 36 going on 12 Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Truly unbelievable. You know... and know very well that my statement had to do with ignorance ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. You mean American political history? I have a degree in Government, I probably know something about it. Seriously, Dr. Brin, once you're in a hole, stop digging. I appreciate your apology for the sharp language, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone that I'm ignorant about that particular topic. I won't call you ignorant about physics, Dr. Brin - perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy in my own field of specialization? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
-- There is not a chance that I will let this go. Your claim at credentials is absurd. Again and let me repeat AGAIN you avoid grappling even remotely with the TOPICS about which I claimed you were ignorant. Moreover you PROVED that ignorance by claiming that: - containment of communism was anything other than a driev instigated by democrats and labor unionists - that any large part of the GOP played any role in opposing Japanese imperialism in China - that any large part of the GOP played any role in opposing European fascism or Hitler - that any large part of the GOP played any role in backing the drives for civil rights, gender rights or environmental protection. Instead of actively confronting me with facts, you have armwaved generalities and credentials to the effect that your college degree is in government and you like Condaleeza Rice, therefore her (blithering) policies must be sagacious. As long as we are bandying apologies, let me remind you that YOU started making personal remarks aimed at me before I ever aimed one at you. Moreover, I am the one who has made peace gestures. As I am doing right now by calling you a feisty good fellow, despite being a clueless arguer! ;-) db Truly unbelievable. You know... and know very well that my statement had to do with ignorance ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. You mean American political history? I have a degree in Government, I probably know something about it. Seriously, Dr. Brin, once you're in a hole, stop digging. I appreciate your apology for the sharp language, but I don't think you're going to convince anyone that I'm ignorant about that particular topic. I won't call you ignorant about physics, Dr. Brin - perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy in my own field of specialization? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = . . * Please note. My email address of many years is changing FROM [EMAIL PROTECTED] TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... (Or else use [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover you PROVED that ignorance by claiming that: - containment of communism was anything other than a driev instigated by democrats and labor unionists Actually, I disagreed with you that the GOP actively opposed it. Labor unions were a very important part in the containment of Communism. Some Democrats were as well. Some weren't. Have you heard of Henry Wallace? He was a fairly important Democrat - in fact, he was Franklin Roosevelt's third Vice President. He was so far to the left that his publicly declared choices for Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury were (we now know) paid Soviet agents. There is _no equivalent Republican of equal prominence_. None. Some Democrats were not actively in favor of the containment of Communism. Why do you think Arthur Schlesinger and Daniel Aaron founded Americans for Democratic Action? Why do you think there was a group of people _called_ Scoop Jackson Democrats? Those groups existed because there were plenty of Democrats who _didn't agree_ with them on the importance of fighting the Communists. The proudest stand of the Republican party since the Civil War is that it was consistent pretty much through and through on the Cold War. The Democratic Party leadership (with the sad exception of George McGovern, I guess) was too. But the Party as a whole clearly was not to anything near the same degree. Who's proving their point now, Dr. Brin? What I'm trying to drive home is that every major policy success in American history, with the arguable exception of the abolition of slavery, was at least partly, and often exceptionally, bipartisan. Even most of the early New Deal bills got extensive Republican support. Given the structure of our government this is somewhat inevitable. - that any large part of the GOP played any role in opposing European fascism or Hitler Do you think Wendell Wilkie would have won the nomination if large parts of the party didn't agree with him on an issue that important? There weren't primaries in those days, you know. - that any large part of the GOP played any role in backing the drives for civil rights, gender rights or environmental protection. Dr. Brin, it's you, not me, that needs to offer some evidence. You're making some remarkable claims about my ignorance. On that, btw, I challenge you to find _one_ other person on this list who agrees with you. The statement above is an assertion. It is _not_, in fact, backed by anything more concrete than your opinion. In fact large portions of the GOP did play significant roles in all three. As I've mentioned - and you completely ignored - GOP Senators (and Congressmen, I'm virtually