Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Gautam Mukunda wrote: In this case, of course, I was pointing out whose side I am on. I'm not on President Bush's side. I'm not on Senator Kerry's side. I'm just on America's side. This is a wonderful sentiment when it is a reminder that even when we disagree, we have a great deal in common. It's not so wonderful when it seems to imply that those who disagree with me are anti-American. Perhaps it will be helpful for each of us to work a bit harder to clarify what we mean when we invoke patriotism -- is it a reminder of a unity that exists, like the fact that a brother and sister are still family in the midst of the most passionate of arguments? Or is it a tearing of clothes and pronouncement that the other is no longer part of the family. Brin has very loudly proclaimed that we're on opposite sides. Well, okay. I know whose side I'm on, though. If he said this, and your response was "I'm on America's side," it's easy for me to hear that as implying that David is not on America's side. Is that what you meant? He uses abusive language and arm-waving to cover the fact that every time someone challenges him, they demonstrate that he traffics in inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and paranoia. In my experience, generalizations, especially about misbehavior -- from any partisan -- do a lot of damage communities and friendship. I used to always generalize. I'm getting better. (Yes, there was a deliberate bit of humor in that -- I'm always doing that, too, but I'm never serious.) I'm beginning to think that we are entering a period of cultural chaos in which we will struggle mightily with how to deal with the sudden availability of millions of points of view, from which likely will emerge greatness... quite likely accompanied by a dramatic erosion of power from longstanding institutions. Our community's list dramas may reflect this a bit, I suspect. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the monsters
--- David Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To call it "rational argument" when you deliberately > tell falsehoods about other peoples' views. Then > use > a DOZEN sophistries in just forty words You know, Dr. Brin, I challenged you on that ludicrous statement, and you didn't back it up. It's pretty obvious that you can't. Do you think I wouldn't even notice? I await your standard response with bated breath. Will I be deranged or stupid this time? Maybe you'll be more creative in your insults? That would be refreshing, at least. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Baseball
Jim Sharkey wrote: > > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >if *the Sox* win I get to be a participant in the largest single > >party in human history > > No question. But I wonder, what will it do to the Boston psyche to > no longer have that put-upon, "woe is me I'm a Sawks fan" thing? That's a very good question. This is why I'm trying to get in as much whining between now and Wednesday night as possible. ;) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fusion of two threads
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-armstrong22oct22,0,4506268.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions or http://tinyurl.com/67asv This column reminded me of two different topics that we're enjoying some lively discussion on. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The first two sentences above really set me off. And > I can only hope > that you can understand why. Actually, after everything I've heard on this list, I have no sympathy whatsoever, Rob, and I really don't appreciate having you compare me to racists. You want a fighting mood? You'll get one and more fast if you ever, ever, ever think you can get away with doing that again. In this case, of course, I was pointing out whose side I am on. I'm not on President Bush's side. I'm not on Senator Kerry's side. I'm just on America's side. Brin has very loudly proclaimed that we're on opposite sides. Well, okay. I know whose side I'm on, though. He uses abusive language and arm-waving to cover the fact that every time someone challenges him, they demonstrate that he traffics in inaccuracies, conspiracy theories, and paranoia. But if we're on opposite sides (as he said - not me.) I've never claimed to be on the opposite side from him, not once. So in our particular dyad, only one has accused the other of cowardice (him). Only one has insulted the other's intelligence (him). And only one has proclaimed that people who disagree with him are bribed or blackmailed by foreign powers (him). Only one has ranted about NASCAR and the Confederacy (him). And you think _I'm_ questioning people's patriotism? That's bullshit. Like I said, it's just gaming the refs, trying to intimidate people into shutting up for fear that they'll be accused. If you accuse the other guy of being unfair loudly enough and often enough, people might not notice what's actually going on, I guess. > I want everyone to know that *that* is unfair to > Gautam. But I think > too that there has been a whole hell of a lot of > this circulating > onlist lately and I ascribe it to some willfull > misunderstanding of > the words of others.me included. Well, fine, now that you've said it you take it back. I accept that. But if you really want to take the stand of someone trying to make peace, it would help if every once in a while you looked at the discussion and said, hmm, maybe I could criticize both sides once in a while. I'm not even asking that you be evenhanded. I'm just saying that every once in a while it might be nice to see our most prominent member reigned in by someone other than me when he decides to abuse people. > Some of his crew are people I just dislike because > of their politics. > (Neocons) Just out of curiosity, which part of being a neocon don't you like? Is it the part about believing in spreading democracy around the world? Because that is, in fact, the only major difference between neocons and traditional conservatives. For a lot of people their particular objection to neocons is that they're Jewish. I somehow doubt that's your problem with them. But other than Brin's fevered and ignorant rants, what do you know about neocons that makes you object to them? For that matter, why do you think they have much power? The most important neocon in the