Re: Defeat in Victory
On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:47 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 22 Dec 2005, at 7:07 pm, Dave Land wrote: Western cultures equate truth with factuality. Nonetheless, myths, legends and other _stories_ have tremendous truth-value despite their being possibly apocryphal and sometimes provably unfactual. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. - Judge John E. Jones III I think I prefer my truths to be true rather than what someone happens to think is expediently 'true' in the service of their agenda. Yup. The class in which this issue of factuality and truth came up is called Living the Questions. It is pointedly aligned with the statement I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions. It is fiercely, perhaps excessively, leery of certitude. A person of your opinions might find lots to like in it (plenty to dislike, too, no doubt), but at your challenges to blind faith would be honored. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:11 AM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory Robert wrote: It is not something substantiated. The quote comes from an unnamed source who purportedly heard it in a WH staffing meeting and subsequently blogged. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml IMO, it should be noted, but not passed along as fact. The guy who wrote the article is a long time reporter and congressional staffer. Regarding his sources he said: Iâve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution âa goddamned piece of paper.â So three unnamed sources, all of whom would have been Republicans. But only reported through one source (AFAICT), hence the disclaimer. It would bear a lot more credence if the same story were being told via at least one other independent source. xponent Carefully Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:30:07 -0600, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But only reported through one source (AFAICT), hence the disclaimer. It would bear a lot more credence if the same story were being told via at least one other independent source. xponent Carefully Maru rob Don't have time to go through these this morning but it looks as if the story is being told elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/axo8j -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
On Dec 22, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:30:07 -0600, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But only reported through one source (AFAICT), hence the disclaimer. It would bear a lot more credence if the same story were being told via at least one other independent source. Don't have time to go through these this morning but it looks as if the story is being told elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/axo8j A casual perusal of the items on that list suggests that most, if not all, take the original piece from the avowedly anti-Bush Capitol Hill Blue as source. I found a fine entry by a blogger who addressed the single-source problem for this quote by writing to her congresscritter: http://www.livejournal.com/users/kyrillandra/63023.html No answer yet from her Senator. This brings to mind the relationship between factuality and truth. I've been thinking about it in the context of Christianity and Biblical interpretation, but it obviously applies well beyond that narrow context. Western cultures equate truth with factuality. Nonetheless, myths, legends and other _stories_ have tremendous truth-value despite their being possibly apocryphal and sometimes provably unfactual. The story about how George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and did not tell a lie is a _founder's_myth_ that is accepted as _true_, even if it is probably not factual. It tells us something about George Washington and what we like to think about ourselves as a nation. The _truths_ of the Washington story -- that our first President was an honest man, that we imagine our national character to be truthful -- do not depend on its being a historical event. The story, attached to a vaunted founder, has doubtless helped generations of parents and teachers underline the value of truthfulness in their children. (At least one person in a class at my church commented on the irony of using a lie to teach about honesty, which probably says something about the commentator's concept of truth and factuality.) The GD piece of paper story -- factual or not -- resonates with what is for many people the _truth_ about George Bush: that his actions show that he thinks that the Constitution places undue and burdensome constraints on his freedom to act, and that he may go as far as to consider it just a GD piece of paper. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Dave Land wrote: The story about how George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and did not tell a lie is a _founder's_myth_ that is accepted as _true_, even if it is probably not factual. It tells us something about George Washington and what we like to think about ourselves as a nation. The _truths_ of the Washington story -- (...) I would interpret it by saying that GW had no respect for the ecosystem and was proud of it - which could explain the current global cathastrophic ecological status caused by USA industries all over the world :-)) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
