Miss America Pageant 2005 cancelled?
The Miss America Pageant is much like Hollywood awards shows - long and boring. The prospect of seeing beautiful women, loses out to the hours of crap that one must endure while watching. Plus, watching them walk down a runway is ugly one piece bathing suits, wearing high heals is just stupid...they need two piece string bikinis.. Miss America in Need of Extreme Makeover Excerpt from the article Dropped by two networks as a ratings loser, the pageant is desperately in need of a lifeline of its own, apparently ready to shuck its squeaky-clean demeanor in favor of the snarky negativity that fuels reality TV. The pageant has reluctantly embraced the craze in recent years, tweaking its age-old formula by adding a pop quiz, curtailing the talent competition and interviewing contestants backstage - to no avail. There is more urgency now, though. Cast off by ABC after a record-low 9.8 million people tuned in for last September's pageant, Miss America is without a TV outlet for the first time in 50 years and is facing the prospect of having no pageant at all in 2005. http://tinyurl.com/bbmpr http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=188974GT1=6428 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Serenity
The Serenity trailer will be on the Apple trailers site on Tuesday. May be spoilerish for people familiar with the series. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris - Larry Wall ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US voting reform idea
Several months ago, I found the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD) at www.fairvote.org. If I had to sum up their program in once sentence, they want every US citizen to be able to cast a vote that matters. One of their reform ideas, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), is being supported by influential people like Howard Dean and John McCain. In IRV (also called STV), you can vote for a candidate you really like without fearing to waste your vote, because you can mark candidates as being your first, second or third choice (or even more). If your first choice candidate ends up getting few votes, your vote will be transferred to your second choice candidate. If that candidate has also got only a few votes, it will be transferred to your third choice. When one of the candidates has more than half of the votes, the procedure ends, and that candidate is elected. (This could also happen in the first round of counting) IRV has been shown to change the way campaigns are made where its already in use. Currently you have to prevent other candidates to be chosen as voters first choices, so you must attack all other candidates. With IRV you can appeal directly to the voters with your program, getting second choices is good, and attacking other candidates might deny you their voters second choice. Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently excluding someone from voting is illegal if its because of e.g. race or sex, but not if its because of other reasons) and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member districts seem to be a popular solution) in house and winner-takes-all in presidential elections. But youd better go to their site yourself, Ive probably forgot something here. Now the problem is, most of these goals can only be reached by constitutional change, which needs the support of 2/3 of Representatives, 2/3 of Senators and ¾ of the states. Some however need just a change of laws: for electors and Senators this would be state laws, for Representatives federal laws. Now Id like to know what you think of my following reform proposal (based in part on CVD ideas): Short-term (law changes): Senators and electors get elected with IRV; this eliminates the spoiler problem House gets enlarged to 600, allocation method switches to Adams (the enlargement benefits the large states, the switch the small ones) The states now draw district borders for multi-member districts, instead of the current single-member ones. Inside these districts seats get distributed by Proportional Representation. Due to this, the minority in the district gets represented fairly, while now only district majorities get represented. Due to the enlargement, the fairer representation wont automatically endanger the current Representatives. I think these changes would make voting fairer, and increase turnout since the minority (in a district/state) now has the chance to get represented. Fringe parties are unlikely unless the number of Representatives in a districts gets really large. However, a third party could get Representatives through if they get enough support. A party split however will likely hurt both factions, and likely would deny the weaker faction a seat (again, unless the number of Reps/district gets large). Long term (constitutional changes): Right to vote and easy access to getting registered to vote US citizens dont live in the 50 states, and are not registered in any of them get treated as if they are living in an additional state. (This way, they get represented in Congress) The President gets elected directly, with IRV. As a compensation, all states get 2 representatives extra (so the smallest one would have 3, and the minority there is represented in the House) The primary system gets changed. (This is a long proposal, because it doesnt produce one winner, but several candiates) Currently it throws out candidates of the two strong parties, who might win the election if they were nominated, but allows candidates of weaker parties in who dont have any chance to win. Also, some states always get the advantage of having their primaries first, while others only have theirs when there is already a winner. Party conventions have become meaningless, they only have to cheer. I propose an open system: #1: First, the order of primaries in the states is determined by random draw. Primaries are held in rounds: in round 1, one state holds a primary, in round 2 two, and so on. #2: Then, candidates have to collect a number of signatures nationwide (not necessarily in every state) to get on a list of preliminary candidates. This list is used for each of the primaries. #3: Then, in a primary, voters can vote for up to 3 candidates from the preliminary list (each can get only 1 vote). #4: Then votes are counted. Percentages are calculated by dividing the number of votes for one candidate by the number of all voters. If the best candidate gets over 50%, all candidates with at least 25% qualify, if the best