government is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Can you even name a single Clinton-era Deputy SecDef? Can you name a _single_ DepSecDef other than Wolfowitz? I can't. If Paul Wolfowitz's name was Paul Smith, I doubt anyone would know who he is. > But what does it matter to you what I think about > such things? > Does that prevent us from being friends? > I'd like to think not. > I'd like to think that we could vehemently disagree > about certain > political realities and other political beliefs, and > then have a good > time drinking some brews and watching the Sox whup > up on the Cards > with any acrimony set aside for the next political > round or even > disposed of altogether. I would hope so, but I don't know anymore. I have posted on more than one occasion on this list on the importance of not taking politics personally. I don't appreciate being insulted by Dr. Brin, but I don't take him seriously any more, and I'm not likely to be very offended by someone I don't respect. I do _not_ like having other people whom I do respect pile on behind the disguise of some sort of even-handedness. I would hope that we could sit around and talk about the Sox. I don't know that anymore, though, because that would have involved different actions in the past. Remember what I said when Brin was going after John - that friends stick up for each other? Well, piling on when Brin is on one of his idiot temper tantrums, instead of (at least) sitting out or (better) acting like a restraining influence, that would have been the action of a friend. This was just a cheap shot, misconstruing a pretty clear statement on my part in order to make that old claim about patriotism. So how am I supposed to interpret that? I don't think that was a friendly act at all. Your explanation in the post I'm replying to helped a bit, I guess, but it seems to me that the very bare minimum that I'm suggesting isn't much to ask
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
> and claiming that the other side is composed of > evil, traitorous monsters? > > Just wondering... No, just lying. I have ample proof that this is a slander, if by "other side" you mean "conservatives" or "conservative-leaving voters" or Republicans or libertarians. If what is meant is the trinity of kleptocrats, apocalypts and neocon maniacs... well then, yes, I consider the first bunch criminal, the middle bunch fanatically retro and the last bunch out of their cotton pickin' minds. But none of them are traitors. If you actually listen to my actual statements. the only ones I am accusing of treason are the team George W Bush has gathered around him. And the facts speak for themselves. The only way our readiness and reserves could be allowed to evaporate in dangerous times is treason. The only way we would have sent our best units to become snared in an attrition land war in Asia, following the exact prescription of Vietnam, is treason. The only way we would be doing the exact bidding of a hostile foreign power, weakiening this great nation, bankrupting it, dividing it, corrupting its elections and institutions and recuiting a million new Jihadists per month is... is treason. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
William T Goodall wrote: > > On 25 Oct 2004, at 8:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > At 24-10-04 17:04, Gautam wrote: > > > >> No. That seems to me the belief of some of the > >> European left which - asked to choose between Islamic > >> terroism and the US - seems to kind of prefer the > >> terrorists. > > > > That's a rather bald statement to make. On what material do you base > > your accusation that a good part of the European public supports > > Islamic terrorism? > > > > There's a joke about bald and Merkins in there somewhere that I'm not > going to try for. And I appreciate your forbearance. Thank you. Julia and you didn't even suggest throwing in any eagles ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Republicans
At 07:53 PM 10/25/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: >The unbelievable sanctimony of claiming that one >"side" favors motherhood and apple pie... and claiming that the other side is composed of evil, traitorous monsters? Just wondering... >By the way, look at: >http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041025/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_ election_1 > >Judge a man by the company he keeps. As usual, world opinion only seems to matter when it agrees with you. JDG - "Sanctimony", Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the monsters
--- Robert your sentiments are generous. But the objectionable parts of the following are not only the first part: > "As for the opposite side...I am on the side of the > United States of America. If you choose to be on > the > opposite side from me, that's your choice. I can > say > that at least I'm on the side that tolerates > disagreement, is able to talk with people without > insulting them, and is interested in rational > argument. So I'm pretty comfortable with that side. > If you want to join us, it's always open." The unbelievable sanctimony of claiming that one "side" favors motherhood and apple pie... oops I mean rational argument... while the other does not. It is typical. "Wrap me in the flag boys and goll dang anyone who's a'gin us!" To call it "rational argument" when you deliberately tell falsehoods about other peoples' views. Then use a DOZEN sophistries in just forty words You are right, Robert. Enough. I am starting to see light at the end of this tunnel. Kerry's plurality will have to be much larger than Gore's was, to get past the incredible, organized campaign of election cheating that's underway, unlike anything that any of us have seen in all of our lives. But I am starting to believe it will happen. We're going to take back civilization. By the way, look at: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041025/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_election_1 Judge a man by the company he keeps. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Baseball
--- Jim Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >if *the Sox* win I get to be a participant in the > largest single > >party in human history > > No question. But I wonder, what will it do to the > Boston psyche to no longer have that put-upon, "woe > is me I'm a Sawks fan" thing? > > Jim I don't know, but I'd really like to find out... = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Saudis