certain) were _more_, not less, likely to support the crucial Civil Rights bills than their Democratic counterparts. Without that support, none of those bills could have passed, period. On its face, your earlier claim that the Republican Party - I don't remember the exact words, something like vehemently opposed - Civil Rights is not true. The same with gender rights or environmental protection. Just because someone disagrees with you on any of those issues doesn't mean that they oppose the issue itself. Instead of actively confronting me with facts, you have armwaved generalities and credentials to the effect that your college degree is in government and you like Condaleeza Rice, therefore her (blithering) policies must be sagacious. I've never met her, actually, although I'd very much like to, of course. Describing someone's policies as blithering when you wave your arms in airy generalities is not particularly persuasive. If I took your proposal about Iran's role in the war to anyone with any foreign policy experience, Dr. Brin, no offense, but they'd laugh. The government of Iran sponsored the Khobar Towers bombing. Do you think they _like us_? Why would the Mullahs, who are hanging on to power by the skin of their teeth, help us in the invasion of Iran, the act by the United States most likely to strengthen the Iranian opposition against them? As long as we are bandying apologies, let me remind you that YOU started making personal remarks aimed at me before I ever aimed one at you. I don't believe that is the case, but will not debate it. Moreover, I am the one who has made peace gestures. As I am doing right now by calling you a feisty good fellow, despite being a clueless arguer! ;-) db I'm sorry that I called your American history very poor, although it does seem to have gotten my point across. I studied American history with Bill Gienapp (may he rest in peace) - he ain't Rush Limbaugh. Would you care to cite a serious historical work that supports your assertion that the Party of Lincoln has contributed little or nothing to American politics? And I don't mean something written by Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky. I am not an historian, but American political history, at least, I have
Re: Frat boys? (was Re: Br!n: LotR and Conservatives)
Jim Sharkey wrote: Davd Brin wrote contemptuously of: Frat boys. What's wrong with being a frat boy? Isn't brotherhood, booze and the pursuit of babes what America is all about? :-) Jim Pi Kappa Phi, Beta Alpha #569 Maru Depends on where you went to school. Having gone to UT, I ended up with a fairly negative view of frat boys. (The alcohol-related deaths might have had something to do with that.) I've heard from people at other schools that not all frats are bad. I'll believe you if you say yours was good. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... - that any large part of the GOP played any role in backing the drives for civil rights, gender rights or environmental protection. Dr. Brin, it's you, not me, that needs to offer some evidence. You're making some remarkable claims about my ignorance. On that, btw, I challenge you to find _one_ other person on this list who agrees with you. You're looking for someone to agree with him that you're ignorant? When I started typing that sentence, I thought you were asking about agreement for your statement above, but if it has to do with ignorance in general, I'm not volunteering. But David isn't claiming general ignorance on your part, it's about specific issues. I don't think it's ignorance. At worst it's spin and at best it is a mischaracterization. The statement above is an assertion. It is _not_, in fact, backed by anything more concrete than your opinion. In fact large portions of the GOP did play significant roles in all three. As I've mentioned - and you completely ignored - GOP Senators (and Congressmen, I'm virtually certain) were _more_, not less, likely to support the crucial Civil Rights bills than their Democratic counterparts. Without that support, none of those bills could have passed, period. That isn't evidence for party support. As a student of government, you probably have good insight into how often any major change take place without *some* support from the opposition? I don't think it's logical to point out some support and equate that with party-wide support. If nothing else, it completely ignores *when* that support arrived. Isn't it human nature -- and political nature -- for opponents to jump on the bandwagon when they foresee the inevitable? Surely there was a point at which it was obvious that, for example, civil rights legislation would pass. At that point, what fool wants to vote against it? And who knows how deep that support really goes? What can you tell us about the pattern of GOP v. democratic support for these changes? David is clearly saying that the dems initiated them. Disputing that assertion, which certainly rings true to me, though I really haven't studied them in any depth, begs the question of when the supporters joined the bandwagon, so to speak. On its face, your earlier claim that the Republican Party - I don't remember the exact words, something like vehemently opposed - Civil Rights is not true. The same with gender rights or environmental protection. Just because someone disagrees with you on any of those issues doesn't mean that they oppose the issue itself. I don't grok that last sentence. Who is the antecedent of you in it? I'm sorry that I called your American history very poor, although it does seem to have gotten my point across. I studied American history with Bill Gienapp (may he rest in peace) - he ain't Rush Limbaugh. Would you care to cite a serious historical work that supports your assertion that the Party of Lincoln has contributed little or nothing to American politics? Hmm, is that what David is saying? Or that it didn't initiate any of the major steps forward, as he defines them? Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Frat boys? (was Re: Br!n: LotR and Conservatives)
