Re: My contribution to the bail-out

[Doug Pensinger]

Dan M wrote:

> After selling my house and resettling, I'm finally back to the point where I
> can finish answers to old posts that the list (sorta) returned too.

So have you left the Houston area?

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Andrew Crystall]

On 28 Oct 2008 at 5:54, Andrew Crystall wrote:

> On 27 Oct 2008 at 20:23, John Williams wrote:
> 
> > Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > 
> > > So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have 
> > > for lunch?
> > 
> > Nicely put.
> 
> Not really. This election is a flock of sheep guided by jackals 
> squabbling over electing a carrion bird and a mule or a jackass and a 
> pig.
> 
> And at that it's better than most "democratic" elections.

To make this clearer:

Take the UK. I can vote for Labour. I can vote for the Conservatives. 
I'm going to get basically the same thing. This is not unusual for 
democracies.

At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the 
candidates platforms.

AndrewC
Dawn Falcon

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Andrew Crystall]

On 27 Oct 2008 at 20:23, John Williams wrote:

> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have 
> > for lunch?
> 
> Nicely put.

Not really. This election is a flock of sheep guided by jackals 
squabbling over electing a carrion bird and a mule or a jackass and a 
pig.

And at that it's better than most "democratic" elections.

AndrewC
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[Dave Land]

On Oct 27, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:

> Among the things you need to be extremely careful about are: 1)
> unsupported assumptions;  2) inflammatory language; and 3) false
> analogy. I am seeing many of these being used in accordance with the
> principles developed by the Cult of Rand.

Thus began one of the best-reasoned Brin-L posts in recent memory.

Three cheers for Mr. O'Brien.

The money I have, I have in part because IAAMOAC. I accept my  
obligation to that community, and do not consider myself under duress  
in discharging that obligation.

The Children of Reagan have repeated their home-spun-sounding lie so  
long that it is literally "common sense" -- people's brains have  
formed around it for 30 years running. "The big, bad government is  
taking your money from you by force, and spending it wastefully  
because our little family is living beyond its means."

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Doug Pensinger]

John wrote:

> Force does not equal choice.

Whose money is McCain going to use to pay all those bad mortgages he
promised to take care of?

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Doug Pensinger]

John  wrote

> I think it is highly likely that a McCain with a Democrat dominated
> Congress will spend less than a Obama with a Democrat dominated
> Congress.

This might be a valid argument for me if there weren't more important
factors to take into consideration.  More important to me than
ideology is leadership; the ability to inspire people, the ability to
pick qualified subordinates and delegate authority, coolness under
pressure, decisiveness and so on.

As we have seen time after time in this campaign, Obama trumps McCain
on leadership.  Its not even close. McCain's campaign is erratic and
inconsistent.   He's had more that one major shakeup in a little over
a year and he's chosen people like Phil Grahm, Sarah Palin and god
only knows how many lobbyists who represent the antithesis of his
maverick image.  When the going got tough, he abandoned his principals
and tried to instill fear in the electorate.

Obama has been cool and steady at the helm of his campaign.  He's
inspired the kind of enthusiasm seldom seen in these political battles
even to the point of eliciting admiration and support from hardcore
conservatives.  I'm confident that the people he appoints will feature
excellence rather than political expediency and the decisions he makes
will be pragmatic rather than idealistic.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Dave Land]

Folks,

On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:28 PM, John Williams wrote:

> Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons.
>
> Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades!

Please lighten up on John. He's cornered and his messages sound like
he's becoming unglued.

Dave


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Dave Land]

On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Jon Louis Mann straw-manned:

> a lot of people called congress, against the bailout, but the people  
> who didn't are the sheep and they are largely those who buy into the  
> war and straw man attacks against obama.

I doubt very much that you actually know what was in the hearts and  
minds of every person who did not happen to call Congress to complain  
about the bailout, and yet you find yourself in a position to call us  
sheep and to claim that we are those who buy into the war (I don't)  
and the straw man attacks against (my preferred candidate) Obama.

Perhaps I didn't call Congress because I was working a huge amount of  
overtime during the period during which the bailout was being planned.

Perhaps I didn't call Congress because I am just so sick and tired of  
a system that couldn't possibly care less about what I think that it's  
just not worth the effort.

Perhaps I didn't call congress because I do not pretend that I have a  
better grasp of a financial system so complex that the world's leading  
experts on the subject were caught completely unawares.

Perhaps there are 300 million other reasons, none of which is "because  
I am a sheep", as you blithely assume, that explain my fellow  
Americans' inaction.

> i have no problem paying any kind of taxes for the common good; i do  
> have a problem paying for bureaucratic waste, idiotic wars and  
> bailing out crooked brokers, who commit insurance, mortgage and  
> financial fraud!

It is beyond almost everyone (although perhaps not you) to know what  
portion of their taxes go to bureaucratic waste, idiotic wars, and  
bailing out crooked brokers. It is against the law to withhold that  
portion, even if you could calculate it.

What would you have us do, then?

Dave

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 10:05 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:

>Mostly that was just a weird story that leaves you going "Huh?", but
>false analogy is used a lot. One of the best ones was popular some years
>back, before the Republican party descended into outright criminality.
>It goes like this: "The government is just like a family, it cannot live
>beyond its means." Many people who gave the outward appearance of
>intelligence bought into this one, but it fails at the outset. The
>government is not just like a family. In fact, one could search far and
>wide and have trouble finding two institutions more unlike than a
>government and a family. Apples and oranges are identical twins when
>placed next to governments and families. And yet many people focused on
>the second part of the statement, while ignoring the fact that the
>premise was stupendously wrong, so wrong that it should have invalidated
>anything that followed after it.



Okay.  Disregard the flawed analogy, then, since all analogies are 
flawed to one extent or another. Government living beyond its means 
has worked so well, might living within its means perhaps be worth 
trying?  If not, why not?  (Serious questions.)


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[John Williams]

Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> My favorite quote is from Nero Wolfe: "A man condemning the income tax 
> because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is 
> merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of 
> civilized discourse."
> 
> ...
>
> Inflammatory language: Taking your money by force
> 
> 
>
> Now that the American people have realized the right-wing is batshit 
> crazy, you will hear a lot of bizarre stuff as they desperately try to 
> stop their slide into total irrelevance. So pay attention.

Yes, history has shown it is a lot easier to mistreat people if you first
censor them and then demonize and dehumanize them. Helps keep
the conscience clear.


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Not original to me.  Maybe Benjamin Franklin?  Or at least I think I've 
> seen him credited with it, whether or not he actually said it.

Good memory. It sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it. The source seems
to be somewhat obscure, but you remembered the most common attribution:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=389308

The most common wording seems to be:

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is 
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. 


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote:

> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have
>> for lunch?
>
> Nicely put.

Not original to me.  Maybe Benjamin Franklin?  Or at least I think I've 
seen him credited with it, whether or not he actually said it.

Just trying to get a somewhat better feel for your position, and your 
response was very helpful to me in that regard.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have 
> for lunch?

Nicely put.


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Kevin B. O'Brien wrote:

> Mostly that was just a weird story that leaves you going "Huh?", but 
> false analogy is used a lot. One of the best ones was popular some years 
> back, before the Republican party descended into outright criminality. 
> It goes like this: "The government is just like a family, it cannot live 
> beyond its means." Many people who gave the outward appearance of 
> intelligence bought into this one, but it fails at the outset. The 
> government is not just like a family. In fact, one could search far and 
> wide and have trouble finding two institutions more unlike than a 
> government and a family. Apples and oranges are identical twins when 
> placed next to governments and families. And yet many people focused on 
> the second part of the statement, while ignoring the fact that the 
> premise was stupendously wrong, so wrong that it should have invalidated 
> anything that followed after it.

And I see "identical twins" in there, and wonder, "Monoamniotic?"

I should probably head for bed now

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote:

> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, John Williams
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one
>>> should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules?
>
>> No, that's not my position.  Not at all.
>>
>> My position is that it is wrong to misrepresent democracy as coercion.
>
> LOL! I wasn't expecting slapstick!

So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have 
for lunch?

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An armed society

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> At 03:30 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>> If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one
>> rifle for doing so.  (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a
>> sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler.
>> Just remember
>> to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with
>> that bag, m'kay?)
>
>
>
> I hope you are not talking from personal experience.

No, just 2 incidents I heard about, the second involving the owner of the 
Dallas Cowboys.

>> And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm
>> somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes
>> jabs.
>>
>> If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes
>> about people who do.
>>
>> Julia
>>
>> who may have the only gun-free house in the neighborhood, but it's
>> certainly not *weapon*-free
>
>
>
> And I doubt you or anyone else familiar with them
> would claim that a single type of sharp object
> would be adequate or even usable in all situations.

No.  The katana isn't going to work all that well if you've got limited 
space, and the Klingon knife isn't going to work at arm's length all that 
well.  Just to name 2.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[Kevin B. O'Brien]

Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>   
>> i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social 
>> 
>>> programs...
>>>   
>> jon
>> 
>
>   
>> And you prefer even more to have the goverment spend OTHER
>> people's money on social programs. But you don't
>> want other 
>> people to spend YOUR money on their preferred applications.
>> Robber baron, robber comrade, you fit right in!
>> 
>
> where do you fit in, john?  maybe if you would reveal your tax bracket i 
> would understand how you prefer the government to spend your taxes?
> jon  
>   
My favorite quote is from Nero Wolfe: "A man condemning the income tax 
because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is 
merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of 
civilized discourse."

