From kelley@interpactinc.com Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:15:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:15:46 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: the semiotics of militarism The Random Military Operation Names Generating Device at Ftrain: http://ftrain.com/screaming_muskrat.html Operation War Language How the Pentagon Mints Its Campaign Monikers By Linton Weeks Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, September 21, 2001; Page C01 First the U.S. military operation to lash out at Osama bin Laden was officially nicknamed Infinite Reach. Then Noble Eagle. Then Infinite Justice. But yesterday, that last name was being rethought because some Muslims might find it offensive, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. What shall we call it, then? In another time, David Letterman's Top 10 List writers would have had a heyday with the question. Not now. The language of war is a serious, singular, often inscrutable and important art. "People have such complex associations with words," says Deborah Tannen, professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. "I'm not surprised that some Muslims objected to 'Infinite Justice.' It shows that the associations are not always predictable." And the fact that naming this campaign is like tacking mercury to a tree illustrates what a slippery business this war on terrorism could prove to be. Giving nicknames to operational thrusts is a relatively new pursuit in the history of warfare, going back to the middle of the 20th century. Nowadays, the choice of operation names is made using computer-suggested terms, says a Pentagon source. Since 1975, the process has been aided by various software called the Code Word, Nickname and Exercise Term System. "Basically what happens," says the Pentagon source, "is that each of the theater CINCs -- the commanders in chief, that is the admirals and generals in charge of regional theaters -- is given a database of words." He continues: "A name is randomly selected -- normally a word that is pertinent to that region -- like 'desert' in Desert Storm and Desert Shield," for operations in the 1991 Gulf War. The commanders are then presented with a new database of words. They choose another word they like and pair it with the first. They are given some leeway, but they are instructed about which two letters to use first. In 1983, for instance, when the United States invaded Grenada, the Atlantic Command was asked to come up with a name whose first two letters were U and R, for complex reasons of cyber-military protocol. The result: Urgent Fury. The officers then send that two-word phrase "up the chain of command," the source says. Unacceptable phrases are weeded out, one after another, by people in charge. Ultimately the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense pick one. Between 1975 and 1988, names were pretty meaningless, writes Gregory Sieminski in the August 1995 issue of Parameters, the U.S. Army War College quarterly. The Libyan raid in 1986 was named Eldorado Canyon and the 1988 airstrike campaign against Iranian ships and oil platforms was dubbed Praying Mantis, as a guarantee against embarrassment. In his 1991 book "The Commanders," Bob Woodward writes that when Gen. James Lindsay, head of the Special Operations Command, learned in 1989 that the United States was planning to invade Panama, he phoned Lt. Gen. Thomas Kelly, on the Joint Chiefs staff, to talk about the name. Lindsay said he did not want the campaign to have a silly name. "Do you want your grandchildren to say you were in Blue Spoon?" he asked Kelly. After the call, Kelly summoned his deputy for current operations, Brig. Gen. Joe Lopez. "How about 'Just Action'?" Kelly said. "How about 'Just Cause'?" Lopez suggested. Sieminski writes: "Since 1989, major U.S. military operations have been dubbed with an eye toward shaping domestic and international perceptions about the activities they describe." For example: Operation Provide Comfort in Turkey and Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti. For centuries, humans waged military campaigns that were more or less anonymous, leaving the naming to historians. The practice of soldiers naming martial operations apparently began in Germany near the end of World War I. In America, the War Department used color names for operations just prior to World War II. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill harbored strong convictions on the subject, according to Christopher Chant's 1985 Encyclopedia of Code Names of World War II. "Operations," Churchill said, "ought not to be described by code-words which imply a boastful and over-confident sentiment." And names "ought not to be names of frivolous character. They should not be ordinary words." And "Names of living people should be avoided." Perhaps this is what made Rumsfeld reconsider "Infinite Justice." "The U.S. doesn't want to do or say things that create an impression on the part of the listener" that the campaign is against the Muslim religion, he said at a news conference yesterday. But in the mid-1940s, the U.S. Army began to use nicknames to inspire the troops and the populace. And many of Churchill's rules applied. W.H.P. Blandy, a vice admiral and commander of the joint task force on atom bomb testing on Bikini Atoll in 1946, called the endeavor Operation Crossroads. He chose the name carefully, he told a Senate committee, because "sea power, air power, and perhaps humanity itself . . . were at the crossroads." In Korea, operations received tough names: Roundup, Courageous and Killer. During the Vietnam War, bellicose names were softened by shifting public sentiment. Operation Masher became Operation White Wing. As the Gulf War neared, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf chose the name Peninsula Shield from a list of possibilities for the U.S. defensive mission, Sieminski writes. The name was rejected by the Joint Chiefs because it did not properly portray the region's terrain. Operation Desert Shield was born. Schwarzkopf also hand-picked Operation Desert Storm for the offensive stage of the war. At the end of his article, Sieminski offers four guidelines for naming operations in the future. 