Julia Thompson wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: What's wrong with being a frat boy? Having gone to UT, I ended up with a fairly negative view of frat boys. (The alcohol-related deaths might have had something to do with that.) I've heard from people at other schools that not all frats are bad. I'll believe you if you say yours was good. :) Well, like any time you get a group of young guys together, there was good and bad. Our chapter was unique in some ways. A lot of fraternities tend towards a certain homogeneity; our chapter meetings looked like a UN gathering. For example, my two little brothers' parents were both off-the-boat, one from the Philippines, the other from Egypt. Jim Can still recite the Greek alphabet backwards Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
- Have you heard of Henry Wallace? He was a fairly important Democrat - in fact, he was Franklin Roosevelt's third Vice President. He was so far to the left that his publicly declared choices for Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury were (we now know) paid Soviet agents. There is _no equivalent Republican of equal prominence_. None. Um exsqueeze me? If you scan the famed traitors of our lifetime, post Vietnam, the Walker Spy Ring and such, every single one of them... that is EVERY single bastard who betrayed this country by selling vital secrets to our enemies... was a lifelong registered republican. Some Democrats were not actively in favor of the containment of Communism. Why do you think Arthur Schlesinger and Daniel Aaron founded Americans for Democratic Action? Why do you think there was a group of people _called_ Scoop Jackson Democrats? Those groups existed because there were plenty of Democrats who _didn't agree_ with them on the importance of fighting the Communists. None of which changes the central fact an iota. FDR got rid of Wallace and replaced him with Truman for those very reasons. NATO, the MArshall plan and all of that were PUSHED BY DEMOCRATS (for the most part, including the leadership) AND WERE OPPOSED BY THE PRINCIPAL REPUBLICAN LEADERS OF THE DAY. Go ahead and toss out all the exceptions you like. This is a general fact. The proudest stand of the Republican party since the Civil War is that it was consistent pretty much through and through on the Cold War. The Democratic Party leadership (with the sad exception of George McGovern, I guess) was too. But the Party as a whole clearly was not to anything near the same degree. I have no idea what this means, but if you are saying what I think, then you are talking about Ike dragging the GOP into reluctant adherence to the Truman and Marshall doctrines. Who's proving their point now, Dr. Brin? certainly not you, my friend. Again, the whole grand strategy of containing communism was invented out of whole cloth by Truman and Marshall over vociferous GOP opposition. When Truman trounced Dewey, they decided to try a TR style internationalist and Ike save the party. What I'm trying to drive home is that every major policy success in American history, with the arguable exception of the abolition of slavery, was at least partly, and often exceptionally, bipartisan. Even most of the early New Deal bills got extensive Republican support. Given the structure of our government this is somewhat inevitable. A true if utterly bland statement. But the original topic was IDEAS. Big ideas. And while I rant at liberals for their present paucity of new ideas, I will NOT let goppers try to claim that their utterly reactive and idealess, reactionary party is the leader in ideas. Baloney. I said so and proved it. In fact, one reason the dems have so few new programs and ideas these days is that they have been forced by circumstances to be the party standing for balanced budgets. A way no fun! position to be in. Do you think Wendell Wilkie would have won the nomination if large parts of the party didn't agree with him on an issue that important? There weren't primaries in those days, you know. They were desperate. And it is a plain fact that most of the party's leadership hated the idea. - that any large part of the GOP played any role in backing the drives for civil rights, gender rights or environmental protection. Dr. Brin, it's you, not me, that needs to offer some evidence. You're making some remarkable claims about my ignorance. On that, btw, I challenge you to find _one_ other person on this list who agrees with you. I leave that to the list. In simple fact, there's no case to be made. ANyone who thinks that ML King got truly substantial republican support, please raise your hand. Anyone thinks that the EPA under Reagan/Bush/Bush was vigorous at its mission (vs rolling over for polluters? Likewise.) what a laugh. The following is unutterably vague and silly. Go look at the