Re: US voting reform idea
A few comments interspersed: At 12:07 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, Frank Schmidt wrote: Several months ago, I found the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy (CVD) at www.fairvote.org. If I had to sum up their program in once sentence, they want every US citizen to be able to cast a vote that matters. One of their reform ideas, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), is being supported by influential people like Howard Dean and John McCain. In IRV (also called STV), you can vote for a candidate you really like without fearing to waste your vote, because you can mark candidates as being your first, second or third choice (or even more). If your first choice candidate ends up getting few votes, your vote will be transferred to your second choice candidate. If that candidate has also got only a few votes, it will be transferred to your third choice. When one of the candidates has more than half of the votes, the procedure ends, and that candidate is elected. (This could also happen in the first round of counting) IRV has been shown to change the way campaigns are made where its already in use. Currently you have to prevent other candidates to be chosen as voters first choices, so you must attack all other candidates. With IRV you can appeal directly to the voters with your program, getting second choices is good, and attacking other candidates might deny you their voters second choice. Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently excluding someone from voting is illegal if its because of e.g. race or sex, but not if its because of other reasons) How about convicted felons? Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs? and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member districts seem to be a popular solution) What about as a beginning following existing city or county lines? in house and winner-takes-all in presidential elections. But youd better go to their site yourself, Ive probably forgot something here. Now the problem is, most of these goals can only be reached by constitutional change, which needs the support of 2/3 of Representatives, 2/3 of Senators and ¾ of the states. Some however need just a change of laws: for electors and Senators this would be state laws, for Representatives federal laws. Now Id like to know what you think of my following reform proposal (based in part on CVD ideas): Short-term (law changes): Senators and electors get elected with IRV; this eliminates the spoiler problem House gets enlarged to 600, Actually, it would have to be a number around 8000 if one made the districts small enough that everyone in the district had a reasonable chance of knowing their representative as anything more than a name on the ballot when he runs for election (or on the news when he's indicted). (FWIW, would you recognize your Congressman if you ran into him in 7-Eleven late one night when you both were there to pick up a gallon of milk? If you answer that your Congressman would never go by himself to 7-Eleven late at night to pick up a gallon of milk, then that's the problem, isn't it?) In either case, if we expand Congress, where do we put them all, not to mention their staffs and minions? Rebuild the Capitol? allocation method switches to Adams (the enlargement benefits the large states, the switch the small ones) The states now draw district borders for multi-member districts, instead of the current single-member ones. Inside these districts seats get distributed by Proportional Representation. Due to this, the minority in the district gets represented fairly, while now only district majorities get represented. Due to the enlargement, the fairer representation wont automatically endanger the current Representatives. I think these changes would make voting fairer, and increase turnout since the minority (in a district/state) now has the chance to get represented. Fringe parties are unlikely unless the number of Representatives in a districts gets really large. However, a third party could get Representatives through if they get enough support. A party split however will likely hurt both factions, and likely would deny the weaker faction a seat (again, unless the number of Reps/district gets large). Long term (constitutional changes): Right to vote and easy access to getting registered to vote US citizens dont live in the 50 states, and are not registered in any of them get treated as if they are living in an additional state. (This way, they get represented in Congress) If they are in the military or employed overseas and can reasonably be expected to return to the States at some point, they should be allowed to vote absentee in the district of their home of record. If they have apparently moved out of the US for good, frex they have stopped paying US taxes, then why should they have a say in how things are run in the US? The President gets elected directly, with IRV. As a compensation, all states get 2 representatives
Re: Miss America Pageant 2005 cancelled?