1. Make it meaningful. 2. Identify and target the critical audience. 3. Be cautious of fashions. 4. Make it memorable. Now Rumsfeld might add a fifth: If it doesn't work, rethink it. From jbone@jump.net Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:11:20 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 15:11:20 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Great article on Time.com re: the Muslim / Arab POV This is a great survey article on the historical context and general sources of ill-will against America / the West among (some) Arabs / Muslims. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,175979,00.html jb From wbaisley@enspherics.com Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:05:40 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 16:05:40 -0500 From: Wayne E Baisley wbaisley@enspherics.com Subject: How can this be justified? > The culprit, IMO, is any ideology (meme) which pulls together and > motivates groups of individuals as superorganisms and grants them > a sense of moral superiority. I think I've been fumbling around > this thesis for a long time rather clumsily. To the extent that > we empower superorganisms to act adverse to the interests of any > individual it should be done carefully and minimally. I presume the morally superior fools behind the Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, et cetera, would meet with your scorn? Cheers, Wayne I jes' said Good Luck. Bob Dylan From Grlygrl201@aol.com Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:26:06 EDT Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:26:06 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: the semiotics of militarism --part1_66.151951b3.28e9121e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/30/01 4:12:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kelley@interpactinc.com writes: > "How about 'Just Cause'?" Lopez suggested. > > sounds like "just 'cause" (we feel like it). --part1_66.151951b3.28e9121e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/30/01 4:12:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kelley@interpactinc.com writes:


"How about 'Just Cause'?" Lopez suggested.



sounds like "just 'cause" (we feel like it). --part1_66.151951b3.28e9121e_boundary-- From maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:01:50 -0700 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 19:01:50 -0700 From: Max Dunn maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com Subject: the semiotics of militarism >> "How about 'Just Cause'?" Lopez suggested. > sounds like "just 'cause" (we feel like it). Or "Just cause a war in Panama": first supporting Noriega then fighting him. Max From jbone@jump.net Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:15:08 -0500 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:15:08 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Wayne E Baisley wrote: > > The culprit, IMO, is any ideology (meme) which pulls together and > > motivates groups of individuals as superorganisms and grants them > > a sense of moral superiority. I think I've been fumbling around > > this thesis for a long time rather clumsily. To the extent that > > we empower superorganisms to act adverse to the interests of any > > individual it should be done carefully and minimally. > > I presume the morally superior fools behind the Declaration of > Independence, Magna Carta, et cetera, would meet with your scorn? Many of those documents are much more pragmatically constructed than ideological in nature, though this may not have been by design. The places where they (with respect to the American inception documents) are ideological by design are the pieces most open to (mis)interpretation and consequently least practical in application. jb From touyfsouyfsse2468@earthlink.net 1 Oct 2001 13:49:44 +0800 Date: 1 Oct 2001 13:49:44 +0800 From: touyfsouyfsse2468@earthlink.net touyfsouyfsse2468@earthlink.net Subject: Most people concerned about their future 1827783 **MOST THINK THE ECONOMY WILL ONLY GET WORSE** How long are you going to wait to get control our your finances and get out of debt! Free debt anaylsis http://www.20freemb.com/~formposting/ Con From Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:20:02 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:20:02 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eugene Leitl Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Subject: [BIOWAR] Turning anthrax into weapon difficult (fwd) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 02:36:03 -0700 From: Wes Thomas To: Biowar Subject: [BIOWAR] Turning anthrax into weapon difficult =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D --> WHAT'S THAT?, YOU WANNA MAKE A LIVING ONLINE? People from all walks of life are becoming wealthy online. Could YOU do it too? Find out in this free step-by-step guide to Making a Living Online. (By someone actually doing it!): http://click.topica.com/caaadtxbz8Q0Wa9I0ona/bizweb2000 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Turning anthrax into weapon difficult WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (UPI) -- Terrorist experts believe a terrorist attack using anthrax is possible -- at least 10 countries have experimented with i= t as a potential biological weapon, though most have ended development programs. Some experts