Among the things you need to be extremely careful about are: 1) 
unsupported assumptions;  2) inflammatory language; and 3) false 
analogy. I am seeing many of these being used in accordance with the 
principles developed by the Cult of Rand.

Unsupported assumption:  It's your money, and the government is stealing 
it from you.

This is one of those things that never stands up to close investigation, 
unless you are willing to take it on faith as an axiom. Taking things on 
faith as axioms is of course the primary method of the Rand Cult. In 
this case, as a member of a society that does various things to allow 
people to make a living in relative security and safety, you have 
obligations to that society. The money you earn derives in part from the 
social structures that make that possible. If you ever doubt that, start 
suggesting that we get rid of the army, the police, the courts (and 
didn't we go through all this back in the days of Hobbs?), and watch how 
quickly the Libertarians will start talking about public goods. In 
practice, a public good is anything they find necessary, and wasteful 
spending is anything they don't find necessary. (As an aside, there is a 
technical definition in economics for what should be a public good, but 
this is rarely brought into the argument.) How government raises and 
spends money should be subject to intense debate, since there is a 
definite tendency for governments to spend more money than they should 
on things we probably don't need, but even there for every man's 
wasteful expenditure you have another man's vitally important program. 
But no matter how intensely you debate these things, to imply that 
government, by being government, is immoral, marks you as outside the 
realm of intelligent discourse.

Inflammatory language: Taking your money by force

Again, this is intended to give you the image of being mugged in a dark 
alley by scary robbers. By definition, everything the government does 
has the implied ability to punish you if you don't go along, but how 
would you enforce any law otherwise? Unless you are an anarchist and 
believe that everyone should have the right to decide for themselves 
which laws they feel like observing, you will have to have some type of 
law enforcement. Governments also punish you for driving while 
intoxicated, and are quite willing to use force to do it. And they are 
also quite willing to force you to support your children. In fact, most 
people would prefer that the government do a better job of enforcing 
those last two.

False analogy: John used one earlier to imply that stiffing a waiter was 
a good analogy for Obama's economic policies.

Mostly that was just a weird story that leaves you going "Huh?", but 
false analogy is used a lot. One of the best ones was popular some years 
back, before the Republican party descended into outright criminality. 
It goes like this: "The government is just like a family, it cannot live 
beyond its means." Many people who gave the outward appearance of 
intelligence bought into this one, but it fails at the outset. The 
government is not just like a family. In fact, one could search far and 
wide and have trouble finding two institutions more unlike than a 
government and a family. Apples and oranges are identical twins when 
placed next to governments and families. And yet many people focused on 
the second part of the statement, while ignoring the fact that the 
premise was stupendously wrong, so wrong that it should have invalidated 
anything that followed after it.

Now that the American people have realized the right-wing is batshit 
crazy, you will hear a lot of bizarre stuff as they desperately try to 
stop their slide into total irrelevance. So pay attention.

Regards,

-- 
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Linux User #333216

"If you're going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 07:13 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

> > > why, am i in danger, from who...?
>
> > No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just
> > trying to help redistribute the refuges.
>
> > > are you really that dense, john?
>
> > I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never
> > measured it, though.
>
> > >  how many times do i need to spell it out?
>
> > Could be a lot, until I finally get it.
>
>you get it alright, you choose to ignore what you can't refute and 
>resort to sarcasm (your last refuge)...



Sarcasm is some people's second language.  As I've said before, it's 
my milk tongue . . .


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, John Williams
> wrote:
 
> >
> > So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one
> > should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules?
 
> No, that's not my position.  Not at all.
> 
> My position is that it is wrong to misrepresent democracy as coercion.

LOL! I wasn't expecting slapstick!


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Claes Wallin]

Rceeberger wrote:
> On 10/27/2008 7:07:33 PM, Jon Louis Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead.
>>> Have you got John Galt in a case?
>> Who is John Galt?~)
> Look him up on wikipedia.
> Probably under Ayn Rand and various other nutcases.

Umm, actually "Who is John Galt?" is sort of the catch-phrase of the 
book. I was about to write it myself, but Jon beat me to it. :-)

/c

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:56 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one
> should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules?


That's the sort of statement that results in complaints about straw man
arguments.

No, that's not my position.  Not at all.

My position is that it is wrong to misrepresent democracy as coercion.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: My contribution to the bail-out

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 11:38 AM Monday 10/27/2008, Alberto Monteiro wrote:

>Dan M wrote:
> >
> > There are 40 _trillion_ of credit default swaps out there.
> >
>Billions, trillions, quadrillions... Who cares? Dr. Evil was
>frozen for 30 years and had to raise the blackmail from
>1 million to 100 billion. Now, 1 trillion seems like nothing :-)
>
>Let's adopt complex numbers in finance! Maybe in the next crisis
>we will be discussing things like "the banks (or whatever) were
>negotiating 100 quadrillion i-dollars!"
>
>Alberto Monteiro



"i bottles of beer on the wall, i bottles of beer, take one down, 
pass it around . . . "


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An armed society

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 03:30 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Julia Thompson wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
>
> >
> >>> Then again, "an armed society is a polite
> >> society" ..



"An armed society is a polite society. Manners 
are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
— Robert A. Heinlein, _Beyond the Horizon_, 1942



> >> Bruce,
> >> We have found that in general Americans are the politest
> >> people we have met.
> >> They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have
> >> certainly
> >> speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms
> >> we have seen.



Another possible hypothesis is that people who 
are familiar with firearms and their use and 
handling tend to be independent and 
self-sufficient in other ways, and so may have 
fewer worries about things being out of their 
control and so have less reason to be fearful or 
suspicious of strangers and their 
intentions.  (And not just because they can pull 
out a .45 and blow the stranger away if he threatens them . . . :P)



> >> I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a
> >> supermarket car park
> >> with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window.
> >> When the driver
> >> opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there
> >> was room for him
> >> to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is
> >> more weapons than I
> >> had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in
> >> beside him and they
> >> had a conversation. I think from the body language that the
> >> Sheriff was
> >> admiring the guns, but I can't be sure



Obviously I was not there to observe, but based 
on my experience I expect you are correct.  When 
they get together socially LEOs discuss the tools 
of their trade and their relative positive and 
negative points in the same way geeks discuss the 
relative merits of different operating systems.



>and I did not
> >> want to hang around to
> >> find out.
> >> Regards,
> >> Maree
> >
> >
> > someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or
> > to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy.  one gun should be
> > sufficient for self protection.  if gun toting red necks are polite to
> > you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't vote for
> > obama!~)
> > jon
>
>If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one
>rifle for doing so.  (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a
>sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler.



A gun is a tool for a particular job.  A toolbox 
that contained only a single #3 Phillips 
screwdriver would not be very useful for many 
jobs a technician or a DIYer will 
encounter.  Similarly, the right gun (and ammo) 
for one purpose may be too much or too little for another purpose.

And FWIW in many cases the best load for a 
sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a 
rattler is a shot shell rather than a regular 
bullet.  OTOH, depending on what you're hunting, 
you may want a large-bore sidearm with a heavy 
round in case when you approach something you 
have shot with a rifle from a distance it is not 
yet entirely dead.  Especially if it's something 
that might be able to get up and hurt you before it expires . . .

(And FWIW IANAH . . . )



>Just remember
>to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with
>that bag, m'kay?)



I hope you are not talking from personal experience.



>And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm
>somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes
>jabs.
>
>If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes
>about people who do.
>
> Julia
>
>who may have the only gun-free house in the neighborhood, but it's
>certainly not *weapon*-free



And I doubt you or anyone else familiar with them 
would claim that a single type of sharp object 
would be adequate or even usable in all situations.


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 04:40 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Rceeberger wrote:

>On 10/27/2008 9:24:30 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> > > the Fed
> > can't really even estimate or predict how
> > > far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even
> > > years into the future.)
> >
> > The Fed can't
> > predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS
> > market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that.
>
>But he aint letting us in on the skinny.


Perhaps because many folks playing the markets 
don't necessarily seem to be trying to make money to further God's purposes?


Woke up this mornin', turned on the t.v. set.
there in livin' color, was somethin' I can't forget.
This man was preachin' at me, yeah, layin' on the charm
askin' me for twenty, with ten-thousand on his arm.
He wore designer clothes, and a big smile on his face
tellin' me salvation while they sang Amazin' Grace.
Askin' me for money, when he had all the signs of wealth.
I almost wrote a check out, yeah, then I asked myself

(chorus)

Would He wear a pinky ring, would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressin' room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there's somethin' I'd like to know
Could ya tell me, Would Jesus wear a Rolex on His television show.

Would Jesus be political if He came back to earth?
Have His second home in Palm Springs, yeah, a try to hide His worth?
Take money, from those poor folks, when He comes back again,
and admit He's talked to all them preachers who say they been a talkin' to Him?