Gary Nunn wrote: The Miss America Pageant is much like Hollywood awards shows - long and boring. The prospect of seeing beautiful women, loses out to the hours of crap that one must endure while watching. Plus, watching them walk down a runway is ugly one piece bathing suits, wearing high heals is just stupid...they need two piece string bikinis.. Or _one_ piece bikinis Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Miss America Pageant 2005 cancelled?
I wrote... walk down a runway is ugly one piece bathing suits, wearing high heals is just stupid...they need two piece string bikinis.. Alberto wrote... Or _one_ piece bikinis One of the skills assessments of the contestants could be Fashion Design. They could be given one square foot of cloth and 3 feet of dental floss to make their own swimwear for the competition :-) Gary Lecherous Male Pig Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
At 10:13 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: JDG wrote At 01:34 PM 4/22/2005 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote: Dan, it was a rhetorical question. I know why he isn't, and frankly very glad he isn't. But thank you for the refresher. I must learn to put more umm, nuance in my typing tone. It clearly wasn't a very good rhetorical question - and it wasn't the lack of nuance, it was the weakness of the question itself. Well, it was a poorly phrased rhetorical question, I concede. As a simple question, I don't see it as weak. I am not sure how such a blunt question can be weak (or strong for that matter) And why isn't the US invading North Korea? I will happily accept that the answer may be obvious, hence the rhetorical nature of it, and even that it could be considered a stupid question. Well, ordinarily, a rhetorical quesiton is one so pointed that it conveys a line of argumentation without requiring an answer. When a rhetorical question is trivially simple to dismiss, as yours way, it probably fails in conveying any meaningful line of argumentation. Anyway. What do you think should be done about North Korea? It is troublesome that such an unstable state has nuclear weapons. And an apparent lack of interest in its own peoples welfare. Pray. Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good options. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Opportunity Cost Re: Brin: Bush on Oil Tax Breaks
At 12:36 PM 4/22/2005 +, Bob Chassell wrote: (That is, roughly speaking, the opportunity cost of the US occupation of Iraq. This uses the term opportunity cost as I understood it many decades ago, not as John D. Giorgis defined it recently. O.k., what is your definition of opportunity cost again? And how did it differ from mine? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote: JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question from the mother's body? How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? However, for me, or any other guy, this debate is merely intellectual at best. It is easy for men to make decrees on abortion because they will never actually experience such a scenario first hand. That's the main reason I personally support pro-choice, just because I truly believe it is not for any man to decide (not the President, not any male member of Congress). Have you ever owned slaves?Just wondering. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
At 12:09 AM 4/10/2005 -0700, Doug Pensinger wrote: And if he did so after open-mindedly considering all sides of the issue, would you still consider him to be closed-minded on the subject for issuing a final decision? I would say he gave the appearance of closing his mind on the subject by making a final decision, but that not knowing much about church politics I'm open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. How open minded was he on other issues such as birth control, celibacy and gay marriage? On the other hands, he was extremely open-minded on such subjects as multiculturalism, ecumenism, and reaching out to other faiths. His Theology of the Body in many respects overhauled Church teaching on sexuality - while still reaching the conclusion that contraception is intrinsically immoral. Thus, given the context of his views on birth control I can only conclude that he was open-minded on the subject, but simply reached a different conclusion than you or I would have. On the matter of priestly celibacy, I think that he was almost inherently open-minded, as the Church teaching on that issue is hardly even close to definitive (unlike the argument that you could make in regards to the ordination of women - although I would probably still disagree with you on that point.)You may have a stronger argument on the case of gay marriage, although this issue has only been seriously debated so recently that I think that it is simply too hard to judge given the context. Without serious debate within the Church on gay marriage, it would be virtually impossible for someone who open-mindedly concluded opposition to gay marriage to demonstrate that open-mindedness in his position. In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. So, would you say that you are/were closed-minded on school vouchers and liberating Iraq? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
At 03:01 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:25:36 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Doug Pensinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!! Besides being wrong here about the number, the actual amount going to SS is not enough (even if it really were saved) to provide people with the retirement most people would like. That is rather the point of a lot of the threads here. I understand that and have been supportive of many of the reforms you and others have mentioned. John's statement made it sound as if people receiving SS are living completely off of the largess of the working public when, in fact, they have at least paid _some_ of their dues. Only to the extent that paying taxes can be described as paying dues. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