On Dec 22, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dave Land wrote: The story about how George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and did not tell a lie is a _founder's_myth_ that is accepted as _true_, even if it is probably not factual. It tells us something about George Washington and what we like to think about ourselves as a nation. The _truths_ of the Washington story -- (...) I would interpret it by saying that GW had no respect for the ecosystem and was proud of it - which could explain the current global cathastrophic ecological status caused by USA industries all over the world :-)) Whereas Oil-polluting, Amazon-destroying Brazil is a model for the rest of the world :-b. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
On 22 Dec 2005, at 7:07 pm, Dave Land wrote: This brings to mind the relationship between factuality and truth. I've been thinking about it in the context of Christianity and Biblical interpretation, but it obviously applies well beyond that narrow context. Western cultures equate truth with factuality. Nonetheless, myths, legends and other _stories_ have tremendous truth-value despite their being possibly apocryphal and sometimes provably unfactual. The story about how George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and did not tell a lie is a _founder's_myth_ that is accepted as _true_, even if it is probably not factual. It tells us something about George Washington and what we like to think about ourselves as a nation. The _truths_ of the Washington story -- that our first President was an honest man, that we imagine our national character to be truthful -- do not depend on its being a historical event. The story, attached to a vaunted founder, has doubtless helped generations of parents and teachers underline the value of truthfulness in their children. (At least one person in a class at my church commented on the irony of using a lie to teach about honesty, which probably says something about the commentator's concept of truth and factuality.) The GD piece of paper story -- factual or not -- resonates with what is for many people the _truth_ about George Bush: that his actions show that he thinks that the Constitution places undue and burdensome constraints on his freedom to act, and that he may go as far as to consider it just a GD piece of paper. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. - Judge John E. Jones III I think I prefer my truths to be true rather than what someone happens to think is expediently 'true' in the service of their agenda. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Dave Land wrote: Whereas Oil-polluting, Amazon-destroying Brazil is a model for the rest of the world :-b. Yes! Why keep the useless Amazon if we don't get paid for it? Let's burn it all and make a huge parking lot! But I deny the accusation of oil-polluting! Oil is Good, all other energy sources are Evil. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 05:30:07 -0600, Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But only reported through one source (AFAICT), hence the disclaimer. It would bear a lot more credence if the same story were being told via at least one other independent source. xponent Carefully Maru rob Don't have time to go through these this morning but it looks as if the story is being told elsewhere: http://tinyurl.com/axo8j All quotes of the CHB article unfortunately. That is a problem with blogs. The way they quote each other constantly, while often handy as helps to find news, is a bit incestuous. xponent Needs More Time Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Robert wrote: All quotes of the CHB article unfortunately. That is a problem with blogs. The way they quote each other constantly, while often handy as helps to find news, is a bit incestuous. So when Woodward and Bernstien broke the Watergate stuff and all the other newspapers printed their story, was that incestuous? Was their story not credible because they only had a few anonymous sources? The big papers are far more careful now than they were back then, but it has as much to do with being corpratized than anything else. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Robert Seeberger wrote: From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in recent months and most people in the US share opinions that are more leftish than they were over the last few years. Arguably the true American center has always been more to the left than right. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ History bleeds for tomorrow / for us to realize and never more follow blind --Machinae Supremacy, Deus Ex Machinae, Title Track ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory G It's not all about you Dan!G I was suggesting that perhaps you are missing that most of the liberal posters here are espousing views that are more centrist than you might think. OK. The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for oil companies is centralist? From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in recent months and most people in the US share opinions that are more leftish than they were over the last few years. Maybebut it isn't really clear. After the enormous blundering of this administration, as well as the scandals of the House and Senate Republican leadership, one would think that 2006 will be 1994 all over again. But, Bush is bouncing back somewhat in the polls now, and the Democrats still can't seem to get their act together. Plus, there are only about 40-50 House seats that are in play, so it would take an overwhelming victory by the Democrats to regain control of the House. So, a year from now, we may or may not see a significant shift. I'm