(chorus)

Just ask ya' self, Would He wear a pinky ring,
Would He drive a fancy car?
Would His wife wear furs and diamonds, would His dressing room have a star?
If He came back tomorrow, well there's somethin' I'd like to know:
Could ya tell me, would Jesus wear a Rolex,
Would jesus wear a Rolex
Would Jesus wear a Rolex
On His television show-ooh-ooh?


— Ray Stevens, "Would Jesus Wear A Rolex"


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)

[Ronn! Blankenship]

At 04:48 PM Monday 10/27/2008, Claes Wallin wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Modern version (and possibly a digression):
>
>(1) If a country's government is forced out of the capital and loses
>control of most of the country, is the area controlled by that
>government still the original country, only with a drastically
>diminished territory?
>
>(2) If the opposition of a country's government forces the government
>out of the capital and announces a new constitution, is the entity ruled
>by the new constitution simply the same country, only with a new
>constitution?
>
>In 1949-1972 the governments of the world seem to have felt that
>the answer to (1) was "yes" and the answer to (2) was "no". In 1972 the
>position was reversed. So which is true?



Which specific country[ies] are you thinking of which changed in 1949 and 1972?


. . . ronn!  :)



___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[John Williams]

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> where do you fit in, john?  

50% of taxpayers (by AGI) collectively pay for about 97% of the
total government spending, and the other 50% of taxpayers 
only pay for 3%. I'm part of the 97% group.


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

death and taxes...

[Jon Louis Mann]

> i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social 
> > programs...
> jon

> And you prefer even more to have the goverment spend OTHER
> people's money on social programs. But you don't
> want other 
> people to spend YOUR money on their preferred applications.
> Robber baron, robber comrade, you fit right in!

where do you fit in, john?  maybe if you would reveal your tax bracket i would 
understand how you prefer the government to spend your taxes?
jon  


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[John Williams]

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> t i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social 
> programs...

And you prefer even more to have the goverment spend OTHER
people's money on social programs. But you don't want other 
people to spend YOUR money on their preferred applications.
Robber baron, robber comrade, you fit right in!


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New Creationist Ploy

[Olin Elliott]

>Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same
>way a whirlpool is real?

It means that seeing your skin as some kind of permanent continuous thing is a 
fallacy.  The skin you had twenty years ago was real and the skin you have now 
is real, but they are not the same thing.  It is only a linguistic convention 
and function of memory in the brain that make them seem that way.  What is not 
real is the idea that there is something called "my skin" which is continuous 
through time despite constantly changing.  The same thing with conciousness.  
Brain cells are a little less transitory (on the time scale of a human life) 
than skin cells, and the patterns laid down in our brains as memory endure 
(although anyone who has ever discussed their childhood with a sibling or 
parent, or even re-read an old diary, should know how changeable our memories 
really are -- they are constantly revised), but conciousness is a process, not 
a thing.  Imagine if I said, my heart was beating twenty years ago and my heart 
is beating now, therefore there must be some thing calle
 d a "heat-beat" that is continuous through time.  But of course a "heart-beat" 
is not a thing, it's the ongoing working of the heart, in the same way 
conciousness is the ongoing working of the brain.  If the heart stops working, 
the heartbeat is gone.  If the brain stops working -- and I'm as sure of this 
as I am of anything in the world -- conciousness stops.  I see no reason why it 
should be any different than any other biological process.

Over a long enough time span, everything is like the whirlpool -- a temporary 
form with no fixed, permanent substance.  Buddha called it "the coming into 
being and passing away of all things."  

Olin

  - Original Message - 
  From: Mauro Diotallevi 
  To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
  Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 12:08 PM
  Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy


  On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> wrote:
  >>Surely the "I" that perceives is something.  Just because it can't exist
  >>outside a brain,  doesn't mean it isn't real.
  >
  >
  > Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and 
appears to be a "thing" even though the matter in it changes every second.  
It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance.


  I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells.
  The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have now.
   Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same
  way a whirlpool is real?

  And I'm not asking this rhetorically; I really am interested in your
  take on this.

  -- 
  Mauro Diotallevi
  "The number you have dialed is imaginary.  Please rotate your phone 90
  degrees and try again."
  ___
  
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

death and taxes...

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > you won't even get enough to pay for 
> your meds, john.  the most i've ever made 
> > in a year was $50,000, and that was
> working two jobs...

> That's okay, I'll take it. 

i have $10 for julia, but i prefer the government to spend my taxes on social 
programs...

as usual you dodge the question... "how much did you make in your best year?"  

i assume you must earn 5 times my best, since you are so opposed cutting taxes 
for low earners like myself, and NOT cutting taxes for those in the more than 
$250,000 a year bracket...
jon

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Lance A. Brown]

Andrew Crystall said the following on 10/27/2008 8:40 PM:
> On 27 Oct 2008 at 18:52, Lance A. Brown wrote:
> 
>>
>> William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM:
>>> Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias  
>>> instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the  
>>> money of people who don't want to pay for it.
>> You mean like Blackwater?
> 
> Try the local Mafia.

As if I'd like to turn over our national defense to either group.

This conversation reminds me of the situation in Neil Stephenson's "Snow
Crash".

--[Lance]

-- 
 GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9
 CACert.org Assurer
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: death and taxes...

[John Williams]

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> you won't even get enough to pay for your meds, john.  the most i have ever 
> made 
> in my life was $50,000, (in a year) and that was working two jobs...

That's okay, I'll take it. 



  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

> We had a revolution
> against, among other things, taxation without representation.  In case you
> forgot, we won. 

I'd be ecstatic to go back to the taxation/spending levels of that time. Or even
the pre-war 1900's.

> Whether or not we deserve the government we have, we chose it,
> give or take some voting irregularities.

So your position is, if a majority votes for some policy, then no one
should have a right to complain about it because the majority rules?


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

death and taxes...

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > i prefer taxing the rich.

> I prefer taxing Jon Louis Mann for all his money to reduce
> my taxes!

you won't even get enough to pay for your meds, john.  the most i have ever 
made in my life was $50,000, (in a year) and that was working two jobs...  i 
pay the max because i use the short form.  it would cost too much to hire an 
accountant to figure out ways to avoid paying my fair share.
in the spirit of full disclosure, how much did you amke in your best year?
jon

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > A Democratic congress will tax the wealthy and
> redistribute the wealth to the poor and middle class.
> > If McCain wins he will continue GOP policies of
> subsidizing the corporate
> > state and cutting social programs. Jon

> This is something I don't understand. If Obama is the
> anti-corporation
> candidate, how he gets 2-3x more money for the campaing
> than McPalin?
> Alberto Monteiro 
> PS: former terrorist, bank-robber, kidnapper, communist,
> quasi-nudist 
> and marijuana apologist Gabeira lost the Rio election with
> 48.5% of
> the valid votes _for him_. That's a pity, he had some
> really interesting ideas.


sounds like my kind of guy!~)  
obama raised much of his contributions in small donations from the internet.  i 
expected he rec'd a lot from labor, and endorsements from capitalists like 
soros and buffet, as well


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: My two rules of politics

[John Williams]

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> i prefer taxing the rich.

I prefer taxing Jon Louis Mann for all his money to reduce my taxes!


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An armed society

[Jon Louis Mann]

> If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want
> more than one 
> rifle for doing so.  (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake
> country, you want a 
> sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler. 
> Just remember 
> to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the
> airport with that bag, m'kay?)
> And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for
> Obama, and I'm 
> somewhat irked that someone can't look past a
> stereotype and instead makes jabs. 
> If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing
> around stereotypes 
> about people who do.
>   Julia

sorry, julia, i don't like rednecks (or religious zealots) and they don't like 
me.  i wouldn't have it any other way!~)   

i lived in texas in the 50s and even back then i didn't know any gun toting 
cowboy types, or people who relied on hunting to put food on the table; maybe 
in the 1850's...

however, i am sure there are exceptions to the rule and some rednecks may even 
vote for obama, especially after seeing what bush did to texas and then to the 
u.s. (and the world)...
jon



  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Andrew Crystall]

On 27 Oct 2008 at 18:52, Lance A. Brown wrote:

> 
> 
> William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM:
> > Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias  
> > instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the  
> > money of people who don't want to pay for it.
> 
> You mean like Blackwater?

Try the local Mafia.

AndrewC
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > > In case you haven't noticed, John Galt
> is dead.

> > > Have you got John Galt in a case?

> > Who is John Galt?~)
> Look him up on wikipedia.
> Probably under Ayn Rand and various other nutcases.

i was being ironic, rob.  i read atlas shrugged, and understand what the title 
is supposed to mean.  we have some people on this list (and on wall street) who 
actually buy into rand's ravings...


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

My two rules of politics

[Jon Louis Mann]

> 1) I am a fan of gridlock. I think if Obama wins, with a
> Democrat
> dominated Congress, there will be a lot of new spending.
> I'm convinced
> Clinton would have spent more if the Republicans didn't
> dominate 
> Congress during most of his 8 years.