At 02:56 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 05:07:58 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 09:19 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, Doug wrote: You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that restores the benefits? If Congress raised the SS retirement age to 80, I'll flat out garuantee you they'll get throw out on their collective ear. They don't even have the balls to make some of the minor changes we've been talking about. It was a theoretical exercise to illustrate a concept, Doug. But you see, part of your argument is that because the money isn't hidden away in a vault somwhere, it doesn't exist when in fact a super majority of the people in this country are of the opinion that it better damned well exist. Actually, that's part of my point. The people don't believe that a set amount of *contributions* exist, they believe that a set amount of *benefits* exist.That is, regardless of how much money the government claims to be in the Trust Fund, the future liabailities of the government are based upon expected payments nor expected assets in the Trust Fund. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
At 03:26 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: If people want private accounts there are plenty of ways for them to do that without Uncle Sam's help. I think our difference is that I would like to see an increase in personal responsibility for retirement. For example, it is essentially a given that most people do expect (or at least should expect) to reach an age where they wish to have engage in consumption while not working for income. What, however, is the optimal amount of savings for retirement? After all, every dollar saved for retirement is a dollar of foregone consumption today. For sake of argument, lets presume that savings are turned into an annuity upon retirment, thus the question is - what is the optimal-sized annuity upon retirement? And that's an important point, retirement should be planned-for today by choosing to forego a certain amount of consumption and investing that capital to build a stockpile for funding one's retirement annuity.The current system of just hoping that future generations will vote for the government to make payments to you in your retirement seems like a substantially inferior system. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
A few comments interspersed: A lot of my previous mail snipped to which Ronn didn't respond. At 12:07 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, Frank Schmidt wrote: Other points are a constitutional right to vote (currently excluding someone from voting is illegal if its because of e.g. race or sex, but not if its because of other reasons) How about convicted felons? Those who have been adjudged mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs? I'm for letting them vote. I'd make exceptions to not let jail populations vote in local elections, and the mentally incompetent if it's not really themselves, but someone else who votes. (I think it's this way here in Germany, and I remember how the 2000 election was heavily influenced by the exclusion of many black people on a 'felons list', many of which weren't even felons. I read that people remain marked as felons even when their jail term is over. If you give a detailed description what makes one a felon, I'm interested) and an end to gerrymandering (multi-member districts seem to be a popular solution) What about as a beginning following existing city or county lines? As a beginning. There will be a problem, however, if gerrymandering is ended only in Democrat-controlled states or only in Republican-controlled ones. And this doesn't answer the question of representation of the minority side in a district which might never get a chance to win. House gets enlarged to 600, Actually, it would have to be a number around 8000 if one made the districts small enough that everyone in the district had a reasonable chance of knowing their representative as anything more than a name on the ballot when he runs for election (or on the news when he's indicted). (FWIW, would you recognize your Congressman if you ran into him in 7-Eleven late one night when you both were there to pick up a gallon of milk? If you answer that your Congressman would never go by himself to 7-Eleven late at night to pick up a gallon of milk, then that's the problem, isn't it?) In either case, if we expand Congress, where do we put them all, not to mention their staffs and minions? Rebuild the Capitol? If the House remains at 435 seats, many Representatives would lose their seats in a switch to multi-member districts. I would not mind, but I think a lot of Representatives would. The 7-Eleven problem can be half solved: while your Congressman will probably don't know you, you should know him and what he stands for. How else can you decide who to vote for? US citizens dont live in the 50 states, and are not registered in any of them get treated as if they are living in an additional state. (This way, they get represented in Congress) If they are in the military or employed overseas and can reasonably be expected to return to the States at some point, they should be allowed to vote absentee in the district of their home of record. Agreed. I meant that when I wrote 'registered in any of them'. If they have apparently moved out of the US for good, frex they have stopped paying US taxes, then why should they have a say in how things are run in the US? I meant US citizens living in US territories. They are under US control and are US citzens, so they should be represented. -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ NEU: GMX DSL_Flatrate! Schon ab 14,99 EUR/Monat! +++ GMX Garantie: Surfen ohne Tempo-Limit! http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Miss America Pageant 2005 cancelled?