hoping that we will. But I think arguments that we went to war to give US oil companies control of the Mid-East oilfields, that the Republic is on it's last legs, etc. are ones that I've rarely seen. Since I left Mad-Town, 23 years ago, even living in Connecticut, I've seen it at a Dennis Kupechne (sp) meeting I was invited to, here, on Culture, and on the walls at colleges my girls went to. I haven't even seen the question asked in polls, so I don't have numbers, but I'd guess less than 10% nationwide believe this (~3.5x Nadar's top vote %). As far as I can tell, that it the centralist position that Andrew Paul referred to. It is certainly the mode position of recent political posts here. Take my posts out, even allowing for the weighed average including your posts, and I'd argue that position is the mean of recent posts here. Now, one might ask if I think it is the mean of the positions of the people on this list. I don't think so, but that's harder to measure. So, I didn't refer to that, I merely referred to what was written in recent (say since Gautam and JDG left) political posts. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Dan Minette wrote: OK. The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for oil companies is centralist? Is this the official list position? I think it is: The USA went to war in Iraq to protect the interests of the Saudi Princes and that oil companies [including Petrobras :-)] benefited the war as a side effect. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:16 AM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory Dan Minette wrote: OK. The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for oil companies is centralist? Is this the official list position? I think it is: The USA went to war in Iraq to protect the interests of the Saudi Princes Fair enough, I forgot to include Brin's official position. :-) I would guess that would get less than 1% in a national poll. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:58 AM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory G It's not all about you Dan!G I was suggesting that perhaps you are missing that most of the liberal posters here are espousing views that are more centrist than you might think. OK. The idea that we went to war in Iraq in order to make money for oil companies is centralist? Whew We really are not thinking about the same kinds of things at all this week!G But since you mention it, The only people I see talk that way are decidedly left or a few disaffected centrist conservatives, so I think you can find a range of people stuck in the war-for-oil loop rather than just a single camp. Myself feels that the Bushies are not so much evil as they are aggresively opportunistic, so the whole war-for-oil is plauseable and worth discussing (in terms of the process of falsification) but it is not an idea that I set great store in because I forsee that there are a great many conjectures that could also come into play due to the variety of players that make up this administration. I do not doubt that there is a good deal of corruption at work and it seems to me that we have only begun to scrabble after the facts. What I find most interesting is how this group has been able to make some quite extreme claims sound very reasonable to the average Joe(sette) with hardly an eyebrow raised til this last year, while the most avid Bush-haters froth, wrack, and shrilly declaim to the end of having a most miniscule influence at all. The Bushies are most skilled in that regard. From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in recent months and most people in the US share opinions that are more leftish than they were over the last few years. Maybebut it isn't really clear. After the enormous blundering of this administration, as well as the scandals of the House and Senate Republican leadership, one would think that 2006 will be 1994 all over again. But, Bush is bouncing back somewhat in the polls now, and the Democrats still can't seem to get their act together. Plus, there are only about 40-50 House seats that are in play, so it would take an overwhelming victory by the Democrats to regain control of the House. I'm thinking the Dems might get the Senate. I know they want it. It has more concentrated power and makes a better bullypulpit. So, a year from now, we may or may not see a significant shift. I'm hoping that we will. But I think arguments that we went to war to give US oil companies control of the Mid-East oilfields, that the Republic is on it's last legs, etc. are ones that I've rarely seen. Since I left Mad-Town, 23 years ago, even living in Connecticut, I've seen it at a Dennis Kupechne (sp) meeting I was invited to, here, on Culture, and on the walls at colleges my girls went to. I haven't even seen the question asked in polls, so I don't have numbers, but I'd guess less than 10% nationwide believe this (~3.5x Nadar's top vote %). As far as I can tell, that it the centralist position that Andrew Paul referred to. It is certainly the mode position of recent political posts here. Take my posts out, even allowing for the weighed average including your posts, and I'd argue that position is the mean of recent posts here. Even when John and Gautam were posting this list tended left of center by a respectable margin. Much more than the nation overall. The list likely reflected world opinion a bit better though. So...what *should* be reflected? IMO worrying over such is a bit narcissistic, kind of a group solipsism.G Group averages are interesting but mean little in the