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> I figure we are several years past the point where >> you began to >> believe such things about me. But I deny that you >> are an iota more >> patriotic than any other person on this list. >> >> xponent > > Well so do I, so this is exactly what I mean. I've > never done that. I have said that I'm far less likely > to claim that people disagree with me because they are > stupid or evil, but that's not patriotism. Decency, > perhaps. You've immediately proven my point. What I am reacting to is this: "As for the opposite side...I am on the side of the United States of America. If you choose to be on the opposite side from me, that's your choice. I can say that at least I'm on the side that tolerates disagreement, is able to talk with people without insulting them, and is interested in rational argument. So I'm pretty comfortable with that side. If you want to join us, it's always open." The first two sentences above really set me off. And I can only hope that you can understand why. I've heard those words before, usually in conjunction with some rhetoric regarding the proper place for niggers and spics or how America is so perfect that no criticism need be spoken unless one wants to mark oneself as unpatriotic. I don't hear quite so much of this these days, but having been exposed to such for most of my life and having been aware of how nasty such attitudes are for at least 35 years, hearing the echo is enough to raise my hackles and set me to a fighting mood. I want everyone to know that *that* is unfair to Gautam. But I think too that there has been a whole hell of a lot of this circulating onlist lately and I ascribe it to some willfull misunderstanding of the words of others.me included. When a /suggestion/ becomes an /accusation/, someone is grinding an axe. > It's > mommy, mommy again. Well, that's pretty pathetic, but > it's nothing more than A-Rod trying to persuade the > refs he didn't purposely knock the ball out of > Arroyo's hand. It's not true, you know it's not true, > and _I_ know it's not true. It's just a convenient > argument you can use to try to stop anyone from > disagreeing with you. After all, if the people you > disagree with are _evil_, then there's no tactic > that's not allowed. So why not make claims that are > absurd on their face. You might just get away with > them, and besides, you're the good guys, right? > > I'm done here. Nice rant! But I also do not appreciate words I never said being attributed to me. I wouldn't normally describe Bushco as evil. I think that many of *Them* are liars. In some cases outright, in others that they withold the truth (in an attempt to decieve) or intentionally mislead. I think Bush himself would likely spent some time in prison if his Dad had not been VP and then President. Some of his crew are people I just dislike because of their politics. (Neocons) But what does it matter to you what I think about such things? Does that prevent us from being friends? I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that we could vehemently disagree about certain political realities and other political beliefs, and then have a good time drinking some brews and watching the Sox whup up on the Cards with any acrimony set aside for the next political round or even disposed of altogether. ** I absolutely think that it is a human and a spiritual triumph that people with radically different outlooks and dispositions look to each other and say "We are Americans" [Terrans] [Humans] [Minds] and mean it. It is a triumph because it is so very very f*cking hard to do, every day, and mean it, and live it. We often fall down. I do. And I'm sorry when I do. But I believe. And I stand again. And I'll stand with you when you will have me. And I'll stand and wait when you won't. But I don't want to divide the house. We are all so very different, but have so much in common. Seeing that is the difficulty. ** xponent I Stand Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
Dan Minette wrote: I think the uncertainty is in how something can be better than the best. My best -- at some things -- keeps getting better. Progress, not perfection! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
On Oct 25, 2004, at 5:29 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Do you have a different definition of good/better/best than Webster's? I don't think so. If I might hazard a guess, perhaps you are wondering if I am somehow excusing people from responsibility for their actions by assming that they are doing their best...? Nick I think the uncertainty is in how something can be better than the best. Allow me to hazard a guess that "... their best" might refer to "the best that they can do at this time." or "their best, given the light that they have." OK, it's not a guess: I am aware of a spiritual discipline of which the practice of "assuming that people are doing their best" is a part. The idea is not to excuse bad behavior or allow oneself to be abused, but to hold in one's head the idea that the spectacular failure before you may represent the best that the other has to offer right now. It has more to do with detachment and having good boundaries than with excusing bad behavior. It's the "judge not" part of a famous aphorism, where "judge" is understood to mean "condemn," not "discern." Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Baseball
Gautam Mukunda wrote: >if *the Sox* win I get to be a participant in the largest single >party in human history No question. But I wonder, what will it do to the Boston psyche to no longer have that put-upon, "woe is me I'm a Sawks fan" thing? Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:50 PM Subject: Re: From the Guardian > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > Do you have a different definition of good/better/best than Webster's? > > I don't think so. > > If I might hazard a guess, perhaps you are wondering if I am somehow > excusing people from responsibility for their actions by assming that > they are doing their best...? > > Nick I think the uncertainty is in how something can be better than the best. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