At 05:18 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Gary Nunn wrote: The Miss America Pageant is much like Hollywood awards shows - long and boring. The prospect of seeing beautiful women, loses out to the hours of crap that one must endure while watching. Plus, watching them walk down a runway is ugly one piece bathing suits, wearing high heals is just stupid...they need two piece string bikinis.. Or _one_ piece bikinis Which piece? Knows All The Old Jokes Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US voting reform idea
There has been a great deal of work on voting science over the past ~200 years. Unfortunately, the conclusions are it depends. Is the system you describe better than the current system? It depends on what is considered important. Here is a summary of vote aggregation methods and some ways to measure their efficiency and fairness: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node4.html Excerpt: The paradox of voting is the coexistence of coherent individual valuations and a collectively incoherent choice by majority rule. In an election with three or more alternatives (candidates, motions, etc.) and three or more voters, it may happen that when the alternatives are placed against each other in a series of paired comparisons, no alternative emerges victorious over each of the others: Voting fails to produce a clear-cut winner. William H. Riker, 1982 [86] The paradox of voting was discovered over 200 years ago by M. Condorcet, a French mathematician, philosopher, economist, and social scientist. However, it received little attention until Duncan Black [13] explained its significance in a series of essays he began in the 1940s. The importance of the voting paradox was not fully realized until several years after Kenneth Arrow published Social Choice and Individual Values [3] in 1951, which contained his General Possibility Theorem. The essence of this theorem is that there is no method of aggregating individual preferences over three or more alternatives that satisfies several conditions of fairness and always produces a logical result. Arrow's precisely defined conditions of fairness and logicality have been the subject of scrutiny by other scholars. However, none have found a way of relaxing one or more of these conditions that results in a generally satisfactory voting system immune from the voting paradox. Thus Arrow's theorem has the profound implication that in many situations there is no fair and logical way of aggregating individual preferences -- there is no way to determine accurately the collective will of the people. Social choice theorists have invented many vote aggregation systems and have attempted to determine the most appropriate systems for a variety of voting situations. Although there is some agreement about which characteristics are desirable in a vote aggregation system, there is much disagreement as to which characteristics are most important. In addition, the selection is often influenced more by political circumstances than by the advice of theorists. Thus the popularity of a voting system is not necessarily an indication of its fairness [66]. The choice of a vote aggregation system can influence much more than the results of an election. It can also influence the ability of analysts to interpret election results, and in turn the ability of representatives to understand the wishes of the people they represent and the satisfaction of the electorate that they have had the opportunity to express themselves. This is due to the fact that the various vote aggregation systems require voters to supply varying amounts of information about their preferences and that some systems tend to encourage voters to report their preferences insincerely. In addition, the choice of vote aggregation system could affect the stability of a government, the degree to which an organization embraces or resists change, and the extent to which minorities are represented. It could also affect the ability of the members of an organization to achieve compromise. This section explores the many types of vote aggregation systems ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 06:11 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, JDG wrote: At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote: JDG wrote: Let's connect the dots: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs never make it to a live birth. You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question from the mother's body? How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? Some have indeed described an embryo as a parasite inside the mother's body, with the obvious implication that eliminating it is no different than eliminating a tapeworm. However, for me, or any other guy, this debate is merely intellectual at best. It is easy for men to make decrees on abortion because they will never actually experience such a scenario first hand. That's the main reason I personally support pro-choice, just because I truly believe it is not for any man to decide (not the President, not any male member A-hem! of Congress). I know that some here probably consider many of them to be exactly that . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Brin: Through the Looking Glass