> 2) A surplus does not equal less spending. Clinton balanced
> the budget
> by raising taxes and and keeping the rate of spending
> growth in control.
> He was lucky to have a period of rapidly growing GDP and
> tax revenues,
> and a Republican Congress for most of his years made it
> more difficult
> to pass new spending bills. Not that a balanced budget is
> bad, but I'd
> rather see the budget balanced by cutting spending rather
> than raising taxes.

i prefer taxing the rich.  if clinton balanced the budget by raising taxes, at 
least he created a surplus, whereas bush/cheney are leaving us with a huge 
deficit and economic collapse.  if the supreme court had not given the election 
to bush, the world would be a different place now...
if obama wins in a landslide then he will be able to undo the damage done by 
bush/cheney in ways the FDR did when the democrats controlled all three 
branches of government...


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: from Saturday's blog

[David Brin]

Thanks Alberto

I hope we don't let you down...


- Original Message 
From: Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 4:09:41 PM
Subject: Brin: from Saturday's blog

> Ever notice that Sarah Palin anagrams to "Sharia plan." 
> So, clearly, she's the one who plans to institute Muslim
> law in the United States. Other anagrams include:
> a sharp nail a plain rash. Any chance of a numeralogical
> match with 666? Pleze?
>
Numerology is an easy science!

  Sarah Palin Vice President USA

if we add the _roman_ digits, we get:

Palin = L + I = 51
Vice = V + I + C = 106
President = I + D = 501
USA = V = 5

adding together, we get 663.

Now, why we should add 3?

- she was the third children from her parents
- she finished third in Miss Alaska
- she has three terms as administrative experience (2 in Wasilia + 1 in 
Alaska)

So, it's clear that _3_ is Palin's lucky number.

Adding 663 + 3, we get 666!

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > why, am i in danger, from who...?

> No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just
> trying to help redistribute the refuges. 

> > are you really that dense, john?

> I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never
> measured it, though.

> >  how many times do i need to spell it out?

> Could be a lot, until I finally get it.

you get it alright, you choose to ignore what you can't refute and resort to 
sarcasm (your last refuge)...  
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Rceeberger]

On 10/27/2008 7:07:33 PM, Jon Louis Mann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead.
> 
> > Have you got John Galt in a case?
> 
> Who is John Galt?~)
Look him up on wikipedia.
Probably under Ayn Rand and various other nutcases.


xponent
Utopians Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead.

> Have you got John Galt in a case?

Who is John Galt?~)

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Richard Baker]

Nick said:

> So I don't think any of us can justify whining about being "forced"  
> to pay taxes unless there's been another revolution that I haven't  
> heard about.

So if you aren't forced to pay taxes, what happens if you choose not to?

Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:12 PM, John Williams wrote:

> Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> *huge* "if" that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez-
>> faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality.  Do we
>> really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or
>> can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government
>> involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of
>> irresponsibly risky behavior?
>
> LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save us! Despite
> all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this time! Worship
> the government! Government is God!

Huh?!  OK, whatever .. not at all sure how you got to that, and don't  
really particularly *want* to know ..

"Good, 'cause, you know, we want to report that the country's a lot  
stranger than it was a year ago." -- Toby Ziegler


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:34 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> I don't consider any process that involves the government forcibly taking
> money from people good,


Oh, please.  You live in the United States, right?.  We had a revolution
against, among other things, taxation without representation.  In case you
forgot, we won.  So I don't think any of us can justify whining about being
"forced" to pay taxes unless there's been another revolution that I haven't
heard about.  Whether or not we deserve the government we have, we chose it,
give or take some voting irregularities.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Closest Planetary System Hosts Two Asteroid Belts

[Ronn! Blankenship]

1) Closest Planetary System Hosts Two Asteroid Belts  (27 October 2008)
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media/releases/ssc2008-19/release.shtml

New observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope indicate that 
the nearest planetary system to our own has two asteroid belts. Our 
own solar system has just one.

The star at the center of the nearby system, called Epsilon Eridani, 
is a younger, slightly cooler and fainter version of the sun. 
Previously, astronomers had uncovered evidence for two possible 
planets in the system, and for a broad, outer ring of icy comets 
similar to our own Kuiper Belt.

Now, Spitzer has discovered that the system also has dual asteroid 
belts. One sits at approximately the same position as the one in our 
solar system. The second, denser belt, most likely also populated by 
asteroids, lies between the first belt and the comet ring. The 
presence of the asteroid belts implies additional planets in the 
Epsilon Eridani system.

"This system probably looks a lot like ours did when life first took 
root on Earth," said Dana Backman, an astronomer at the SETI 
Institute, in Mountain View, Calif., and outreach director for NASA's 
Sofia mission. "The main difference we know of so far is that it has 
an additional ring of leftover planet construction material." Backman 
is lead author of a paper about the findings to appear Jan. 10 in the 
Astrophysical Journal.

Asteroid belts are rocky and metallic debris left over from the early 
stages of planet formation. Their presence around other stars signals 
that rocky planets like Earth could be orbiting in the system's inner 
regions, with massive gas planets circling near the belts' rims. In 
our own solar system, for example, there is evidence that Jupiter, 
which lies just beyond our asteroid belt, caused the asteroid belt to 
form long ago by stirring up material that would have otherwise 
coalesced into a planet. Nowadays, Jupiter helps keep our asteroid 
belt confined to a ring.

Astronomers have detected stars with signs of multiple belts of 
material before, but Epsilon Eridani is closer to Earth and more like 
our sun overall. It is 10 light-years away, slightly less massive 
than the sun, and roughly 800 million years old, or one-fifth the age 
of the sun.

Because the star is so close and similar to the sun, it is a popular 
locale in science fiction. The television series Star Trek and 
Babylon 5 referenced Epsilon Eridani, and it has been featured in 
novels by Issac Asimov and Frank Herbert, among others.

The popular star was also one of the first to be searched for signs 
of advanced alien civilizations using radio telescopes in 1960. At 
that time, astronomers did not know of the star's young age.

Spitzer observed Epsilon Eridani with both of its infrared cameras 
and its infrared spectrometer. When asteroid and comets collide or 
evaporate, they release tiny particles of dust that give off heat, 
which Spitzer can see. "Because the system is so close to us, Spitzer 
can really pick out details in the dust, giving us a good look at the 
system's architecture," said co-author Karl Stapelfeldt of NASA's Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

The asteroid belts detected by Spitzer orbit at distances of 
approximately 3 and 20 astronomical units from the star (an 
astronomical unit is the average distance between Earth and the sun). 
For reference, our own asteroid belt lies at about 3 astronomical 
units from the sun, and Uranus is roughly 19 astronomical units away.

One of the two possible planets previously identified around Epsilon 
Eridani, called Epsilon Eridani, was discovered in 2000. The planet 
is thought to orbit at an average distance of 3.4 astronomical units 
from the star -- just outside the innermost asteroid belt identified 
by Spitzer. This is the first time that an asteroid belt and a planet 
beyond our solar system have been found in a similar arrangement as 
our asteroid belt and Jupiter.

Some researchers had reported that Epsilon Eridani b orbits in an 
exaggerated ellipse ranging between 1 and 5 astronomical units, but 
this means the planet would cross, and quickly disrupt, the newfound 
asteroid belt. Instead, Backman and colleagues argue that this planet 
must have a more circular orbit that keeps it just outside the belt.

The other candidate planet was first proposed in 1998 to explain 
lumpiness observed in the star's outer comet ring. It is thought to 
lie near the inner edge of the ring, which orbits between 35 and 90 
astronomical units from Epsilon Eridani.

The intermediate belt detected by Spitzer suggests that a third 
planet could be responsible for creating and shepherding its 
material. This planet would orbit at approximately 20 astronomical 
units and lie between the other two planets. "Detailed studies of the 
dust belts in other planetary systems are telling us a great deal 
about their complex structure," said Michael Werner, co-author of the 
study and project scienti

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Claes Wallin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> John Williams wrote:
> > That is one of the least evil forms of government spending, I agree.
> 
> Wouldn't that just be redistribution of wealth?

Yes.

> Have I misunderstood that you consider redistribution of wealth bad and 
> spending on public goods acceptable?

I don't consider any process that involves the government forcibly taking 
money from people good, but some processes are less bad than the obvious
alternatives, such as the country being taken over by tyrants or people 
starving 
to death in the streets.


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin: from Saturday's blog

[Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro]

> Ever notice that Sarah Palin anagrams to "Sharia plan." 
> So, clearly, she's the one who plans to institute Muslim
> law in the United States. Other anagrams include:
> a sharp nail a plain rash. Any chance of a numeralogical
> match with 666? Pleze?
>
Numerology is an easy science!

  Sarah Palin Vice President USA

if we add the _roman_ digits, we get:

Palin = L + I = 51
Vice = V + I + C = 106
President = I + D = 501
USA = V = 5

adding together, we get 663.

Now, why we should add 3?

- she was the third children from her parents
- she finished third in Miss Alaska
- she has three terms as administrative experience (2 in Wasilia + 1 in 
Alaska)

So, it's clear that _3_ is Palin's lucky number.

Adding 663 + 3, we get 666!