Erik Reuter wrote: Do you have a different definition of good/better/best than Webster's? I don't think so. If I might hazard a guess, perhaps you are wondering if I am somehow excusing people from responsibility for their actions by assming that they are doing their best...? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Brin: Iraq & other calamities
My favorite Bush admin comment of the day, defending against the disappearance of 380 tons of explosives http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/international/middleeast/25bomb.html: "There is no indication that it has fallen into the wrong hands." Unbelievable. My friend Joe Carroll ponders - "One reason (besides blind loyalty) that Bush & Rove may have hung onto Rumsfeld after Abu Graib and other embarrassments is that they thought he might still be good for catching a few more arrows that might otherwise find their way to a higher target. If this one is a bit of a surprise, then the interesting question is what other arrows, more serious than torture of prisoners, might he be expected to catch before he is relieved of duty?" I love that phrase. Arrow catching. My answer? Bush "accepts responsibility" as a verbal brag, never once actually TAKING responsibility in the sense of accepting actual consequences for ill-conceived or bad actions. He sees no reason ever to fire or rebuke a fraternity brother, and will never drop Rumsfeld, for that reason. (Pat Buchanan's hopes aside.) Likewise, please note one more thing that goes unmentioned. VP Cheney never put his assets in a blind trust, as all rich public officials are supposed to do. He is under a deferred compensation contract with Halliburton AS WE SPEAK! Under conditions of intolerable corruption that would have sent neocons howling - had there been even a whiff of such under Clinton. I repeat. Dick Cheney has a current and ongoing deferred compensation arrangement with Halliburton... and I hear with several oil companies, too (though I must track confirmation of those.) Companies with govt contracts massing TENS of billions of dollars have their own personal agent in the White House... and still excuses will be made. When Bush entered office, hundreds of lawyers went sniffing through Executive Dept file cabinets promising so many indictments of Clinton Era officials that every lamp post in town would be used to hang em. Instead, for the first time (to my knowledge) an 8 year administration appears to have ended with ZERO indictments in its aftermath. Not even one measly indictment to show for all that work and enthusiasm. (How frustrating for the poor darlings.) In contrast, the aftermath of this administration is guaranteed to result in scores of indictments, some of them already in the flow, because they were so blatant even THIS Justice Dept could not sweep them under the rug! And so, what happens when the march of democracy results in a "regime change" in Washington? The tsunami of criminal cases that is sure to follow, when the lid comes off, actually worries me. There will be so many that it may look like a witch hunt, when in fact it will simply be the normal course of impartial justice collaring outrageous law-breakers. SO many that the new administration may have to squelch some, for appearance sake. Watergate laid the seeds for the emotional vendettas against Clinton. Likewise, the totally justified prosecution of outrageous corruption in this administration is sure to stoke bile for yet another wave of neocon vengeance later. A wretched cycle. But what can we do? Watergate WAS against the law. And these current jerks ARE corrupt. The cycle sickens me but it is not our fault. THEY can stop it by the simple means of sending us decent conservatives, not insatiable klepto-thieves and fighters in a "culture war". It is possible. Barry Goldwater. George Will. Our Guv Ah-nold. Jesse Ventura. Bob Dole. There's a huge spectrum of honest conservatives out there. Instead of kleptomonsters. I do NOT believe that democrats are intrinsically more honest. Though history seems to show that it is so. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
On 25 Oct 2004, at 8:34 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 24-10-04 17:04, Gautam wrote: No. That seems to me the belief of some of the European left which - asked to choose between Islamic terroism and the US - seems to kind of prefer the terrorists. That's a rather bald statement to make. On what material do you base your accusation that a good part of the European public supports Islamic terrorism? There's a joke about bald and Merkins in there somewhere that I'm not going to try for. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 197, Issue 6
Dan Minette wrote: > > Here's some US budget numbers > for % changes over 4 year > intervals...corresponding > to presidential terms: > > YearIncome Expense > change change > (...) > 1988 4.6% -4.1% > 1992-3.3%4.2% > 1996 8.0% -8.1% > 200010.6% -9.4% > 2004 -24.9%0.1 > > The income change over the > last 4 years stands out. > Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > Did you consider the tribute that Saudi Arabia and > Kuwait were paying after the 1st Gulf War? That > could easily justify this difference. > Not necessarily. I would assume any payments by foreign govt's would be included in the "income" column. That column does not state "tax revenue", after all. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
At 24-10-04 17:04, Gautam wrote: No. That seems to me the belief of some of the European left which - asked to choose between Islamic terroism and the US - seems to kind of prefer the terrorists. That's a rather bald statement to make. On what material do you base your accusation that a good part of the European public supports Islamic terrorism? In my experience, the European are far more supportive of the US than you'd think, despite their criticism. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 197, Issue 2
> > d.brin wrote: > The one MUST READ for the > weekend is Ron Suskind's piece on Dubya in > the New York Times Magazine, "Without A Doubt". > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html? > Does anyone have this article downloaded? NY Times doesn't want me to be able to read it without paying money. I don't care about seeing any "copyrighted images", which they seem to want to protect. Thanks, -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Yay Alberto!