point to the extreme technical difficulties in turning anthrax into a weapon, thereby reducing the potential number of deaths from million= s to thousands. A 1979 incident in the Soviet Union, in which 64 people died from anthrax inhalation, generally is believed to have resulted from the accidental release from a biological warfare factory. Some victims were 31 miles from the point of release. Once the disease is contracted by inhaling the bacteria, it is almost alway= s fatal. The first symptoms, which appear in one to six days but are sometime= s reported after weeks, are similar to those of a common cold. After a few days there are breathing problems and shock. Death follows in one to two days after severe symptoms appear. Heavy dosing with antibiotics prior to the appearance of symptoms can save about 80 percent of victims. It is not possible to assign a probability to the likelihood of an anthrax terror attack, according to Anthony H. Cordesman, holder of the Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at Center for Strategic and International Studies i= n Washington. "The problem we face is that we have no way to know whether states will be involved and use terrorists as proxies," Cordesman told United Press International. "The other problem with anthrax and other biological weapons is that even if they are not used in advanced form and have even only moderate lethality, moderate lethalities can still kill hundreds to thousands of people." Technical hurdles are formidable, according to Raymond Zilinskas, who has worked for the United Nations inspecting biological laboratories in Iraq. But carrying out the attacks would require knowledge of weather patterns an= d microbiology that would not be difficult to acquire. "First you have to get a virulent strain of bacillus anthracis, and that's not easy. The (Japanese cult) Aum Shinrikyo, despite having lots of money, molecular biologists, microbiologists and medical doctors who were members and having good laboratories, were not able to secure a virulent strain of bacillus anthracis," Zilinskas told UPI. Wet formulations are difficult to disperse and making a dry formulation poses huge technical problems. Aum Shinrikyo and the Iraqis succeeded in making wet formulations. After the wet formulation is made, the microbes must be harvested by centrifuging. The bacterium then must be suspended in some medium to carry it and to keep the organism alive and yet allow for it to be spread. If a crop duster were used to disperse the bacteria, the device would need to be modified. Also key is selecting the right wind conditions, coordinate= d with a specific flight path. To produce the most easily dispersed dry form, the bacterium must be converted into spores by stressing it, which requires a great deal of expertise since the microbe itself is relatively fragile, Zilinskas said. Special equipment for drying the spores and reducing them to a powder would be needed. "If you have a national bioweapons program, you can do these things after a while," said Zilinskas, a senior scientist at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey Institute for International Studie= s in Monterey, Calif. Zilinskas believes that because the Iraqis were unable to solve the dry for= m technical problems it would not be likely that terrorists could solve them either. This does not rule out some type of anthrax attack but the casualties would be lower than the catastrophic numbers envisioned by a U.S. Office of Technology Assessment report made public in 1993, that assumed all technica= l problems are solved prior to the attack and meteorological conditions are ideal. The Office of Technology Assessment report, "Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks," concludes an attack on a clear calm night with 220 pounds of anthrax spores would impact an area of 115 square miles and kill from 1 to 3 million people in densely populated areas. David Siegrist, research fellow at the Arlington-based Potomac Institute fo= r Policy Studies, is aware of the report but told UPI: "Basically it would take a lot of pathogen to do a significant amount of damage if you release it into the environment, if only because of the dilution factor ... There are also vagaries in the atmosphere, that unless someone is extremely knowledgeable, they could muff the attack." Siegrist said remote-controlled aircraft were developed by Iraq with a capacity to carry 500 gallons of anthrax or similar bioweapon. Strains of anthrax resistant to existing vaccines have been developed and the vaccines that do exist are controversial. Only about 25,000 doses of vaccine exist and these must be administered prior to exposure over a serie= s of injections. Additionally, the vaccines have been linked by a number of studies to Gulf War syndrome. Department of Defense documents claim only one in every 200,000 persons who receive the anthrax vaccine requires hospitalization. But Meryl Nass, a physician who has studied the vaccine told UPI, "That's completely inaccurate," and the number is much higher. A report by the National Research Council in 2000, "An Assessment of the Safety of the Anthrax Vaccine," concluded, "in the peer-reviewed literature there is inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association does or does not exist between anthrax vaccination and long-ter= m adverse health outcomes." Nass said important data was ignored by the group that produced the report and that their approach was "slanted." (Reported by Joe Grossman in Santa Cruz, Calif.) http://kevxml.infospace.com/info/kevxml?kcfg=3Dupi-article&sin=3D2001092919= 28390 003728&otmpl=3D/upi/story.htm&qcat=3Dscience&rn=3D23552&qk=3D10&passdate=3D= 09/29/2001 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Imagine-Your-Name-Here.com Wouldn=92t