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Claes Wallin]

John Williams wrote:
> Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government  
>> assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to  
>> mouth in a homeless camp somewhere.  I'd kind of like for those  
>> programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying  
>> for them,
> 
> That is one of the least evil forms of government spending, I agree.

Wouldn't that just be redistribution of wealth?

Have I misunderstood that you consider redistribution of wealth bad and 
spending on public goods acceptable?

/c

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Government doesn't make toilet paper. Prices come from the finance industry.

My dollar bills say "Federal Reserve Note" and "The Department of the Treasury".
What do yours say?

> Dollar bills have little intrinsic value.

Must be because the government prints so many of them! Damn them! 


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Lance A. Brown]

William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM:
> Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias  
> instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the  
> money of people who don't want to pay for it.

You mean like Blackwater?

Greed and Corruption Maru

-- 
 GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9
 CACert.org Assurer
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Senator Ted Stevens found guilty

[Rceeberger]

On 10/27/2008 5:18:13 PM, Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
> dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102700289.html?hpid=topnews
> 
> No time to comment myself, but I thought some folks might be interested.
> There's plenty of fodder in the article itself for commenting upon, I
> think.
> 

I can only think of one thing to say:

AmericaAaAaaa F*ck Yeah


xponent
Team Police Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Rceeberger]

On 10/27/2008 5:11:49 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > > Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades!
> > >
> > Now that you mention it, that would be preferable.
>
> So long as the robber comrades have a good supply of rubber
> condoms. "Please bend over, sir, it is for the good of the country!"
>
Robber barons make you supply your own condoms. "It is part of the cost of 
being businessed".


xponent
Centrist Maru
rob 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Senator Ted Stevens found guilty

[Julia Thompson]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102700289.html?hpid=topnews

No time to comment myself, but I thought some folks might be interested. 
There's plenty of fodder in the article itself for commenting upon, I 
think.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Rceeberger]

On 10/27/2008 5:07:40 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > If you ever end up wiping your ass with dollar bills because they are
> > cheaper than toilet paper, give me a call.
>
> Government is good at printing money. Financial industry, not so much.
> Get your toilet paper from Paulson!
>

Government doesn't make toilet paper. Prices come from the finance industry.
Dollar bills have little intrinsic value.

xponent
Consensual Myths Maru
rob 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

> > Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades!
> >  
> Now that you mention it, that would be preferable.

So long as the robber comrades have a good supply of rubber
condoms. "Please bend over, sir, it is for the good of the country!"


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> If you ever end up wiping your ass with dollar bills because they are 
> cheaper than toilet paper, give me a call.

Government is good at printing money. Financial industry, not so much.
Get your toliet paper from Paulson!


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Rceeberger]

On 10/27/2008 4:44:45 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > they can make what money you have worthless.
>
> If they means the financial industry, then no, they cannot.
>

If you ever end up wiping your ass with dollar bills because they are 
cheaper than toilet paper, give me a call.



xponent
Historical Notes Maru
rob 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Identity, and then sneaking in some geopolitics (Re: New Creationist Ploy)

[Claes Wallin]

Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
> I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells. 
> The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have
> now. Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the
> same way a whirlpool is real?

I am firmly of the opinion that your skin is real. You may say that it 
is real in the same way that a whirlpool is real, or the Great Red Spot 
of Jupiter. If your skin is more real than the whirlpool, simply because 
its constituent matter is replaced at a slower pace ... assume that the 
Spot, or something else of similar characteristics, has a replacement 
cycle longer than that of your skin. Is then that Spot more real than 
your skin?

I find the above not a very interesting discussion. More interesting is 
the question of identity. Since I have stated that your skin exists, I 
can also ask if your skin now is the same as your skin 20 years ago.

In the case of myself, my intuition tells me that I am the same person 
occupying the same body that "I" was and occupied twenty years ago. 
Mostly because this is a useful and intuitive definition of identity. I 
have changed a lot, but I am the same person.

There are cases where the intuitive definition is less obvious. This is 
the classical problem of identity and the ship of Theseus. Good summary 
available here:

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html

Summary of the summary:
- If Theseus has a ship and replaces a plank in the ship, is it still
the same ship?
- If he subsequently has replaced all the planks and other parts of the
ship, is it still the same ship?
- If a scavenger took each part as Theseus threw it away and built those
into a replica of his ship, which ship is the original? The one Theseus
is on, or the one the scavenger built, which consists of all the parts
of the original?
- If we put Theseus's ship in dry dock, disassembled it and again
assembled it, is our intuition as to the identity of the newly assembled
ship still the same as in the case of the scavenger?


Modern version (and possibly a digression):

(1) If a country's government is forced out of the capital and loses 
control of most of the country, is the area controlled by that 
government still the original country, only with a drastically 
diminished territory?

(2) If the opposition of a country's government forces the government 
out of the capital and announces a new constitution, is the entity ruled 
by the new constitution simply the same country, only with a new 
constitution?

In 1949-1972 the governments of the world seem to have felt that
the answer to (1) was "yes" and the answer to (2) was "no". In 1972 the 
position was reversed. So which is true?

I believe that both propositions are true and that people should just 
get along, decide on some functional-enough terminology on the two 
countries and move on to find something more useful on which to spend 
their energy...

/c

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Rceeberger]

On 10/27/2008 3:28:52 PM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> > who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons.
> 
> Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades!
> 

Now that you mention it, that would be preferable.


xponent
Robber Mudkips Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Rceeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> they can make what money you have worthless.

If they means the financial industry, then no, they cannot.


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

 Kevin B. O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead.

Have you got John Galt in a case?


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New Creationist Ploy

[Claes Wallin]

Wayne Eddy wrote:
> From: "Olin Elliott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> The "I" that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of 
>> perception and >memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. 
>> Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, ?>and modern science is showing him 
>> right.
> Surely the "I" that perceives is something.  Just because it can't exist 
> outside a brain,  doesn't mean it isn't real.
> 
> If matter couldn't exist outside this universe, would that mean that matter 
> is an illusion?
> 
> Software can't run outside a computer, does that mean it's not real?
> 
> What exactly does real mean?

My mind is real, in the same way that a language is real, or a computer
program, and in the same way that Islam, Christianity and Buddhism are
real. Abstract, but real, because it is meaningful to reason about as
real, and because it has real consequences.

There exists such a thing as "mathematics". It is an abstract construct, 
a concept, and it only exists in our minds, but if one person says it 
does not exist, and the next person goes on to use that which does not 
exist to predict astronomical events, what is then the meaning of "exist"?

That which exists is real, right?

/c

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Rceeberger]

On 10/27/2008 9:24:30 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > the Fed
> can't really even estimate or predict how
> > far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even
> > years into the future.)
>
> The Fed can't
> predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS
> market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that.

But he aint letting us in on the skinny.


>
> > the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what
> >
> they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way
>
> The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think
> they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I
> prefer the former -- at least they can't
> force me to waste my money.

No, but unless you don't understand the financials as well as you seem to, 
they can make what money you have worthless. It hasn't really been said 
aloud lately, but that is pretty much one of the basic points of this 
discussion.
Right now, deflation is a very real concern, and money is not the same thing 
as value.
You use the word "money" quite often, but what I think you are actually 
concerned about is your affluence. And that is something a bit different. In 
my case, my affluence and the value of my work (as an index of affluence) 
are my greatest concerns.

xponent
Chaotic Functions Maru
rob


>
> >  I don't mind paying taxes
>
> Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law?
>
>
>
>
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Kevin B. O'Brien]

John Williams wrote:
> Anecdote seen on the internet:
>
> Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote 
> Obama, I need the money.'  I laughed.  Once in the restaurant my server had 
> on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political 
> preference -- just imagine the coincidence.  When the bill came I decided not 
> to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama 
> redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told 
> him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in 
> need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I 
> went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server 
> inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was 
> grateful.  At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I 
> realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the 
> waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn
>  even though the actual recipient needed money more.  I guess redistribution 
> of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical 
> application.
>   
In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead.

Regards,

-- 
Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Linux User #333216

"America is at that awkward stage.  It's too late to work within the 
system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An armed society

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:

>
>>> Then again, "an armed society is a polite
>> society" ..
>
>> Bruce,
>> We have found that in general Americans are the politest
>> people we have met.
>> They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have
>> certainly
>> speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms
>> we have seen.
>> I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a
>> supermarket car park
>> with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window.
>> When the driver
>> opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there
>> was room for him
>> to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is
>> more weapons than I
>> had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in
>> beside him and they
>> had a conversation. I think from the body language that the
>> Sheriff was
>> admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not
>> want to hang around to
>> find out.
>> Regards,
>> Maree
>
>
> someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or 
> to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy.  one gun should be 
> sufficient for self protection.  if gun toting red necks are polite to 
> you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't vote for 
> obama!~)
> jon

If you're trying to put food on the table, you may want more than one 
rifle for doing so.  (Plus, if you're in rattlesnake country, you want a 
sidearm in case you find yourself too close to a rattler.  Just remember 
to take the damn thing out of your bag before you go to the airport with 
that bag, m'kay?)

And, geez, I *know* gun-toting rednecks who are voting for Obama, and I'm 
somewhat irked that someone can't look past a stereotype and instead makes 
jabs.