> > The Alcantara Base should give Brazil a strong advantage over > competitors. > > Only 2.3 degrees from the Equator, the base is considered the perfect > launch site. > It is the best place in the world to launch satellites: close to the equator, dry weater [it almost never rains there] and a huge ocean to the East. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 11:07:11AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > >On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 07:11:07AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > > > >>Accepting things as they are means believing that people are doing > >>their best, but it doesn't for a moment mean that they can't do > >>better. > > > > > > > > > > > > What's your question? Do you have a different definition of good/better/best than Webster's? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
Gautam said, "There truly is no better reason for voting for George Bush than that it would appall people like this." Gautam: I think you're smarter than this. Hell, even I could probably come up with at least one better reason for voting for George Bush than to appall sloppy, lazy editorialists at the Guardian. Moreover, I bet you could come up with dozens of better reasons to vote for Kerry than that. Dave Conservatives: Hold Your Nose and Vote for Kerry Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
Erik Reuter wrote: On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 07:11:07AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: Accepting things as they are means believing that people are doing their best, but it doesn't for a moment mean that they can't do better. What's your question? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 07:11:07AM -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > Accepting things as they are means believing that people are doing > their best, but it doesn't for a moment mean that they can't do > better. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: conflict can be overcome by more tolerance and examining of our own faults I snipped my post to highlight the key one. That does seem to be what you keep talking about in your constant statements about looking at your own faults, or avoiding differentiating between good and bad people. It's not just about our own faults. Our own faults are things that should be corrected, but they're not the only, or even the most important, things we can influence. Again, I don't think that sentiment is Christian... or spiritually satisfying, though tempting it is. Nor is it what I'm trying to express, though I understand how it might come out that way. Like many popular ideas, it's half-right. While I do seek to focus much on my own balance sheet of character assets and flaws rather than others, the purpose in doing so is not to overcome conflict. It's not about overcoming anything -- it is about acceptance, which brings peace, rather than score-keeping, which produces misery as I demand an end to conflict. Accepting things as they are means believing that people are doing their best, but it doesn't for a moment mean that they can't do better. Nor does it mean that I am to tolerate unacceptable behavior. But it means responding, with thought, rather than just reacting. The problem with saying that I'll be more tolerant and focus on myself in order to overcome conflict is that it implicitly demands an end to conflict. The alternative view that I try to embrace is that I'll be more tolerant (in the sense of not insisting that others change themselves) and focus on my own character in order to be a kinder, more loving person. This is the difference, I think, between narcissism disguised as selflessness and real spiritual growth. If you see something essentially selfish in liberal posturing, that's probably it -- the goal is not to change themselves, it's really a demand that others change wrapped in pious language that's full of holes. I still catch myself doing it. I'm quite certain that there is a similar observation to be made about people with conservative viewpoints, but I leave that as an exercise to the readers. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Baseball
--- "Horn, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As bad as the Red Sox defense has been, I can't wait > to see what it > is like with Ortiz on first base. > > - jmh Yeah, maybe we can overnight some of those Tom Emansky videos to the visitors clubhouse in St. Louis? :-) Although, hey, if they keep putting up 7-8 runs a game, that buys you a _lot_ of bad defense. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Baseball
> Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda > > Sorry, John, but as I just told JDG offlist, apart > from my normal affection for them, if they win I get > to be a participant in the largest single party in > human history, and I'm _really_ looking forward to that... No problem. I'm still hopefull we can put a damper on that particular party. As bad as the Red Sox defense has been, I can't wait to see what it is like with Ortiz on first base. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: From the Guardian
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:52:45 -0500, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'll stop here and see if you agree with this view of libertarianism, > > > before going on. > > > > Yes, I'd say that was classic libertarianism. This is of course very > > different to the sense in which the Culture list is strongly > > libertarian. > > OK, how can one be libertarian and believe in strong government > intervention in the lives of individuals? The 2-D cross-plot that was > attached to that list is based on a survey that studiously ignores many > reasonable questions about government interference in individual lives. In > other words, having the government interfere in individual lives when one > thinks its a good idea and not interfering when one doesn't think so is not > libertarian. So what your saying is you have a problem with the methodology of Political Compass* therefore the Culture list suffers from cognitive dissonance. Unsurprisingly I don't find this very compelling. Either you accept the Political Compass contention that an axis of civil libertarianism exists seperate from economic libertarianism and the list is libertarian or you don't accept it in which case the list is not libertarian. I think the fromer, you think the latter but in both cases your strawman charge of cognitive dissonance dissappears. Martin * http://www.politicalcompass.org/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Conservatives, not for Bush