votes for against the civil rights act. WHY DO YOU THINK THE SOUTH HAS TOTALLY REVERSED ITS TRADITION TO BECOME THE BASTION OF REPUBLICANISM? Gawd, how silly. I am getting off this. No point. The statement above is an assertion. It is _not_, in fact, backed by anything more concrete than your opinion. In fact large portions of the GOP did play significant roles in all three. As I've mentioned - and you completely ignored - GOP Senators (and Congressmen, I'm virtually certain) were _more_, not less, likely to support the crucial Civil Rights bills than their Democratic counterparts. Without that support, none of those bills could have passed, period. On its face, your earlier claim that the Republican Party - I don't remember the exact words, something like vehemently opposed - Civil Rights is not true. The same with gender
Re: Stephan King
- Original Message - From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 8:34 PM Subject: Re: Stephan King Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Robert Seeberger I Have No Penis Yet I Still Feel the Yearning to Use One Maru lol Forgive me for saying so, but that's just.different. It makes *me* wonder if we could get Harlan to write a new short story about AM. :) Jim I hope I'm not seeing reference jokes where there aren't any Maru Loose reference to I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream You're on top of things Jim! xponent A Boy And His Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- Davd Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: None of which changes the central fact an iota. FDR got rid of Wallace and replaced him with Truman for those very reasons. NATO, the MArshall plan and all of that were PUSHED BY DEMOCRATS (for the most part, including the leadership) AND WERE OPPOSED BY THE PRINCIPAL REPUBLICAN LEADERS OF THE DAY. Go ahead and toss out all the exceptions you like. This is a general fact. Prove it. I have cited specific people and made specific arguments based on those specific people and their positions. You've made general assertions without a single refernce or grounding. Prove your above statement, or stop calling _me_ ignorant. I have no idea what this means, but if you are saying what I think, then you are talking about Ike dragging the GOP into reluctant adherence to the Truman and Marshall doctrines. Again, prove it. The most important Republican in the country is usually the President when he is a Republican. You seem to be saying - when a Republican does something good, it was against the wishes of his party. But when a Democrat does something good, that's immediate proof about the virtues of Democrats. You have offered no evidence cther than your unsupported opinion - and you're not an historian, Dr. Brin, so that's not good enough, and for a claim like the one you are making, even if you _were_ an historian it wouldn't be good enough. Prove it. certainly not you, my friend. Again, the whole grand strategy of containing communism was invented out of whole cloth by Truman and Marshall over vociferous GOP opposition. When Truman trounced Dewey, they decided to try a TR style internationalist and Ike save the party. Truman _trounced_ Dewey You do know how close the 1948 election was, right? Would you like to provide some evidence that Dewey was an isolationist? A biography of him (he was an exceptionally distinguished public servant - do you know what he was famous for, Dr. Brin, since you're so casual about throwing accusations of ignorance around?) Do you think Wendell Wilkie would have won the nomination if large parts of the party didn't agree with him on an issue that important? There weren't primaries in those days, you know. They were desperate. And it is a plain fact that most of the party's leadership hated the idea. Again, this is an assertion. Give me a name. I've given you one. Wilkie. He was the nominee. You've given nothing other than your statement. Give me some evidence to support something clearly somewhat implausible - that the Party leader's beliefs had no relationship to those of the Party as a whole. In the above you've made at least one obvious unquestionable error of fact, Dr. Brin, about a fairly famous incident in American history (the 1948 election). You've also made a large number of sweeping assertions backed up by no evidence other than your opinion. When confronted on these facts, you've argued that I'm ignorant. Well, I'm supplying facts and evidence, and you're carefully avoiding any and all challenges to do so. I asked you for a cite to back up your opinion - a book, for example, by a serious historian. I didn't get one. Quite obviously you are unable to provide one. I will admit that it was a little unfair of me to ask for one, since I'm pretty sure I know the literature well enough to be certain that no such book existed. But if only the ignorant could disagree with you on this topic, you'd think there would be at least one. Finally, you carefully ignored my larger point on the differing roles of liberals and conservatives in political society. It does weaken your argument a bit, doesn't it? If you were really interested in _discussing_, or _arguing_ about this, not just insulting those who disagree with you, I'd suggest taking a look at _Conservatism as an Ideology_, published in the 1950s and written by Sam Huntington, but just as relevant today as it was then. You might, of course, want to look at the ur-text