If you don't live in gun country, don't be throwing around stereotypes 
about people who do.

Julia

who may have the only gun-free house in the neighborhood, but it's 
certainly not *weapon*-free
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Jon Louis Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons. 

Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades!


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

> why, am i in danger, from who...?

No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just
trying to help redistribute the refuges. 


> are you really that dense, john,

I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never measured it, though.

>  how many times do i need to spell it out?

Could be a lot, until I finally get it.



  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > So you rank among the very wealthiest people in
> America?  Congratulations!

I doubt that,he's justjust another "Joe"...

> > The anecdote you posted depicts Obama as wanting to
> take ALL the money from
> > the "haves" to give to the
> "have-nots" - i.e.: that he's a socialist.

> Wow, there you go again with the straw-man arguments and
> calling Obama a socialist.

I wish he were a socialist!
Jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> Defending the country is a public good, 
> not redistributing wealth.

who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons.  
bush/cheney have done more to help al qaeda recruit than if mohammed were 
alive!~)


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> I think government is best at taking other people's
> money and spending it less
> desirably than those who earned it. Most people agree with
> me, judging by the
> tiny number of people who voluntarily pay more taxes. But
> believing you know
> better than others how to best spend their money is
> apparently quite seductive
> to many people.

i think the socialist democracies are much better job of providing services to 
their people, of course they don't spend nearly as much of their revenues on 
defense agains exaggerated threats...
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > what does that say about the republicans that did not
> vote for it? 

> Hmmm, I guess it says there were more of them than
> Democrats.

> > at least those democrats who had the integrity to 
> > vote against the bailout did so for the right reasons.

> To get re-elected!
> 
> > always with the sarcasm, the last refuge...
> 
> Don't worry, I have plenty of refuges. Do you need any?

why, am i in danger, from who...?
are you really that dense, john, or are you deliberately ignoring the different 
motives why the extremes voted the way they did? 
let me explain, the reactionary republicans wanted a bigger bailout (and got 
it), the progressive democrats wanted to bail out homeowners, NOT corporate 
crooks.  how many times do i need to spell it out?
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

 

> LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save
> us! Despite
> all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this
> time! Worship
> the government! Government is God!

You need to take your meds, John.  The government is Satan, under Bush/Cheney; 
lesser demons take over when there is a Dem in office.


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: An armed society

[Alberto Monteiro]

Lt Saavik wrote:
>
> > We have found that in general Americans are the politest
> > people we have met.
> > They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have
> > certainly
> > speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms
> > we have seen. 
> > I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a
> > supermarket car park
> > with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window.
> > When the driver
> > opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there
> > was room for him
> > to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is
> > more weapons than I
> > had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in
> > beside him and they
> > had a conversation. I think from the body language that the
> > Sheriff was
> > admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not
> > want to hang around to
> > find out. 
> > Regards,
> > Maree
> 
> someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, 
> or to compensate for some other kind of inadequacy.   one gun should 
> be sufficient for self protection.  if gun toting red necks are 
> polite to you it is likely because of your accent, plus you can't 
> vote for obama!~) jon
> 
(no comments... except the misnomer and the canonical Star Trek
quote...)

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Redistribute the wealth

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > I'm pretty sure that when I
> steel myself to look at  
> > the statements for those accounts, I'm going to
> find they pretty much  
> > tracked the Dow during its free-fall.

> Way to blame somebody else for your problems! You should
> run for office!


who do you think bruce is blaming, john, and who do you blame?   acorn, fannie, 
freddie and the people who were suckered into bad loans, or the people who made 
the loans?  so you think the war in iraq had anything to do with our economic 
problems?  now that people are starting to drive less the price of gas is 
settling, but the market is still going down...
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

An armed society

[Jon Louis Mann]

> > Then again, "an armed society is a polite
> society" ..
  
> Bruce,
> We have found that in general Americans are the politest
> people we have met.
> They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have
> certainly
> speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms
> we have seen. 
> I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a
> supermarket car park
> with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window.
> When the driver
> opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there
> was room for him
> to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is
> more weapons than I
> had seen in my lifetime. The local Sheriff pulled in
> beside him and they
> had a conversation. I think from the body language that the
> Sheriff was
> admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not
> want to hang around to
> find out. 
> Regards,
> Maree


someone with that many weapons on display must be doing it for show, or to 
compensate for some other kind of inadequacy.   one gun should be sufficient 
for self protection.  if gun toting red necks are polite to you it is likely 
because of your accent, plus you can't vote for obama!~)
jon


  
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New Creationist Ploy

[Mauro Diotallevi]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 11:06 PM, Olin Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Surely the "I" that perceives is something.  Just because it can't exist
>>outside a brain,  doesn't mean it isn't real.
>
>
> Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and 
> appears to be a "thing" even though the matter in it changes every second.  
> It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance.


I shed skin cells all the time, and they are replaced by new cells.
The skin I had 20 years ago is literally not the same skin I have now.
 Does that mean my skin doesn't exist, or is only as real in the same
way a whirlpool is real?

And I'm not asking this rhetorically; I really am interested in your
take on this.

-- 
Mauro Diotallevi
"The number you have dialed is imaginary.  Please rotate your phone 90
degrees and try again."
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

I am convinced that if the Fed or the government, despite all evidence
to the contrary, actually did have some ability to predict or even make
good guesses at what markets are likely to do, then it would have little
need of regulation. If the Fed chairman or Treasury secretary would have
spoken up a few years ago and stated that it is likely the housing market
is overvalued, or that a number of investment banks and insurers (and
Fannie and Freddie) are so undercapitalized that they are unlikely to
survive a steep market downturnthen investors and speculators would
probably pulled their money out sooner, resulting in a less severe downturn
since things would not have had as much time to inflate to such instability.

Alas, several years ago Bernanke and Paulson were saying that everything
was okay, that we weren't in a bubble, all problems were contained, etc.

Tough to be saved by non-omniscient gods. Have faith in God almighty instead!


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: An armed society, ( was distribute the wealth)

[Ray & Maree Ludenia]

> On Mon 10/27/2008 6:39 AM Bruce Bostwick wrote
> 
> Then again, "an armed society is a polite society" ..
> 
 
Bruce,
We have found that in general Americans are the politest people we have met.
They are also incredibly welcoming and friendly. We have certainly
speculated if this was in part due to the variety of arms we have seen. 
I still shudder when a truck pulled up next to us in a supermarket car park
with a shot gun on prominent display in the back window. When the driver
opened the door of the truck it was surprising that there was room for him
to sit with all the weapons visible in the car. That is more weapons than I
had seen in my lifetime. The local Sherriff pulled in beside him and they
had a conversation. I think from the body language that the Sherriff was
admiring the guns, but I can't be sure and I did not want to hang around to
find out. 

Regards,
Maree

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> most people, and I *am* involved in the securities market in a few  
> ways that would, pre-crash, have been considered very sound places to  
> put my money.  And I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at  
> the statements for those accounts, I'm going to find they pretty much  
> tracked the Dow during its free-fall.

Way to blame somebody else for your problems! You should run for office!

> those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government  
> assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to  
> mouth in a homeless camp somewhere.  I'd kind of like for those  
> programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying  
> for them,

That is one of the least evil forms of government spending, I agree.


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> *huge* "if" that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- 
> faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality.  Do we  
> really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or  
> can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government  
> involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of  
> irresponsibly risky behavior?

LOL. You're hilarious today. The government can save us! Despite
all evidence to the contrary, it will be different this time! Worship
the government! Government is God!


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> They can,  
> however, forecast based on mandatory reporting of transactions in most  
> markets, and make reasonably accurate assessments of the impact of  
> changes in those markets based on that forecasting.

ROTFLMAO


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Senior Liberation Act

[John Williams]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506801638770679.html

"For all of America's cherished belief in choice and freedom, it remains
an astonishing fact that the U.S. government forces citizens over the
age of 65 into a subpar health plan of its choosing. And so it is with 
some hope that we greet a new federal lawsuit that aims to allow senior
citizens to flee Medicare.

The suit comes courtesy of Kent Masterson Brown, a lawyer who has 
previously tangled with the government over Medicare benefits. Mr. Brown
represents three plaintiffs who are suing the federal government to be
allowed to opt out of Medicare without losing their Social Security
benefits.

Amazingly, this is not currently allowed. While the Social Security law 
does not require participants to accept Medicare, and the Medicare law
does not require participants to accept Social Security, the Clinton
Administration in 1993 tied the programs together. Under that policy,
any senior who withdraws from Medicare also loses Social Security
benefits.

Mr. Brown's plaintiffs are three men who do not want to be in Medicare, 
even though they paid Medicare taxes throughout their income-earning
years and though they are not asking for that money back. The three
instead saved privately to cover their health care expenses. They now
prefer to contract with private doctors and health facilities that they 
believe are superior to those offered by Medicare."


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote:

>> the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what
>> they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way
>
> The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who  
> think
> they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I
> prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money.