Another conservative newspaper not endorsing Bush: http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGBU3UEHF0E.html "Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election" Here is the core paragraph: "But we are unable to endorse President Bush for re-election because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq, his record deficit spending, his assault on open government and his failed promise to be a ``uniter not a divider'' within the United States and the world." Even if you think that Bush may still be better than Kerry, please give this article a look. My own comments follow: The article is very thoughtful. Very respectfully, the editors of the Tampa Tribune go through the performance of Bush as a president. They find it failing on too many counts to recommend him. These points where Bush failed are very real, and clearly showcased. None of them are subject to doubt or dismissal. Conservative and liberals can easily agree, these are all things that *failed*. Serious things. Maybe David is right where he believes that those failures come from an alliance of warped and sinister ideologies. I still *hope* that it could be merely a mix of errors, arrogance and incompetence, made worse by an addiction to secrecy and reliance on incompetent and greedy advisors, most of them still in power. But right now we do not need to solve this very important point. David will probably insist here that he can prove his case; probably he can. But that's not necessary to convince people to vote against Bush. Bush has failed his own country in too many things to deserve *your* conservative or *your* liberal endorsement. Monstrous or not, he showed himself incompetent to manage the interests of the republic that voted him in. Because even in the interpretation most favorable to him as a man, Bush's administration has shown they could not carry out a good government. Voters and history shouldn't forgive his mishandling of the executive; let his own people forgive him if it was all of it on the best intentions. Ruben ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Saudis
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 05:02:55PM -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: > How do the people of Nevada feel about storing nuclear waste? How do > people in general in this country feel about Nuclear power? Wrong questions. Right questions: how much do they know about nuclear power and can they make a rational rather than emotional case for their opposition? > Considering the cost of building Nuclear power plants and managing > its wastes and factoring in the political opposition, is it really an > economically sound alternative? Most definitely. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
On Sun, Oct 24, 2004 at 09:51:24PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Congratulations, you're actually _worse_ than Falwell, you're accusing > the President of treason. You have completely forfeited the right to > complain about _any_ Republican tactic or accusation without looking > hopelessly hypocritical. Let me be *descriptive* here too. This thread looks rather odd if it is put next to the writing that says that Kerry would do nothing while terrorists go about killing Americans; tens of millions of Europeans wish Americans ill; constant whining about people not respecting the opinions that are expressed while saying how much respect there is for others opinions in these writings -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Saudis
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I figure we are several years past the point where > you began to > believe such things about me. But I deny that you > are an iota more > patriotic than any other person on this list. > > xponent Well so do I, so this is exactly what I mean. I've never done that. I have said that I'm far less likely to claim that people disagree with me because they are stupid or evil, but that's not patriotism. Decency, perhaps. You've immediately proven my point. It's mommy, mommy again. Well, that's pretty pathetic, but it's nothing more than A-Rod trying to persuade the refs he didn't purposely knock the ball out of Arroyo's hand. It's not true, you know it's not true, and _I_ know it's not true. It's just a convenient argument you can use to try to stop anyone from disagreeing with you. After all, if the people you disagree with are _evil_, then there's no tactic that's not allowed. So why not make claims that are absurd on their face. You might just get away with them, and besides, you're the good guys, right? I'm done here. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: naming the beasts
In a message dated 10/23/2004 1:42:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But he wasn't. His published figures are too good to be real: they don't pass a Chi-Square test, meaning that he adjusted them to look better than what he found in his experiments :-) The notion that Mendel fudged his results comes from analysis of small number statiistics.This is in turn based on the belief that the plot that he did his experiments were in was small and therefore only a few plants could be studied. In a recent bio (can't remember the name of the author) the author suggests that Mendel actually used a much larger plot (based on descriptions of the view of the plot from a specific room in the monestary) and that therefore his statistics were not fudged ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Yay Alberto!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3948531.stm Brazil has successfully launched its first rocket into space. Sunday's launch came 14 months after an attempt to put satellites in orbit ended in a deadly explosion. That rocket blew up before take-off from the Alcantara launch site in northern Brazil, killing 21 people, including key technicians. Brazil hopes the successful launch will push forward its plans to sell 15 of its VSV-30 rockets to the European Space Agency. Advantage At the time of last year's explosion, some predicted it would take years for the programme to recover. Now there is likely to be jubilation that a VSV-30, or Brazilian Exploration Vehicle, has been successfully launched, also from Alcantara. Sunday's project was a less ambitious one, designed to carry out experiments just outside the Earth's atmosphere at a maximum height of 250km. Brazil is hoping the launch will boost its space programme. The Alcantara Base should give Brazil a strong advantage over competitors. Only 2.3 degrees from the Equator, the base is considered the perfect launch site. This is where the earth moves at its fastest, giving the rockets an initial boost so they need less fuel and can carry heavier payloads. xponent Up Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Saudis