long run. People change their opinions over time and we grow with the times we survive. Our differences are not so great as we often think. (What's this We shit Kemosabe?) At some point we, (there you go with that We crap again) as a group/nation/world, are going to have to come to grip with the fact that most of out divisions are created and are artificial distinctions, and that these distinctions are leading us astray and causing us to cling to untruths in the name of group unity. Each of us are going to die someday and all this party prejudice will be for naught. Now, one might ask if I think it is the mean of the positions of the people on this list. I don't think so, but that's harder to measure. So, I didn't refer to that, I merely referred to what was written in recent (say since Gautam and JDG left) political posts. Yeah, if truth goes unchallenged, is it Truth? xponent Looking For An Anchor Maru rob
Re: Defeat in Victory
Doug Pensinger wrote: These are the kinds of things that characterize the President; reckless disregard for the law. We hear about a man that calls the principals that have built this nation and to some extent have made the world what it is today a goddamned piece of paper What is the reference for that quote? I saw someone mention that he said that about the US Constitution in an earlier post, but I think I missed the post giving an actual reference for that. If he actually said that, then that's really scary. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Steve Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:34 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory Doug Pensinger wrote: These are the kinds of things that characterize the President; reckless disregard for the law. We hear about a man that calls the principals that have built this nation and to some extent have made the world what it is today a goddamned piece of paper What is the reference for that quote? I saw someone mention that he said that about the US Constitution in an earlier post, but I think I missed the post giving an actual reference for that. If he actually said that, then that's really scary. It is not something substantiated. The quote comes from an unnamed source who purportedly heard it in a WH staffing meeting and subsequently blogged. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml IMO, it should be noted, but not passed along as fact. xponent Originator Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Robert wrote: It is not something substantiated. The quote comes from an unnamed source who purportedly heard it in a WH staffing meeting and subsequently blogged. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml IMO, it should be noted, but not passed along as fact. The guy who wrote the article is a long time reporter and congressional staffer. Regarding his sources he said: I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.” So three unnamed sources, all of whom would have been Republicans. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 7:57 AM Subject: Defeat in Victory I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). FWIW, by US political standards, I am clearly to the left of center. Taking surveys from the British sites that were referenced by the Culture mailing list, I find myself very very slightly to the right of the British center (IIRC, on a scale that went from -10 to 10, I was 0.3 toward the conservativeas opposed to many Culturenicks who were in the -5 to -9 range (towards leftist). Indeed, Gautam, who left, stated that Bush was a D- president, and Bush won the majority of votes in '04. One of his favorite Harvard professors is Stanley Hoffman. If one googles for Hoffman's public writings, one would be very hard pressed to consider him anything but liberal. Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Dan wrote: Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. That may seem true from your perspective, Dan, an oil industry professional living in the heart of Texas, but not from my perspective. There are a lot of people well to the left of me around here and I consider myself moderate on many issues. In any case, it seems as if every time a news story breaks it reinforces my characterization of the President and his administration and chips away at yours. Maybe you’ll come around when they all get indicted. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Defeat in Victory
Dan Minette wrote: Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. Badly researched, misleading and inaccurate? :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory Dan wrote: Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. That may seem true from your perspective, Dan, an oil industry professional living in the heart of Texas, but not from my perspective. Isn't this an empirically testable observation? For example, according to pollingreports.com, half of Americans think religion is being attacked in the US; I don't. Over 60% of Americans are for the death penalty; I'm against it. Most Americans either think the Patriot Act got it right, or didn't go far enough, I would like to see the powers cut back. Just below half (46%) of Americans approve of how GWB is handling Iraq. My defense of him is that he both has bad judgment and is horribly incompetent...but he didn't go to war to give big oil contracts they never saw. Most people think that Iraq has contributed to the long term security of the US; I don't. From this, I conclude that I'm somewhat to the left of the American political spectrum.besides my stand on gay