I'm glad we at least agree that the financial industry is made up of a  
bunch of greedy people who think
they know more than they actually do.  And I would tend to agree also,  
to some extent, that the political industry has a fair number of such  
people in it as well.  I'm not convinced that the financial industry  
can't force me to waste my money, though, because there are ways to  
get involved in the securities market that aren't exactly obvious to  
most people, and I *am* involved in the securities market in a few  
ways that would, pre-crash, have been considered very sound places to  
put my money.  And I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at  
the statements for those accounts, I'm going to find they pretty much  
tracked the Dow during its free-fall.

But even if I wasn't appreciably long or short in any stock-based  
securities or complex derivatives or anything along those lines, this  
mess is still going to have a fairly significant impact on my life.  I  
may not have *wasted* money, but I'm going to *lose* money in the long  
run until the repercussions of this event are over, if only in terms  
of day to day living expenses.  I'm reasonably certain my employer  
will be able to keep operating without laying me off, but there are no  
guarantees there -- and if I fall on the down side of that, I'm going  
to have a tough several years ahead because it will be next to  
impossible to get a job that doesn't involve a fairly substantial pay  
cut and giving up on a career that I have a lot of experience and  
training invested in.  And it may come down to me becoming one of  
those people who -- OMGZ!!1! -- might need to depend on government  
assistance for a while to avoid starving to death or living hand to  
mouth in a homeless camp somewhere.  I'd kind of like for those  
programs to still be in existence if my survival depends on qualifying  
for them, if this thing turns out to be as bad as the direst  
assessments.

"When you mention that we want five debates, say what they are: one on  
the economy, one on foreign policy, with another on global threats and  
national security, one on the environment, and one on strengthening  
family life, which would include health care, education, and  
retirement. I also think there should be one on parts of speech and  
sentence structure. And one on fractions." -- Toby Ziegler


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote:

>> the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how
>> far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend  
>> even
>> years into the future.)
>
> The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS
> market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that.

Sorry, you're right, "predict" was a poor choice of words.  Nobody can  
predict future market behavior, and on that you're right.  They can,  
however, forecast based on mandatory reporting of transactions in most  
markets, and make reasonably accurate assessments of the impact of  
changes in those markets based on that forecasting.  Not even that is  
possible with the credit-default swap market, because there is no  
oversight, auditing, or reporting at all, so it's not possible to even  
guess at the long term impact of the collapse of that market or assess  
how risky the speculation in it was, or its long term effects on the  
brokerage firms that were trading in it.

And I wouldn't be quite as emotional about that if it weren't a clear  
cut example of precisely how the corporate interests have been telling  
us all along, since before Reagan, that the market *should* be run --  
no oversight, no auditing, no accountability, no reporting, none of  
that government "interference" in the market.  I agree that if  
everyone trading in a given market is responsible about the risks they  
take and the funds they have on hand to back those risks if they turn  
sour, then oversight and accountability do make the market somewhat  
less "efficient" than it can be otherwise .. but that, in turn is a  
*huge* "if" that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez- 
faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality.  Do we  
really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or  
can we agree that there is a need to have *some* government  
involvement in this kind of trading to prevent exactly this sort of  
irresponsibly risky behavior?

"I don't know what kind of salad it is.  I'm eating a salad, okay?
I'm doing it.  Do I have to know the names?  There's no difference  
between them.  It's a bowl of weeds.  Some of 'em have cheese.  This  
isn't the kind with cheese.  Does that answer your question?" -- Toby  
Ziegler

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Racial and Gender bigotry

[Dave Land]

Maree,

If, on your way South from Redding to Santa Monica you find yourself  
in the Bay Area (somewhat unlikely, if you're going via Yosemite, but  
hey), Nick and I are in the South Bay.

I, for one, would welcome the opportunity to meet another list member  
in 3Space.

Dave

On Oct 25, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ray & Maree Ludenia wrote:

>> On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann
>
>
>> Subject: Racial and Gender bigotry
>> Welcome to the list and to America, Maree!  I have travelled
>> extensively in AUS and New Zed and would be curious to hear how
>> different racial and gender bias is in America, compared to down  
>> under,
>> and how it is dealt with in your educational system, and in families?
>>
>> American television is being exported all over the world, but not Fox
>> News Network, yet... (although Rupert Murdouch is now an American
>> citizen, I believe.~) We do have many television programs that do
>> promote tolerance and sensitivity, many of which are spinoffs from
>> European programs.
>>
>> If you pass by Santa Monica, CA in your travels please contact me.
>> Jon Mann
>> (310) 664-3712
>>
>
> Hi Jon and thank you for your kind words.
> Australians are as xenophobic as Americans in a generalist sense. It  
> was
> only with the recent change in government that an apology for the  
> treatment
> of our Aboriginal people was being formulated. The apology may have  
> been
> made by now, but if that is the case I missed out on hearing about  
> it over
> here.
> Although education is an essential part of the solution to the  
> problem,
> there needs to be a broader response for this to work. This should  
> IMHO
> include carefully monitored affirmative action programs. Positive role
> models in various positions in media also help mitigate bias.  
> Community
> education projects can also help. Churches, and other institutions for
> social control and organisation, can have a great effect. We could  
> also use
> are more activists like Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King. I am  
> sure
> there are many other approaches that will work as well.
>
> My comment about broadening the solution came from my experience as a
> secondary school teacher. Over the years, whenever there is a societal
> problem the call goes out "Get the schools to deal with it." Schools  
> are
> instruments of social control and can be quite effective in that role.
> However, the more social programs foisted on schools the less time  
> they have
> to devote to teaching thinking, researching, arguing, reading,  
> writing,
> mathematics, science, history, geography and all the other important
> subjects that an educated person needs to know to effectively  
> function in
> our society. It is a difficult job getting the balance correct and  
> one that
> schools at home do amazingly well. I know so little about the system  
> here in
> the US that I would not like to comment on how well things work here.
>
> Of course between you and me we can solve all the world's  
> problems ;-).
> Regards,
> Maree Ludenia
>
> PS We are currently in Redding CA and moving south - Yosemite calls  
> before
> it gets too cold. We may end up in the Santa Monica area and if we  
> do I
> would love to catch up with you. ML
>
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: My contribution to the bail-out

[Alberto Monteiro]

Dan M wrote:
> 
> There are 40 _trillion_ of credit default swaps out there.  
>
Billions, trillions, quadrillions... Who cares? Dr. Evil was
frozen for 30 years and had to raise the blackmail from
1 million to 100 billion. Now, 1 trillion seems like nothing :-)

Let's adopt complex numbers in finance! Maybe in the next crisis 
we will be discussing things like "the banks (or whatever) were 
negotiating 100 quadrillion i-dollars!"

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Same old straw man.  Consider me to have written the same answer.

You and that other guy with all your straw-man arguments. Maybe if you
got together you could form a support group and make progress towards
kicking your straw-man habits?


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> I sure seem to have wasted some money involuntarily by trusting the
> valuations created by incomprehensibly complex financial industry
> instruments.  How is that really different from trusting politicians? 

Force does not equal choice. 



  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:24 AM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think
> they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I
> prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money.


I take it you do not own real estate?

I sure seem to have wasted some money involuntarily by trusting the
valuations created by incomprehensibly complex financial industry
instruments.  How is that really different from trusting politicians?  It
was my choice to buy the house, but believe me, despite negotiating the
price down a bit, I had very little choice about how much to pay.  Yet
somehow, I should assume that more regulation would have been bad???

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:25 PM, John Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> >  Why assume that government is
> > inevitably the worst way to accomplish anything?
>
> Why assume that you or anyone can determine how other people's
> money should be spent?


Same old straw man.  Consider me to have written the same answer.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: My two rules of politics

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:

> On Oct 26, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
 Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a
 lot of
 the state & local races, that left me with a choice between a
 Democrat and
 a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice
 of 2
 non-incumbents.  The Democrats would be more likely to spend
 more.  Which
 is why I came to the conclusion I did.

 I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in
 terms of
 how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a
 candidate
 from a particular party is to beat one from another particular
 party.
>>>
>>> I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots
>>> as there
>>> were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area.
>>
>> North of Austin, TX.
>>
>> Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places
>>
>>  Julia
>
> And, in many cases, the Libertarian Party candidates are something a
> little different from what I'd call small-l libertarian.  The capital-
> L variety, around here at least, tend to be more than a little on the
> neopentecostal-theocratic side.

Maybe "tend to be", but I wouldn't characterize George Paap that way, and 
he got on the ballot in Williamson County as a Libertarian candidate not 
too long ago  In fact, I think that if there's a *cure* for 
neopentocostal-theocratic-ness, George could be an ingredient for that 
cure.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[John Williams]

Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how  
> far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even  
> years into the future.)

The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS
market, or pretty much any market. Only God can do that.
  
> the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what  
> they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way

The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think
they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I 
prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money.

>  I don't mind paying taxes

Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law?