David Brin wrote: > >> I think it doesn't: the saudis really don't want the >> oil prices to become too high, because high oil >> prices >> makes it economically viable _other_ sources > > Alberto... like worrying about John Keery's preferece > for conservation over drilling, this is extrapolating > too far. > Is it? :-) > The fact is thet RIGHT NOW our money is > pouring into the Riyadh princes' Swiss bank accounts > at rates that would make a horde of insatiable > vampires howl in envy. The secret energy meetings of > Cheney in 2001 are now bearing fruit. > According to statistics provided by Dan Minete, this money is irrelevant to the USA economy - which I can interpret two ways: (a) the price of oil is irrelevant -or- (b) the numbers of the GDP do not have any similarity with reality, and should be divided by 100 or 1000 to be more realistic. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: On the Saudis
--- Doug The following is a great piece: > Sen Phil Graham in a Salon interview: >http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/08/graham/index.html I mean, if there were EVER a Republican, still living, who I often disagree with and yet respect, it's G. One of scads of examples that it's a bloody lie to say I think all opponents are traitors. Do I really believe my theory about absolute and knowing treason under orders from Riyadh? In fact, I confess that there is a plausible alternative that fits the facts: towering imbecility combined with Saudi alacrity at taking advantage of a bunch of manaical ideologues. Indeed, were you to ask that I BET, I suppose I'd give slightly better odds to the alternative. But NO such explanation so well fits the available facts quite as well as the hypothesis that these are smart men creating a situation out of intent and desire. Here's a principle to try. Always look at the situation and ask: - who is benefiting? - is it possible that the present situation is exactly what someone wants? Dig it. There is not a scintilla of sense to the neocons' RATIONALIZATION of making Iraq an island of democracy in the middle east. Can you actually choke down the notion that they went in actually beliving that? We HAD an opportunity to help foster a much bigger island. A place where we had a huge history of friendship and good will. Where the people ALREADY VOTE, albeit without their votes having as much effect as they would like. A place where we had only to reach out our hand It's Iran. And every time the good Iranian people have tried to shrug off the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mullahs, these jerks have taken EVERY opportunity to rattle sabers and drive them back under the mullahs' control. Exactly as the Saudis wish. Because the Saudis very worst nightmare (and Saddam's) would be rapprochement between these two old friends. > "You write about the Bush administration's > > Up until about a> > year ago, the Saudis could probably be best> described > > as passive sponsors of terror. > > Oh, well, that makes it OK then. If it's true. And > it's not. It's not just okay, it's pathetic. You have to twist yourself into a pretzel to believe Saudi claims that they are our allies in the war on terror. - They financed the terrorists - financed the Taliban - CURRENTLY finance the men killing our troops - finance Al Jazeera hate-mongering - finance the Wahhabi takeover of all the world's mosques, in which death to America is the ritual slogan Oh... but the princes have NOTHING to do with any of the stuff going on in their privately owned theocratic dictatorship. > I repeat; 9/11 was funded by Saudis. Whether or not > it the government was > involved is open to question True, Doug. But why is it that the basic assumption that we must always fall back on is INCOMPETENCE? No WMD? Oooops, we didn't lie, we're incompetent. Saudi funding of Jihad against us in 20 ways? But it's not the princes. No they are incompetent at stanching the Jihad... though efficient at everything else they do, without exception. Sending our troops unprepared into a quagmire, without proper equipment, backup, or a plan? Oh, well, we're incompetent. DON'T EVER EVEN LET YOUR IMAGINATIONS TOUCH UPON THE IDEA THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON PURPOSE. With the aim of achieving exactly what you see. An America profoundly weakened. In debt. Divided as never since 1968. It's military reserves used up. Its best units embroiled and inaccessible in emergency. Readiness collapsed. Treasury emptied. Science debased. Energy program gutted. Elections corrupted. Intelligence community politicized. Reputation befouled. > > Since the attacks on Saudi Arabia proper, the > > Saudi government has been actively participating > in> > attacking Al Qaeda. This is something that is > agreed> > on across the board. No, it is openly lied about. It is as credible as the testimony of a farting buffalo. > We can't We can force Iraq, a larger, more > heavily populated, more > politically and socially diverse country to do our> bidding but we can't > force SA? In a way yopu can't blame them. They see our culture, our women, as utterly at odds with theirs. If they wait, we'll swamp them... or decide at some point to flick a fingure and send the House of Saud into exile. They have no choice, in a way. We have to be destroyed. >DOUG: Ask yourself why the pipeline has been such a > success, Gautam. What if > environmentalists had not raised a stink and it had > been left up to the > industry to build it any which way they could? Look at http://www.davidbrin.com/ I have said this for years. In The Transparent Society I talk about the importance of fair argument. The pipeline is one of my best used examples of where the Sierra Club etc benefited society by opposing, forcing improvement, and then finally (when the time was right) losing the fight. > > because of his (courageous) sta
Re: Who does GWB think he is?