marriages. With abortion, I think I'm center-right, but that's the biggest exception I can think of. I don't think the Democrats have a plan on Iraq, but I don't think Bush does either. Almost twice as many Americans think Bush has a plan; I think neither does. Most Americans think that the US is making significant progress in Iraq. (60%) I think the jury is still out, that the signals are mixed. My take on the majority of posts here is that the signals are virtually all negative. Let's see. The closest thing that I can see to me being pro-Bush on Iraq, is that I think he used horrible judgment in evaluating intelligence instead of actually lied about it. There was a recent poll, (I can't find it on pollingreport.com now, sorry) where most people chose lied instead of being accurate. Given those two choices, I would have picked lied...because he certainly wasn't accurate...so I think I'm close to the middle there. It might aid my understanding to see the issues on which you are more conservative than most Americans. If you are in the middle, wouldn't it be 50-50? Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 7:57 AM Subject: Defeat in Victory I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). FWIW, by US political standards, I am clearly to the left of center. Taking surveys from the British sites that were referenced by the Culture mailing list, I find myself very very slightly to the right of the British center (IIRC, on a scale that went from -10 to 10, I was 0.3 toward the conservativeas opposed to many Culturenicks who were in the -5 to -9 range (towards leftist). Where were you on the other axis with regard to others? Left/right isn't everything. Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. I'm not sure whether you are trying to paint others here as farther left than they are or shoehorn Moore into a more centrist slot. Perhaps you have been ignoring the polls over the last year or more?:) xponent Pendulum Arc Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory Dan wrote: Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. That may seem true from your perspective, Dan, an oil industry professional living in the heart of Texas, but not from my perspective. Isn't this an empirically testable observation? For example, according to pollingreports.com, http://www.pollingreports.com ? xponent Huh? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 7:57 AM Subject: Defeat in Victory I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). FWIW, by US political standards, I am clearly to the left of center. Taking surveys from the British sites that were referenced by the Culture mailing list, I find myself very very slightly to the right of the British center (IIRC, on a scale that went from -10 to 10, I was 0.3 toward the conservativeas opposed to many Culturenicks who were in the -5 to -9 range (towards leftist). Where were you on the other axis with regard to others? Left/right isn't everything. I was on the libertarian sideI think about -4 or so. Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. I'm not sure whether you are trying to paint others here as farther left than they are I guess I'm saying that blood for oil is/has been a view of Michael Moore. I see it repeated many times here. I see myself as just about the only one left who has argued with Brin's view that GWB (and his dad) have betrayed the US and are/were pawns of Saudi Arabia. Now, I know there are issues on which I'm clearly more liberal than you. I recognize gun control as one. Perhaps you have been ignoring the polls over the last year or more?:) Which polls indicate that I'm to the right of most Americans on significant issues? Maybe abortion, but depending on the question, I can be in the middle or slightly right of center on that issue. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:07 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory Dan wrote: Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. That may seem true from your perspective, Dan, an oil industry professional living in the heart of Texas, but not from my perspective. Isn't this an empirically testable observation? For example, according to pollingreports.com, http://www.pollingreports.com ? Sorry, just pollingreport.com. I got it right the second time. And, I've been corrected on another reference. It's Stanley Hoffmann, not stanley hoffman Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Robert wrote: http://www.pollingreports.com ? Try it without the s http://www.pollingreport.com -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:00 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Defeat in Victory - Original Message - From: Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 7:57 AM Subject: Defeat in Victory I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). FWIW, by US political standards, I am clearly to the left of center. Taking surveys from the British sites that were referenced by the Culture mailing list, I find myself very very slightly to the right of the British center (IIRC, on a scale that went from -10 to 10, I was 0.3 toward the conservativeas opposed to many Culturenicks who were in the -5 to -9 range (towards leftist). Where were you on the other axis with regard to others? Left/right isn't everything. I was on the libertarian sideI think about -4 or so. Indeed, from my perspective, most of the political posts here that are not my own, over the last few months, fit reasonably well into the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. I'm not sure whether you