of modern conservatism as well, _Reflections on the Revolution in France_. Of course, in order to dismiss me as ignorant your knowledge of the field must be pretty complete, so you've read both of those classics and can tell me how I'm misinterpreting them, right? I respect your writing a great deal, Dr. Brin, or I wouldn't have continued with this for this long. But that doesn't give you the right or the credibility to make the claims that you have made, both political and personal. I certainly hope to continue to count you as a friend, so I'm reluctant to push this further, but I feel that I must and ask that you withdraw your comments about my ignorance and suggest that (unless I choose to opine about physics or the proper way to write a science fiction novel) you be a little more cautious about making them in the future. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com
My field is more academic, nyah, nyah, was: Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are probably right, if International Relations qualifies as an academic field. Technically it does, since it is studied at colleges. But it seems too politicized for me to grant it much respect. As someone who just finished applying for PhD programs in the field, I suppose I should take offense at this. But of course it is politicized. It is the study of _politics_. God forbid that we should try to explore the most important questions facing the human race for fear of violating someone's idea of pure academia. O.K., let's try a different tack. How do people in your field decide who is right? How do they test theories? What are their standards of evidence? Feel free to disabuse me of this, but my opinion is that it is mostly a matter of how articulately one argues, and what the existing big names in the field think. Can you point me to papers with clearly testable theories, subjected to objective methods of verification? Also note that being Dean is NOT an academic position, it is administrative. The same goes for Ms. Rice's work as Provost: Not at Nitze. The _current_ Dean of Nitze is Eliot Cohen, one of the best political scientists in the world. Being Dean of Nitze is a very big deal - in the same league of prestige as being head of the But this is my point! It is prestigious to be an administrator, rather than a scholar. This implies to me that the whole field is shallow, so that the only way to recognize quality research is by popular acclaim. In REAL fields of academia, most of the smart people shun administrative work, doing it when necessary as an onerous chore. Here's a test: Can someone who is an outsider to the field have their contributions recognized? I'm thinking of someone like Ramanujan, brilliant but not an academic. (See this link for details: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Ramanujan.html) Or Einstein. If he had worked in International Relations, would he have gotten a job better than the patent office? In my experience, real scholars avoid administrative work like the plague! (I should know, it's my turn to be Chair...) Of? Mathematics, SUNY at New Paltz It's O.K. for awhile, but nothing I'd like for too long. And prestige? What good is that? ---David Hobby Ph.D., UC Berkeley, 1983 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Howard Dean's 'smart ID' plan
I read this article today and I have to say that I was more than a little alarmed that this could have been a serious possibility. I have been part of a rollout team installing and enabling Common Access Card (CAC) readers at the DoD facility that I am contracted to. To say these cards and the overall process is problematic would be a horrible understatement. So far I have found them to be touchy, annoying and very, very unreliable. The theory of using a common ID card sounds great, but the reality is vastly different. For example, this week active directory died agency wide. Email and several critical systems were down for 3 days. If we had been on a strictly Microsoft network with all 2700 CAC's enabled at our facility, there would have been 2700 federal government workers with nothing to do except file papers and count paper clips. My point is this, technology is nowhere near reliable enough to depend on this type of system. Unless the cards are used consistently and the method of authentication and verification are absolutely bulletproof and have 100% availability, then these cards can be defeated and/or faked. Also, it would only take ONE person that could be bought, threatened or convinced to insert bogus/black market certificates for CAC authentication. The interpreter at Guantanamo Bay is a perfect example. From my recent experience with CAC's, I would hate to rely on them for any critical purchase (food, meds, gas, etc) and I would be equally worried if I had to rely on them for identification authentication to stay out of jail or to even use my PC without a way to bypass it - which defeats the purpose. This system would be much like the Aegis cruiser USS Yorktown that was dead in the water in 1998 because Windows NT crashed on board. Howard Dean's 'smart ID' plan excerpt from article Dean also suggested that computer makers such as Apple Computer, Dell, Gateway and Sony should be required to include an ID card reader in PCs--and Americans would have to insert their uniform IDs into the reader before they could log on. One state's smart-card driver's license must be identifiable by another state's card reader, Dean said. It must also be easily commercialized by the private sector and included in all PCs over time--making the Internet safer and more secure. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5147158.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:50 PM 1/29/04, David Hobby wrote: In my experience, real scholars avoid administrative work like the plague! True! (I should know, it's my turn to be Chair...) Is it only coincidence that the position is named after an object which most people sit on and some people put their feet on? Well, back when there were postmen and stewardesses, they used to call it chairman. But now we say chair, to avoid being thought unwitting tools of the Patriarchy. ---David Chairone? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: My field is more academic, nyah, nyah, was: Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
--- David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O.K., let's try a different tack. How do people in your field decide who is right? How do they test theories? What are their standards of evidence? Feel free to disabuse me of this, but my opinion is that it is mostly a matter of how articulately one argues, and what the existing big names in the field think. Can you point me to papers with clearly testable theories, subjected to objective methods of verification? Well, mainly we argue about it. Politics is hard, and math is not the only path to truth. The people who fetishize mathematical analysis are doing a great deal of harm to political science, in my opinion. But take a look at any of the classics in the field - _The Clash of Civilizations_ is a famous modern one. In that one, Sam tested his predictions against a historical case (the situation in Yugoslavia) and made some predictions. Both came off fairly well. Did he convince everyone? No. It's _politics_. Of course it's politicized. That's what we do. Not at Nitze. The _current_ Dean of Nitze is Eliot Cohen, one of the best political scientists in the world. Being Dean of Nitze is a very big deal - in the same league of prestige as being head of the But this is my point! It is prestigious to be an administrator, rather than a scholar. This implies to me that the whole field is shallow, so that the only way to recognize quality research is by popular acclaim. In REAL fields of academia, most of the smart people shun administrative work, doing it when necessary as an onerous chore. No, my point was that to get to _be_ Dean of Nitze you have to have done real academic work of serious impact. Sam Huntington everyone knows. Graham Allison invented the modern theory of institutional decision making in _Essence of Decision_. Here's a test: Can someone who is an outsider to the field have their contributions recognized? I'm thinking of someone like Ramanujan, brilliant but not an academic. (See this link for details: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Ramanujan.html) Or Einstein. If he had worked in International Relations, would he have gotten a job better than the patent office? Well, they could have in the old days. Not now. But that's equally true in the hard sciences. There aren't any Swiss patent clerks out there any more. But Stanley Hoffmann, for example, is a lawyer by academic training - he doesn't have a degree in the field. And there is no one more respected than him. And prestige? What good is that? ---David Hobby Ph.D., UC Berkeley, 1983 Well, I wrote my senior thesis, and will write my PhD dissertation, in answer to that question :-) But what it really is is a shorthand way of saying how respected your work is in the field. I would point out that your arguments are far _more_ applicable to history or English than they are to political science, which at least tries really hard to adopt the standards of the hard sciences (sometimes too hard!). Does your criticism extend to them as well? In other words, are you saying nothing is academic except a science? Or is it just political science that you object to? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: LotR and Conservatives
David Hobby wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:50 PM 1/29/04, David Hobby wrote: In my experience, real scholars avoid administrative work like the plague! True! (I should know, it's my turn to be Chair...) Is it only coincidence that the position is named after an object which most people sit on and some people put their feet on? Well, back when there were postmen and stewardesses, they used to call it chairman. But now we say chair, to avoid being thought unwitting tools of the Patriarchy. ---David Chairone? I've heard chairperson. And what I hear a lot in the circles I'm in is co-chair. As in, two people sharing the responsibility (and the blame) for being ultimately in charge of running a convention. But it amuses me to think of it just being a certain phase-shift away from chair. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: raising the dead in the sims
Alberto Monteiro wrote: My 10-year-old daughter accidentally killed my 4-year-old's character. Is there any way to raise de dead? Alberto Monteiro in panic mode PS: yes, I know the sims is evil and must be eradicated Maybe you can generate a red-headed lesbian witch character to do it. ;-) But seriously, does somebody else have a *real* suggestion? :-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