Dave Land wrote: A pack of Saudi terrorists hijacked planes on the date of 9/11. A pack of Robin Hood-in-Reverse thieves then hijacked society on the basis of 9/11. Nice rethorics. Sonja GCU: =off ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: On the Saudis
Gautam wrote: There's another common thread, Doug, let me help _you_ find it. Not government agents. It's kind of a significant difference. Except Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi agent, who provided extensive assistance to two of the hijackers whom he met after meeting one Fahad al-Thumairy, later deported for terrorist-related activities. I'm snipping the Phil Gramm stuff because it's all just speculation - not a fact in there to >tease out at all. What you are snipping is the heart of the argument which you refuse to address > Up until about a year ago, the Saudis could probably be best described > as passive sponsors of terror. Oh, well, that makes it OK then. If it's true. And it's not. Except it is. According to Graham there were almost certianly connections between A Saudi agent and two 9/11 terrorists. That's not pasive sponsorship. You know, arguing with you is remarkably like arguing with Dr. Brin. You know things. Facts don't really enter into the discussion. So now, after avoiding the real question again, you launch a personal attack. In reference to facts, please note for the record that Iâve provided actual quotes from a member of the Senate intelligence committee and youâve dropped a name. Youâve been asked several times to justify the classification of details relating to Saudi involvement in 9/11, details that both Graham and Republican Sen. Richard Shelby have said could have been released to the public as (quoting Graham) âIt did not represent concealment of national secrets or of sources and methods by which information is obtainedâ, and have avoided the question altogether. And everyone who disagrees with you is evil. How do you get that from what I said, Gautam? We disagree about the extent of Saudi involvement and therefore I think you are evil? Please calm down. It's quite remarkable. Ask Byman. He helped write the 9/11 report, he probably knows what he's talking about. There's been plenty of scholarship > on this topic - in Foreign Affairs, for example. Or even the report itself, which you carefully ignore, since it contains evidence obviously contrary to your beliefs. What it says is that al-Bayoumi's meeting with the 9/11 terrorists and subsequent support was a coincidence. But as Graham points out, thatâs a real stretch. Why wasn't the intelligence committee allowed to interview the paid informant that al-Bayoumi was living with? Why did the FBI refuse to deliver a subpoena for the intelligence committee? Well, some of it seems to have come from Germany, but I don't want to nuke Berlin. Now you're accusing me of wanting to nuke people. Sighâ I plod onward. You're right. We're finding that out in Iraq, aren't we Amazing, Doug, you think Iraq is a screw up, so you want to get into something _even worse_. Truly that is policy as the height of rationality. You think the Muslim world is upset now? How do you think they would react if we occupied Mecca and Medina? And what legal justification, exactly, would there be for that? What equivalent to 1441 has been passed? I note that the ruling that governments are not responsible for the unsupported acts of their citizens was established in international law in the 19th century - and a good thing too, otherwise the British would have invaded us when American citizens kept stirring up trouble in Canada. Except that there seems to be some tangible evidence that the Saudi government may have been involved, and the way this administration handles intelligence it would have been a snap for them to make the kinds of connections they would need to justify attack. But I agreed with you that it _can't_ be done effectively so your hyperbolic diatribe was a waste of effort. We can't We can force Iraq, a larger, more heavily populated, more politically and socially diverse country to do our bidding but we can't force SA? With an illegitimate government and a large portion of the population that supports us (even now, after so many mistakes)? Yes, that would be an easier task than attacking the holiest places in the Muslim world. If the difference isn't obvious to you, I can't point it out any more clearly. The question was rhetorical, Gautam. We will fail in Iraq and we would have failed in SA. But, in fact, isn't it just possible that with the right amount of political pressure, brought to bear by a coalition of concerned governments, that we could have forced greater political reforms on Riyadh than the window dressings that have been altered? Thatâs it for tonight. I think that these are important questions that need discussion in an open forum. Iâm open to be proved wrong provided convincing evidence. Intimidation wonât work though. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