At 01:46 PM 3/3/2005 -0600, John Horn wrote: In recent weeks it has become clear that President Bush has floated a trial baloon regarding lifting the current cap on income subject to Social Security tax. Right now, income over $100,000 is exempt from the 12.5% Social Security tax. I believe that when asked about it, President Bush said something to the effect of everything is on the table. Which is, of course, a long, long, LONG way off from saying that Bush is proposing to raise this cap. Either that or he is proposing to invade Iran as well by saying all options are on the table there. That's how politics works, John. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:07 PM 4/24/2005 -0500, Ronn! wrote: -human life begins at conception This is scientifically debateable. Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both. It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs never make it to a live birth. I don't see how that is relevant. If one accepts that life begins at conception, then that would simply constitute death by natural causes. It would be a worthy effort of scientific research to see how to reduce those deaths, but no moral judgement would be attached to a death by natural causes. To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other organ in a person's body. Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question from the mother's body? How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.? Some have indeed described an embryo as a parasite inside the mother's body, with the obvious implication that eliminating it is no different than eliminating a tapeworm. You may make the above argument, and it would appear to be an argument along the lines of - abortion is moral, because it is not the taking of a human life. the [group of cells] is not human.Do you really wish to make such an argument? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Miss America Pageant 2005 cancelled?
Ronn! wrote: Which piece? Optional. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Pope?
JDG wrote: (explanation on church stuff - thanks) In my opinion, if one _favors_ tradition over change (or vice-versa), then one is inherently closed minded to some extent. So, would you say that you are/were closed-minded on school vouchers and liberating Iraq? I'm not sure on the first, maybe, but not at all on the second. I disagree with the Bush approach, but the removal of Hussein (and all like despots) was desireable. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 19:29:13 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Only to the extent that paying taxes can be described as paying dues. But Social Security taxes are collected separately from other taxes because they are specifically for retirement/disability. The fact that the funds are used for other purposes doesn't detract from the fact that these are retirement savings from the standpoint of the payee. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
JDG wrote: Actually, that's part of my point. The people don't believe that a set amount of *contributions* exist, they believe that a set amount of *benefits* exist.That is, regardless of how much money the government claims to be in the Trust Fund, the future liabailities of the government are based upon expected payments nor expected assets in the Trust Fund. I think that at least some of them believe both, but as long as the expected assets are large enough to cover the expected payments, there's no problem. So the challenge is how to make the numbers agree. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 4/24/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:07 PM 4/24/2005 -0500, Ronn! wrote:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other
than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the
beginning of human life. During this time the [group of cells] would have
to be either: a) not human or b) not alive or c) both.
It is well known that a significant fraction (1/3?) of fertilized eggs
never make it to a live birth.
I don't see how that is relevant. If one accepts that life begins at
conception, then that would simply constitute death by natural causes. It
would be a worthy effort of scientific research to see how to reduce those
deaths, but no moral judgement would be attached to a death by natural
causes.
To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after
conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this:
1) The [group of cells] is not human life.
2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives
You can debate that the early embryonic stages up to some particular
event (say, brain development) are not much different from any other
organ in a person's body.
Why would brain development distinguish the [group of cells] in question
from the mother's body?