  

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: My two rules of politics

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Oct 26, 2008, at 5:29 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote:
>
>> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a  
>>> lot of
>>> the state & local races, that left me with a choice between a  
>>> Democrat and
>>> a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice  
>>> of 2
>>> non-incumbents.  The Democrats would be more likely to spend  
>>> more.  Which
>>> is why I came to the conclusion I did.
>>>
>>> I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in  
>>> terms of
>>> how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a  
>>> candidate
>>> from a particular party is to beat one from another particular  
>>> party.
>>
>> I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots  
>> as there
>> were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area.
>
> North of Austin, TX.
>
> Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places
>
>   Julia

And, in many cases, the Libertarian Party candidates are something a  
little different from what I'd call small-l libertarian.  The capital- 
L variety, around here at least, tend to be more than a little on the  
neopentecostal-theocratic side.

"Correct morality can only be derived from what man is—not from what  
do-gooders and well-meaning Aunt Nellies would like him to be."  --  
Robert A. Heinlein


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[Bruce Bostwick]

On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Bryon Daly wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM, John Williams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Anecdote seen on the internet:
>>
>> Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that  
>> read
>> 'Vote Obama, I need the money.'  I laughed.  Once in the restaurant  
>> my
>> server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given  
>> away his
>> political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.  When the  
>> bill came I
>> decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was  
>> exploring the
>> Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief  
>> while I
>> told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I  
>> deemed
>> more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily  
>> stormed from my
>> sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to  
>> thank the
>> server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The  
>> homeless guy
>> was grateful.  At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution
>> experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money  
>> he did not
>> earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he  
>> did earn
>> even though the actual recipient needed money more.  I guess
>> redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept  
>> than in
>> practical application.
>>
>
> The analogy is full of crap:
> 1) Obama's proposal raises the top two marginal tax rates and  
> capital gains
> rate by a few percentage points, back to the Clinton-era level.  At  
> best,
> this is not taking the waiter's entire $10 - it'd be more like maybe  
> $.50,
> and even then, only if the waiter was in the top few percent of the  
> richest
> people in the country, and that money for the "homeless person" also  
> went to
> pay for things like his town's police force, fire dept, hospital and
> schools.
>
> 2) Our current tax system under Bush, which McCain supports, is  
> ALREADY a
> progressive tax system.  The wealthy CURRENTLY pay more in taxes.
> Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is already  
> going on
> and has been going on for probably at least 40-50 years.  The  
> argument here
> is about how much is appropriate, a debate about a few percentage  
> points.
> And yet the republican reaction is like this:
> Top marginal tax rate of 35% on the richest 2% of Americans?  Hell  
> yeah, all
> god-loving America supporters stand behind this!
> Top marginal tax rate of 39.6% on the richest 2% of Americans?  It's
> socialism!  The freedom-hating commies are coming to take our  
> livelihoods
> away!
>
> You can make an honest case that these tax higher rates are bad for  
> the
> economy (though I'd disagree); there's certainly room for discussion  
> and
> debate there.  But these straw-man attacks like your anecdote and  
> those
> calling Obama a socialist make reasoned debate impossible and  
> frankly make
> it seem that those making the attacks are afraid they don't have a
> legitimate argument and have to resort to these tactics instead.

I'm inclined to agree with that.  We tried this experiment in the  
1980's -- it was better known as Reaganomics, which depended on the  
"trickle down effect", and as experience has taught us, very little  
that trickles down is fit to consume.  (And I could extend the analogy  
further and allude to certain wealthy party shills p***ing on our  
heads and trying to convince us that it's raining, but that would be  
too cheap to do the extraordinary irony of the situation justice.)

We've been told by Republicans at least since the beginning of the  
Reagan administration, if not much earlier, that Taxes Is Bad, been  
sold that line for so long people who actually have the most to lose  
from GOP-style economic policy have begun to believe it.  The truth  
is, the Republican mantra of downsizing government and cuttng taxes  
has historically and consistently led to deficit spending to keep the  
government operating, which just mortgages the future to live high on  
the hog in the present.  Bush II started his administration with a  
balanced budget and a revenue surplus, and is going to end it with the  
most astronomical national debt in this country's entire history, the  
credit-default swaps that are the main market powering the current  
economic crisis were legalized by a Republican controlled Congress  
that was basically reversing laws passed to forbid similar "gambling"  
practices 100 years ago.  The laws Congress reversed in the late  
1990's were the ones passed in the wake of the Panic of 1907, which  
was partly due to the extensive gambling in off-exchange houses that  
basically just took bets on stocks, which made the market so unstable  
that it progressively collapsed under the strain of a failed bid to  
corner the copper market.

(Note: The credit-default swap market is, even now, completely  
unregulated, completely unaudited, a

Re: My two rules of politics

[Julia Thompson]

Given that I was talking about how much a hypothetical Democrat would 
spend vs. what a hypothetical Libertarian would spend, I don't see how 
dragging a Republican into the mix refutes my statement.  Your statement 
is irrelevant in the context of what was said.

I'm not going to argue against your point (in fact, I think it's quite 
valid!), just point out that it doesn't address what was under discussion 
in the thread you're quoting.

Julia


On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> this is quite illogical what democrat has spent more than the present 
> republican president?
> Check this out at a price of $10 to $15 billion dollars a month there 
> you have it---your more than $700 billion dollars short fall.  Cum on 
> yall I'm sure yall can count and think better than the crew you keep 
> putting in control over the wealth which the people create--give me a 
> break!
> -- Original message from Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
> --
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Julia Thompson
>>>
 Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of
 the state & local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and
 a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2
 non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which
 is why I came to the conclusion I did.

 I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of
 how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate
 from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party.
>>>
>>> I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there
>>> were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area.
>>
>> North of Austin, TX.
>>
>> Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places
>>
>> Julia
>>
>> ___
>> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
>
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: My two rules of politics

[jamespv]

this is quite illogical what democrat has spent more than the present 
republican president?
Check this out at a price of $10 to $15 billion dollars a month there you have 
it---your more than $700 billion dollars short fall.  Cum on yall I'm sure yall 
can count and think better than the crew you keep putting in control over the 
wealth which the people create--give me a break!
-- Original message from Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
-- 


> 
> 
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, John Williams wrote: 
> 
> > Julia Thompson 
> > 
> >> Well, on my ballot, if I were to not vote for the incumbent in a lot of 
> >> the state & local races, that left me with a choice between a Democrat and 
> >> a Libertarian in all of the cases where I was left with a choice of 2 
> >> non-incumbents. The Democrats would be more likely to spend more. Which 
> >> is why I came to the conclusion I did. 
> >> 
> >> I guess your ballots are somewhat different from mine, then, in terms of 
> >> how heavily any given party is represented, and how likely a candidate 
> >> from a particular party is to beat one from another particular party. 
> > 
> > I wish there were as many libertarians in the top 3 on my ballots as there 
> > were on yours! You must live in a libertarian-friendly area. 
> 
> North of Austin, TX. 
> 
> Texas is somewhat interesting that way in some places 
> 
> Julia 
> 
> ___ 
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Redistribute the wealth

[jamespv]

>Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of 
>the inefficient >government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people 
>who don't want to pay for >it. Economic superstitions Maru 
Black water is a highly private militia just like Andrew Carnegie’s forces 
under Alan Pinkerton’s railroad militia which evolved into the secret police of 
the American Presidency under Abraham Lincoln. Those who served the private 
robber Barons are the same through out history and their interest are as narrow 
as their master. Barbitary 
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/75/75we14.htm
 
This reality is what we privates of the police state practice and the types of 
chevrons we wear are only material patched upon our arms. We can recite 
Voltaire or any scion from the Jacobean era it is just little difference in a 
crew cut marine and the skint head individual looking out for his own private 
terror using his own definition. We still come back to some private thesis or 
the anti-thesis and the beat goes on leading us into some mindless depth of the 
hell of a barbarian concept. There is no justification for the destruction of 
the people and denial of their wealth or the taking of the wealth of nations. 
It can not justify back pack bombs of the martyr or those 5000 lbs bombs 
dropped on communities of men from B-2 bombers. Use the clean kill scenario on 
yourself see how that comes out. Such slaughter definitely can not be justified 
by the idea of private property, boarders and fences, and the taking of labor 
and denial of trust. I know because been there done that 
http://kink9570.wordpress.com/author/kink9570/
What is constitution and laws if the people are not willing to defend a rule of 
law. Can the private party depart from the structured guides and deny each 
private person from following the same conduct. These invitations to chaos and 
intrigue remind me of someone like George Washington foot on the bow of the 
little boat crossing the Potomac with the caption under the painting saying “We 
are Winter Soldiers” with the subtext Father of a Free Republic. It was 
something drastically wrong with that picture because he held slaves as private 
property on his Virginia plantation. 
http://nvisibleink.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/morris-j-peavey-jr/
Now quote : "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit 
atrocities." ~Voltaire. 
-- Original message from William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
-- 


> 
> On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:12, John Williams wrote: 
> 
> > William T Goodall 
> > 
> > 
> >> So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend 
> >> the 
> >> country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists 
> >> decide they'd rather not pay for that? 
> > 
> > Defending the country is a public good, not redistributing wealth. 
> > 
> 
> Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias 
> instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the 
> money of people who don't want to pay for it. 
> 
> Economic superstitions Maru 
> 
> -- 
> William T Goodall 
> Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk 
> Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 
> 
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit 
> atrocities." ~Voltaire. 
> 
> ___ 
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l