it be great to have your own personalized Domain Name? New Domains & Transfers $8.95/yr & lower. GoDaddy.com is an ICANN ACCREDITED registrar. ACT NOW! http://click.topica.com/caaadtmbz8Q0Wa9I0onf/GoDaddy =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Post to: biowar@topica.com. Unsubscribe to: biowar-unsubscribe@topica.com. = List info: www.topica.com/lists/biowar =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bz8Q0W.a9I0on Or send an email To: biowar-unsubscribe@topica.com This email was sent to: Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register =3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D From Grlygrl201@aol.com Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:30:58 EDT Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 07:30:58 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: Blind Geronimo (was Re: Will we ever not be at war?) --part1_12e.55e1794.28e9adf2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/26/01 1:12:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > Double ditto. It also bodes ill for the country's ability to sustain morale > and > support if goals and objectives aren't clearly set... this feels a lot > more like > Vietnam on some dimensions than, say, WWII. > > jb > > In that we'll package and sell this war as a defense of a democracy? Well, we may aid the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, but there is no implicit goal of democratizing Afghanistan. ******************************************************** Re marketing and packaging, I was thinking we should allow private sponsorship for this war. It presents an unparalleled naming opportunity. Imagine: "The Microsoft Offensive (aka "The Gates of Hell"). Or "The Dell Endeavor" (for the alliterative quality). Individual initiatives could be had for those will less deep pockets: "The Inktomi Invasion," for example. Stocks would be the equivalent of war bonds and the buying of them to fund a war more directly patriotic than the holding on of them to avoid a recession. Just 'cause, Geege --part1_12e.55e1794.28e9adf2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/26/01 1:12:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


Double ditto.  It also bodes ill for the country's ability to sustain morale and
support if goals and objectives aren't clearly set...  this feels a lot more like
Vietnam on some dimensions than, say, WWII.

jb



In that we'll package and sell this war as a defense of a democracy?  Well, we may aid the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, but there is no implicit goal of democratizing Afghanistan.  

********************************************************

Re marketing and packaging, I was thinking we should allow private sponsorship for this war.  It presents an unparalleled naming opportunity.  Imagine: "The Microsoft Offensive (aka "The Gates of Hell").  Or "The Dell Endeavor" (for the alliterative quality).  Individual initiatives could be had for those will less deep pockets: "The Inktomi Invasion," for example.  Stocks would be the equivalent of war bonds and the buying of them to fund a war more directly patriotic than the holding on of them to avoid a recession.

Just 'cause,
Geege



--part1_12e.55e1794.28e9adf2_boundary-- From kelley@interpactinc.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:54:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:54:18 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: Blind Geronimo (was Re: Will we ever not be at war?) At 07:30 AM 10/1/01 -0400, Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 9/26/01 1:12:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, >jbone@jump.net writes: > > >>Double ditto. It also bodes ill for the country's ability to sustain >>morale and >>support if goals and objectives aren't clearly set... this feels a lot >>more like >>Vietnam on some dimensions than, say, WWII. >> >>jb I was predicting something more like Korea with a gradual escalation into Vietnam. however, I'm afraid that the Shrubs are too poll driven. That means that they will escalate this and fast--if they believe that they can give spectacular NintendoWar. Why? Because the antiwar movement is growing and getting vocal. Demonstrations are getting a lot of support from people who don't participate, but agree. Time revealed some plan to drop food aid prior to the attacks. Interesting, since somebody writing for Zmag predicted as much (1)-- as a way to appease peace movement. This is much like the pre Gulf War game show, except quite a bit more uncertainly since we hadn't actually been attacked. Anyway, given what Daddyo Shrub experiences, i suspect that they want everyone mobilized behind Enduring Freedom (2). They'll have to start dropping bombs soon. They can't do it doing Ramadan. It would be bad for business to do it during Dead Guy on a Stick Shopping season. Winter is pretty inhospitable and they'd look bad. So, it's got to be soon. And, if that means risking strike backs, so be it, as Ashcroft has made clear. kelley (1) http://www.zmag.org/whatsgoing.htm (2) Quote of the Day: quote of the day: ""Infinite Justice", trial name for Desert Storm II, was rejected after a couple days as the laughingstock of the literate. Now it's called "Enduring Freedom". Once certain proposals beloved of certain jackals are shat out the anus of congress, we won't have to do much enduring of freedom any more. It is considerate of them to relieve us of that unwanted burden in this time of Infinite Stress." p.s. to Jeff: I've been tossing your idea for Islamic court around here and there...utterly no response! damn! From kelley@interpactinc.