How would you apply your definition to other organisms in the mother's
body, such as bacteria, parasitic worms, ticks, etc.?
Some have indeed described an embryo as a parasite inside the mother's
body, with the obvious implication that eliminating it is no different than
eliminating a tapeworm.
You may make the above argument, and it would appear to be an argument
along the lines of - abortion is moral, because it is not the taking of a
human life. the [group of cells] is not human.Do you really wish to
make such an argument?
JDG
Do you never really think that we might be something more than this
haphazard, every-varying assortment of genes and organs, cells and
fungi and bacteria, and stolen designs and gross errors? Do you never
really think that perhaps we take 'human'ness for granted, identifying
it with our particular bodies, or bodies like them? Does not this
view of human-ness and the ethical ramifications give you pause,
especially considering the historical abuses of it ('His skin, and
thus his body, is different from ours- he is not human.')? Perhaps
there is a more general, abstract property of humans.
~Maru
'There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly
casual into the other. '
--Dune Messiah
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
JDG wrote: And that's an important point, retirement should be planned-for today by choosing to forego a certain amount of consumption and investing that capital to build a stockpile for funding one's retirement annuity.The current system of just hoping that future generations will vote for the government to make payments to you in your retirement seems like a substantially inferior system. First of all, you don't have to depend completely on future generations as they haven't capped the voting age yet (and seniors participate in greater numbers than any other age group), second, because Social Security is in everyone's interest, it's highly unlikely that they would be interested in scrapping it (look at recent poll numbers) and third, the 12.4% _is_ forgone consumption, isn't it? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:03 PM Subject: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 Pray. Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, there are simply no good options. Were there good options when they could kill 200k in Seoul without nuclear weapons. It's not nuclear weapons, per se, that are the problem. It's the ability of those weapons to enhance the damage that could be done. So, since the three options that Clinton had in '94 were: 1) The buy half a loaf option 2) Invade and have hundreds of thousands of S. Koreans killed 3) Let things progress, and see N. Korea producing 40-50 bombs/year by 2000. You said #1 was a failure. Which one of the others would you have picked when Clinton had this choice? It appears to me that Bush has chosen #3.except that construction on the big reactor has not restarted yet. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America substantially inferior system. First of all, you don't have to depend completely on future generations as they haven't capped the voting age yet (and seniors participate in greater numbers than any other age group), second, because Social Security is in everyone's interest, it's highly unlikely that they would be interested in scrapping it (look at recent poll numbers) and third, the 12.4% _is_ forgone consumption, isn't it? If and only if the president doesn't pass other tax cuts...relying on this tax revenue to run the rest of the government. Then it is a transfer of taxes from one income group to another. But, you knew that. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:29 PM, JDG wrote: At 03:01 PM 2/19/2005 -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote: I understand that and have been supportive of many of the reforms you and others have mentioned. John's statement made it sound as if people receiving SS are living completely off of the largess of the working public when, in fact, they have at least paid _some_ of their dues. Only to the extent that paying taxes can be described as paying dues. To what extent is it /not/ paying dues? Do you imagine that there are such things as self-made men, whose businesses run entirely without using the tax-supported commons? That do not use the Internet, public airwaves, public roads, water treatment, sewage, whose stockholders are not protected by the SEC? Are their savings not protected by the FDIC? Taxes are the dues we pay to live in civilization. They're the dues of citizenship. Taxes are investment in the common wealth without which there could be no private wealth. Or, to quote a friend of ours, freedom isn't free. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote: To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells] after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this: 1) The [group of cells] is not human life. 2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives Do we care about births, or do we care about lives? We could continue to try to find an invisible line or we could concentrate on the value of every human life, including the millions of infants and children who die every year due to lack of access to prenatal, perinatal and early childhood care. How is it that people who are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 11:01 PM Subject: Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3 On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often associated with codependancy. there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. OK, let's go back 11 years. Clinton had the three options...he chose to pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with enough in hand for two nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, they had a clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years. Much better than 50/year. At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the government, but not changing how the government was run. If Clinton wasn't given a third half loaf option at the last minute, You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: Peaceful change L3