are trying to paint others here as farther left than they are I guess I'm saying that blood for oil is/has been a view of Michael Moore. I see it repeated many times here. I see myself as just about the only one left who has argued with Brin's view that GWB (and his dad) have betrayed the US and are/were pawns of Saudi Arabia. Now, I know there are issues on which I'm clearly more liberal than you. I recognize gun control as one. Perhaps you have been ignoring the polls over the last year or more?:) Which polls indicate that I'm to the right of most Americans on significant issues? Maybe abortion, but depending on the question, I can be in the middle or slightly right of center on that issue. G It's not all about you Dan!G I was suggesting that perhaps you are missing that most of the liberal posters here are espousing views that are more centrist than you might think. From where I'm viewing, a corner seems to have been turned in recent months and most people in the US share opinions that are more leftish than they were over the last few years. xponent Swinging Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Dan wrote: It might aid my understanding to see the issues on which you are more conservative than most Americans. If you are in the middle, wouldn't it be 50-50? I said I was moderate on most issues, in fact I know we agree on many issues. Perhaps that is why it is frustrating me that you can't see that this administration is not just incompetent or even merely criminally negligent, but deliberately and blatantly nefarious. They torture people. That's not just a rumor or a wild story, it's a documented fact. They send others to countries where they can be more easily tortured. They set up secret prisons in foreign countries where torture may have occurred. They've withheld basic rights from many people, especially in Gitmo, but also right here in this country where they've kept one man behind bars for years without allowing him his day in court. He was there because someone that had been tortured gave evidence against him. Now tell me Dan, how is torture a matter of incompetence or bad judgment? To me it is illeagal and immoral, do you disagree? Now we find that he has been tapping phones without getting warrants. Never mind that he can get a warrant any time he wants via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court just about any time he wants even after the actual wire tap. I read recently that the FISC had only turned down something like 5 warrants in 30 years. So we have abuse of power, deliberate and intentional. These are the kinds of things that characterize the President; reckless disregard for the law. We hear about a man that calls the principals that have built this nation and to some extent have made the world what it is today a goddamned piece of paper Every data point added to the chart seems to indicate that this administration abuses and misuses his office. Why is it such a stretch that he has done so with regard to Iraq? Especially when there are several data points that indicate that he and others were interested in invasion before 911! -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Defeat in Victory
I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). There is no right answer, we surely all know that, but the debate to find one must go on, or we sink into self-absorbed narcissism. Other things are going on too. Is this the victory of Osama, that we are so focused on fear that we forget the future? My Belly Button Fluff Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:57:22 +1100, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). There is no right answer, we surely all know that, but the debate to find one must go on, or we sink into self-absorbed narcissism. Other things are going on too. Is this the victory of Osama, that we are so focused on fear that we forget the future? My Belly Button Fluff Maru I think that it is important that we debate Iraq and believe that part of the reason that supporters of the administration contribute to the debate is that their position has become so indefensable. All that being said, I agree that there are many other interesting things to discuss and the list has become far too quiet. Pump it up, people! -- Doug Reading The Algebraist and Olympus, recently finished The Half Blood Prince and The Baroque Cycle (Stephenson trilogy) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Andrew Paul wrote: I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). There is no right answer, we surely all know that, but the debate to find one must go on, or we sink into self-absorbed narcissism. Are you implying that we are not full-on narcissists? Other things are going on too. Is this the victory of Osama, that we are so focused on fear that we forget the future? At worst there is a detente, at best we are having some difficulties putting Al-Quaeda down. xponent Stormbringer Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Doug Pensinger wrote: On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:57:22 +1100, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). There is no right answer, we surely all know that, but the debate to find one must go on, or we sink into self-absorbed narcissism. Other things are going on too. Is this the victory of Osama, that we are so focused on fear that we forget the future? My Belly Button Fluff Maru I think that it is important that we debate Iraq and believe that part of the reason that supporters of the administration contribute to the debate is that their position has become so indefensable. All that being said, I agree that there are many other interesting things to discuss and the list has become far too quiet. Pump it up, people! I *know* JDG has been extremely busy lately. (I was hoping he'd come back to active posting before football season ended, but it's looking like he won't.) I'm not going to jump into the Iraq debate except to ask for clarifications. I have too many other things on my plate at the moment that are more important to me than formulating arguments one way or another for anything having to do with that. (People currently not caring for several small children will probably have a different set of priorities, as they should.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Defeat in Victory