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:07:52 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 08:07:52 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: How can this be justified? At 02:24 PM 9/29/01 -0500, Jeff Bone wrote: >Many on this list will be suprised to hear me say this, but I've come to >the conclusion that my own positions in many of these political debates we >have are motivated not by ideology but by a kind of anti-ideology, one >that apparently ironically but actually literally can be said to comprise >"pragmatism" and / or "practicality." (I.e., a focus on effects rather >than motivations and ideals.) well, you're a good American then Jeff. What you describe has been frequently called our unique ideology. The constitution is founded on this principle: that we cannot offer a substantive vision of the good, but can create certain rules to adjudicate competing notions of the good. Being anti-ideology is also very much a part of American culture. kelley From chuck@topsail.org Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:10:57 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 08:10:57 -0400 From: Chuck Murcko chuck@topsail.org Subject: Idea: A conduit for corporate funding of free software On Saturday, September 29, 2001, at 07:19 AM, Andy Armstrong wrote: > > What does the panel think? > collab.net Chuck From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:25:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:25:22 -0400 From: Stephen Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: [Geeks] William RIvers Pitt: "Ignore This" (fwd) Nick Seidenman wrote: >On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Stephen Williams wrote: > >.... >1,000,000 Afganis DIED as a consequence of our pissing contest with the >Soviets there. > >ONE MILLION. > >I think we've fucked them over sufficiently well. > Point taken, however I wouldn't claim total culpability for the US. It's usually not that simple. What about the millions that died in Iraq (during and after the war)? Should we have just let them overrun another country to placate them as we did with Germany? Wouldn't it possibly become a bigger problem with even more costs? All of our reactions are informed by past conflicts, but of course the situation isn't always exactly similar. It's hard to do better and easy to apply hindsight. We've tried to be isolationist before twice and ended up with literal world wars. >>I've heard a bit from those that don't want to do anything apparently >>since it will likely involve some civilian casualties. I can't see how >>anyone could imagine that that would save lives in the long run. These >>crazy fundamentalist groups want to wipe everyone who doesn't agree with >>them off the face of the Earth... >> > >But enough about Falwell, Robertson, et alia ... > These guys always drive me nuts and are really an afront to rationality, but until they start advocating, planning, and/or funding genocide, they're not at the same level as the 'militant islamics'. (Anyone that provides such support and encouragement to abortion clinic bombers/snipers absolutely Does fall into this category.) They are to some extent the 'civilized' equivalent and for that they should be vilified. Their broadcasts blaming our securlarity and morality for causing this problem was the sickest thing I've heard. I hope it haunts them persistantly from now on. sdw >-- nick > >_______________________________________________ >Geeks mailing list >Geeks@lig.net >http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/geeks > From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:28:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:28:35 -0400 From: Stephen Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: [Fwd: [SkateDC] Test Map of a skate on 9/5/2001] While I continue to look for work/contracts, I have been working through my personal projects backlog... Enjoy. sdw -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SkateDC] Test Map of a skate on 9/5/2001 Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:04:34 -0400 From: Stephen Williams To: skate@skatedc.org I've finally put together everything needed to capture, map, and post GPS readings of a skate overlayed onto a detailed topo map along with an elevation profile. Look at: http://www.skatedc.org/maps/ Hopefully I'll be able to make this a regular feature that we can add to the website. I've reduce colors and cropped to try to keep the map image a reasonable size. sdw _______________________________________________ SkateDC mailing list SkateDC@skatedc.org http://www.skatedc.org/mailman/listinfo/skatedc From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:56:49 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:56:49 -0400 From: Stephen Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: [Fwd: [SkateDC] FW: This is sweet] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [SkateDC] FW: This is sweet Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:16:54 -0400 From: "Phillips, Mary (OCC)" To: "'skatedc@skatedc.org'" -----Original Message----- From: Rosenthal, Dave (OCC) Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 7:29 AM To: Juvenile (OCC) Cc: Irvin, Eugene (OCC); Groce, Rosalyn (OCC); DeAgostino, Paul (OCC) Subject: FW: This is sweet I don't usually forward emails that I get, but if the puchline is true this one is worth it. Dave Dave Rosenthal Chief, Juvenile Section Office of the Corporation Counsel 727-6277 ----- ----- Forwarded by Sharon Rosenthal/MANUGISTICS on 10/01/01 10:28 AM ----- Leslie Polss 10/01/01 10:09 AM To: TechComm cc: Subject: This is sweet This was emailed to me by a friend this morning: ___________________________________________ Many of you are aware that a few weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state of Missouri cannot discriminate against the Ku Klux Klan when it comes to groups that want to participate in the adopt-a-highway program. While seeing the name of the Klan on a highway sign is aesthetically disgusting, most realized that this decision was a victory for free speech and equal protection under the law. Well, the Department of Transportation in Missouri has gotten its legal revenge, and boy is it sweet. True, they can't remove the KKK's adopt-a-highway sign, but no one would dispute the state's right to name the highway itself. The KKK is now regularly cleaning up a stretch of the newly christened "Rosa Parks Freeway." From kelley@interpactinc.