Dan, et al, OK, I wrote the whole message below, then realized that I'm getting way too much into argumentation and not nearly enough into being simple and clear. So go ahead and read and tear apart the message that begins with Dan Wrote:, but consider this my reply: The main thing that promted me to reply to JDG was the phrase there are simply no good options. I worry when I hear language like that. It triggers the desperate times call for desperate measures meme, in which people and nations often become careless about the relative goodness or badness of options, and start just killing 'em all and letting god sort 'em out. That's really my point: I don't want to stop trying to find the least bad options that are left. Dave -- And now, my not-as-good option in replying -- Dan Wrote: On Apr 24, 2005, at 4:03 PM, JDG wrote: Now that we've let the DPRK gain nuclear weapons, Assuming, that is, that the US rules the world, and therefore is in a position to let or not let nations like the DPRK gain nuclear weapons. Perhaps we might consider other nations as adults, instead of recalcitrant children that pappa America needs to discipline. That's an easy rhetorical point which I've never found useful. The mob is filled with adults. A police force that looks the other way lets them run a city. OK, and yours is a rhetorical device that I don't find particularly useful, either, especially given this administration's disregard for international legal systems. The activities that the mob engages in violate the laws of the communities (states and nations included) in which they operate. Those communities, states, and nations employ police of various sorts to enforce their laws. (Almost) nobody in those communities questions the right of the police to act on their behalf. What law is the DPRK violating in building nukes, and what community employed the US as its police force? These are not (just) rhetorical questions. If the DPRK is the mob, then of what community's laws is it in violation? Would the US would subject itself to that same authority? In what community would (almost) nobody question our right to act on their behalf? One can let adults do damaging things in relationships too...its often associated with codependancy. I'm glad you brought up codependency. A common -- in fact, almost defining -- facet of codependent behavior is trying to solve someone else's problems when they didn't ask you to. Like invading a country to rid it of a dictator. there are simply no good options. Certainly none that begin with war. Then again, I imagine that there are plenty of options that begin with the assumption that war is the *last* resort, not the first. OK, let's go back 11 years. Clinton had the three options...he chose to pay money in a deal to slow down the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. They agreed to stop processing fuel...leaving then with enough in hand for two nuclear weapons. Unsurprisingly, they had a clandescent program going on, and were in a position to develop enough enriched U for about 1 bomb every 3-4 years. Much better than 50/year. Are you defending John's statement, there are simply no good options with this history lesson? If Clinton had chosen to do nothing, that would go some way towards demonstrating that there were and are *no* good options. But, as you point out, Clinton did chose an option. Is the jury still out as to whether it is a good option? Did he choose the only remaining good option? What is your criteria for a good option? At the time the North Korean government was willing to starve millions of its own citizens to death as an acceptable price for not just changing the government, but not changing how the government was run. If Clinton wasn't given a third half loaf option at the last minute, [digression] I see this a lot in your messages: paragraphs that just sort of trail off in the middle of a sentence. Is it something technical, or do you start a paragraph, think of something else to write, and never get back to finishing the one you left off? I'm genuinely curious. [/digression] You obviously were not in favor of stopping the weapons development by force. 200k dead S. Koreans was certainly an overwhelming price. But, to let North Korea get to the point where they could flatten both South Korea and Japan (say 90% dead) would be inexcusable. Inexcusable by whom? The UN? Like we care. International courts? Don't make me laugh. This gets back to the point I made earlier about global entities to whom the US would subject itself. We have a government that's willing to starve millions of its own citizens for some principal. Why wouldn't it be willing to bring down the whole region instead of giving up that principal? If we don't stop it, when we can, are we not somewhat responsible for that result? Without getting too tautological, we can take responsibility for whatever we choose to consider ourselves