On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:57:22 +1100, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). There is no right answer, we surely all know that, but the debate to find one must go on, or we sink into self-absorbed narcissism. Other things are going on too. Is this the victory of Osama, that we are so focused on fear that we forget the future? My Belly Button Fluff Maru I think that it is important that we debate Iraq and believe that part of the reason that supporters of the administration contribute to the debate is that their position has become so indefensable. That may be so, but then I thought they had some valid points. And it's a reality. At least we could debate solutions. Paradox Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
At 09:53 AM Sunday 12/4/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:57:22 +1100, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). There is no right answer, we surely all know that, but the debate to find one must go on, or we sink into self-absorbed narcissism. Other things are going on too. Is this the victory of Osama, that we are so focused on fear that we forget the future? My Belly Button Fluff Maru I think that it is important that we debate Iraq and believe that part of the reason that supporters of the administration contribute to the debate is that their position has become so indefensable. Alternatively, that many people on both sides of the debate have concluded that no one on the other side is even listening to them any more, much less is likely to change his/her mind . . . (I've seen similar things on other lists wrt other topics.) All that being said, I agree that there are many other interesting things to discuss and the list has become far too quiet. Pump it up, people! -- Doug Reading The Algebraist and Olympus, recently finished The Half Blood Prince and The Baroque Cycle (Stephenson trilogy) Does it ever get fixed? When In Doubt, Pun Maru --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
At 10:10 AM Sunday 12/4/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 00:57:22 +1100, Andrew Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hate how terrorism and the war in Iraq have come to dominate debate so. I notice that Gautam and JDG rarely post these days, and there is no-one to staunchly dispute the centrist viewpoints we all seem to espouse (Dan excepted). There is no right answer, we surely all know that, but the debate to find one must go on, or we sink into self-absorbed narcissism. Other things are going on too. Is this the victory of Osama, that we are so focused on fear that we forget the future? My Belly Button Fluff Maru I think that it is important that we debate Iraq and believe that part of the reason that supporters of the administration contribute to the debate is that their position has become so indefensable. All that being said, I agree that there are many other interesting things to discuss and the list has become far too quiet. Pump it up, people! I *know* JDG has been extremely busy lately. (I was hoping he'd come back to active posting before football season ended, but it's looking like he won't.) I'm not going to jump into the Iraq debate except to ask for clarifications. I have too many other things Would that number be 3? on my plate at the moment that are more important to me than formulating arguments one way or another for anything having to do with that. (People currently not caring for several small children will probably have a different set of priorities, as they should.) Julia --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Defeat in Victory
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 10:10 AM Sunday 12/4/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: I'm not going to jump into the Iraq debate except to ask for clarifications. I have too many other things Would that number be 3? Well, after Dan's outpatient procedure on Tuesday, it was more like 4 for a few days there. :P Plus there's a room that needs to be cleaned out, half a garage that needs to be cleaned out, and as much of this as possible done by noon on Saturday. Suffice to say, my RL is going to be just a letle hectic for the next few days. (Probably not going to let up until a day or two after Christmas, actually. I think I want to declare the 27th reading day and just encourage everyone to spend as much time as possible with books. Tommy will love that as long as he gets read aloud to often enough.) on my plate at the moment that are more important to me than formulating arguments one way or another for anything having to do with that. (People currently not caring for several small children will probably have a different set of priorities, as they should.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