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:58:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 11:58:23 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: [Fwd: [SkateDC] FW: This is sweet] > >The KKK is now regularly cleaning up a stretch of the newly christened >"Rosa Parks Freeway." sorta kinda true: http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/rosapark.htm From martyh@nmcourts.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:07:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:07:01 -0600 From: Marty Halvorson martyh@nmcourts.com Subject: The end of liberty Jeff Bone wrote, "There are many who believe that the right way to identify potential terrorists is a bottoms-up approach, using developing humint and tracing through the networks. This results in an explicit and limited (read: practical) "stop list" of potentially dangerous individuals rather than a massive (read: impractical) list of mostly innocent people." How does this work when potentially dangerous individuals can change their "apparent" identification very easily? Are you suggesting a national ID card with biometric data? For example, a card with DNA encoding, or fingerprints, or ??? My wife works for an ethnic Turk, a U.S. citizen born in Turkey who arrived in the U.S. after receiving his degree. Everytime he gets on an airplane he is detained, and has been for quite some time. He doesn't seem to mind. Why do you? Please understand, I'm not against bottom up approachs to finding these folks. Peace Marty Halvorson New Mexico Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts Judicial Information Division martyh@nmcourts.com From mike@DataChannel.com Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:37:02 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:37:02 -0700 From: Mike Dierken mike@DataChannel.com Subject: Blind Geronimo (was Re: Will we ever not be at war?) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14A97.4C5E2540 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > From: Kelley [mailto:kelley@interpactinc.com] > > It would be bad for business to do it during Dead Guy on a > Stick Shopping season. Now that made me laugh. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14A97.4C5E2540 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Blind Geronimo (was Re: Will we ever not be at war?)

> From: Kelley [mailto:kelley@interpactinc.com]
>
> It would be bad for business to do it during Dead Guy on a
> Stick Shopping season.

Now that made me laugh.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C14A97.4C5E2540-- From johnhall@evergo.net Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:07:07 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:07:07 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: How can this be justified? > > well, you're a good American then Jeff. What you describe has been > frequently called our unique ideology. The constitution is > founded on this > principle: that we cannot offer a substantive vision of the > good, but can > create certain rules to adjudicate competing notions of the > good. Being > anti-ideology is also very much a part of American culture. > > kelley Not really. It was Kant, who came later, that did that. It has since been incorporated into Supreme Court Jurisprudence. From jbone@jump.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:23:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:23:04 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: The end of liberty Marty Halvorson wrote: > Jeff Bone wrote, "There are many who believe that the right way to identify > potential terrorists is a bottoms-up approach, using developing humint and > tracing through the networks. This results in an explicit and limited > (read: practical) "stop list" of potentially dangerous individuals rather > than a massive (read: impractical) list of mostly innocent people." > > How does this work when potentially dangerous individuals can change their > "apparent" identification very easily? Fake IDs may get you into bars when you're 19 y/o but they're usually not adequate to fool trained security or law enforcement officers. No need for DNA, fingerprints, etc... just checking *everyone's* ID *well* at the point of departure would be a vast improvement. > My wife works for an ethnic Turk, a U.S. citizen born in Turkey who arrived > in the U.S. after receiving his degree. Everytime he gets on an airplane > he is detained, and has been for quite some time. He doesn't seem to mind. > Why do you? The answer is in the question. Think of all the time / effort / attention that's *wasted* detaining your Turkish friend. Now imagine if that effort were put to productive use rather than just stopping whoever Joe Security thought "looked suspiscious" ... jb From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:29:33 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:29:33 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: How can this be justified? satessh narahari wrote: > just a thought that went thru my mind. Most murders, most killings, most > wars in today's world are caused due to religious differences. Perhaps, what > is evil is not one religion, but all the religions of the world have > part-evil in it?. > > What do you guys think?. I think you've just caught up with my line of reasoning at 13, part of why I'm atheist, having found myself to be unable to be religious even after investigating multiple varients of Christian religions. (Where I grew up, Catholicism was the most exotic religion around...) I realize that people can decide to believe almost anything and bend their perception of reality to fit their internal model through rationalization. Humans are amazingly adept at rationalization as it is part of how our brain fundamentally functions. (See experiments on split-brain self explanation.) Most of my scientist and very intelligent friends are atheist/agnostic, but at least one isn't. I generally think that religiousosity is prevalent through a combination of peer-pressure theism (rapant in the midwest where I grew up), infancy+ ingrained ideas, and unexamined beliefs. For some of those that do examine their beliefs, their bias seems to produce a rationalization shell that protects their core religious beliefs that they believe their whole life is based on. Additionally, I firmly believe that it is very dangerous for people to be taught to step over the line of rationality because it is so easy to become a slippery slope. If someone is conditioned since infancy to believe in supersition and myths by authority figures that everyone apparently takes as fact, what tools do they have for discriminant thinking when it's important? (Hitler, Manson, Osama, KKK, Robertson, vs. Star Trek, Neo-Tech.com, ffrf.com, pfaw.org, etc.) I didn't really register the lyrics of "Superstition" by Stevie Wonder until just today: The refrain is: "When you believe in things that you don't understand, Then you suffer, Superstition ain't the way, ..." The lack of leadership and explanation of a clear view of reality and a basic, consistent philosophy of life is a huge reason that so many are aimless and confused. This is especially true of the current generation of teens-20's about which I'm seeing more and more depressing press. "My country is the world, my religion is to do good." -- Thomas Paine (High my hero list). I'm mildly to strongly opposed to irrationality (i.e. religion, generally), directly proportional to the degree of rational denial, intolerance, and likelihood of injury in the proximate case. I'm tolerant of others but totally intolerant of intolerance. I'm also not that fond of the spread of memes that I disagree with (i.e. think are wrong), especially to my children, but I generally fight that with cleaner and meaner memes. Those that are religious in tolerant and self-medicating ways (in the mental health sense) with some clearly defined boundaries on their irrationality are just fine with me. Force creationism into my childrens' public schools instead of evolution, and you're going to feel my wrath. For my kids, Santa Claus provides a great lesson: something that they wanted to believe was true, that everyone treated as true, they eventually grew out of and understood was a convenient myth. sdw > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Russell Turpin" > To: > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:21 AM > Subject: Fw: How can this be justified? > > > >>Tony Berkman writes: >> >>>Of course, I realize that my own views and rationales >>>are colored and shaped by who I am and how I was >>>taught history, whether it be college or Hebrew school, >>>but all the same I feel an incredibly strong alliance to >>>Israel .. It is fundamental to the continuance of the >>>Jewish religion. >>> >>And in exactly the same way, many Muslims feel >>"an incredibly strong alliance" to the nations that >>implement Islamic government. In both cases, there >>is a religious precept that "justifies" the government >>involved, and shields it from any kind of secular >>criticism. In the case of an Islamic state, it is the >>notion that Allah ordains that kind of state, and >>only that kind of state. In the case of Israel, it is >>the Old Testament story that God gave Israel to >>the Jews. It's ironic that fundamentalist Jews and >>fundamentalist Moslems use exactly the same >>arguments to defend their favored states from any >>kind of secular criticism. Only the book differs. >> >>The greatest current threat to western culture >>is precisely the kind of religious fundamentalism >>that links government to religion. As long as that >>idea lives, and as long as there are states based >>on it, there will continue to be crusades, jihads, >>intifadas, and Zionist movements. And in the >>22nd century, if these are still fought, they will >>be fought with tailored virii and nanontechnology. >> >>Israel, of course, is an ally to the west. For now. >>But the idea that you express -- the importance >>and sanctity of a state based on a specific religion >>-- is precisely the idea that brought down the >>World Trade Center. In the long run, this is a >>battle between secular, western culture, and >>fundamentalist religion. Christianity has been >>liberalized from its long dance with modernity. >>Few Christians still believe in significant linkage >>between state and church. Islam also must >>become liberalized. And so must Judaism, >>because this isn't the kind of thing where there >>can be an exception for one. >> >>If you value civilization, your goal should not >>be to preserve a Jewish state. It should be, in >>the next century, the complete absence of >>religious states, and for every individual, >>throughout the globe to be free to practice their >>chosen religion, regardless of the nation in >>which they live, and without suffering legal >>discrimination from doing so. Those who >>oppose secular government and religious >>freedom are backing the terrorists. They may >>not realize it. They may do it from the best >>of intentions. The way the lines are currently >>drawn, of which religion and which states >>line up against each other, they may be on >>the side of the "good guys." But in the long >>run, as long as that meme has vitality, we >>will suffer this kind of terrorism. That meme >>needs to go the way of "human sacrifice," >>"chattel slavery," and other notions that are >>now beyond the pale. >> >>Russell >> >> >> >> >>http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork >> >> > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From deafbox@hotmail.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:48:12 +0000 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:48:12 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: WTC attacks had half million dollar bank-roll Here's the Salon article: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2001/09/30/cost/index.html This sounds about right to me. It was a project with a staff of twenty-five, working for a year or more, that had heavy travel and training requirements, and even assuming the staff had minimal "salary," in the form of living expenses. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From kelley@interpactinc.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:59:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:59:20 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: How can this be justified? At 11:07 AM 10/1/01 -0700, John Hall wrote: >Not really. It was Kant, who came later, that did that. It has since >been incorporated into Supreme Court Jurisprudence. See James Madison's explications behind his reasons for constructing the _entire_ system of the government the way he did. IOW, there was something there before Kant influenced the SC's jurisprudence. The concept wasn't imposed willy nilly on a document or traditions which was impervious to such and interpretation. See also: Democracy and the Ethical Life, Claes G. Ryn You might also want to check out the Scottish moralists, among them Adam Smith, who deeply influenced Locke,Shaftsbury, and Hutcheson, for example. Smith wrote his major treatise, A Theory of Moral Sentiments. Here you see the focus on the means, as opposed to the ends that jeff mentioned. Since the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers deeply influenced our Founders "Again, the sole use and end of all constitutions of government is to promote the happiness of those who live under them. But from this love of art and contrivance, we often come to value the means more than the end, and to be eager to promote the happiness of our fellows, less from any sympathy with their sufferings or enjoyment than from a wish to perfect and improve a beautiful system. Men of the greatest public spirit have often been men of the smallest humanity, like Peter the Great; and if a public-spirited man encourages the mending of roads, it is not commonly from a fellow-feeling with carriers and wagoners so much as from a regard to the general beauty of order. This admits however of a practical application, for if you wish to implant public virtue in a man devoid of it, you will tell him in vain of the superior advantages of a well-governed state, of the better homes, the better clothing, or the better food. But if you describe the great system of government which procures these advantages, explaining the conexions and subordinations of their several parts, and their general subserviency to the happiness of their society; if you show the possibility of introducing such a system into his own country, or of removing the obstructions to it, and setting the wheels of the machine of government to move with more harmony and smoothness, you will scarce fail to raise in him the desire to help to remove the obstructions, and to put in motion so beautiful and orderly a machine. It is less the results of a political system that can move him than the contemplation of an ingenious adjustment of means to ends. " --from Smith's Lectures on the Theory of Moral Sentiments kelley From jbone@jump.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:59:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 13:59:49 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Great post, Stephen. Ditto. jb "Stephen D. Williams" wrote: > satessh narahari wrote: > > > just a thought that went thru my mind. Most murders, most killings, most > > wars in today's world are caused due to religious differences. Perhaps, what > > is evil is not one religion, but all the religions of the world have > > part-evil in it?. > > > > What do you guys think?. > > I think you've just caught up with my line of reasoning at 13, part of > why I'm atheist, having found myself to be unable to be religious even > after investigating multiple varients of Christian religions. (Where I > grew up, Catholicism was the most exotic religion around...) > > I realize that people can decide to believe almost anything and bend their > > perception of reality to fit their internal model through > rationalization. Humans are amazingly adept at rationalization as it is > part of how our brain fundamentally functions. (See experiments on > split-brain self explanation.) Most of my scientist and very > intelligent friends are atheist/agnostic, but at least one isn't. I > generally think that religiousosity is prevalent through a combination > of peer-pressure theism (rapant in the midwest where I grew up), > infancy+ ingrained ideas, and unexamined beliefs. For some of those > that do examine their beliefs, their bias seems to produce a > rationalization shell that protects their core religious beliefs that > they believe their whole life is based on. > > Additionally, I firmly believe that it is very dangerous for people to > be taught to step over the line of rationality because it is so easy to > become a slippery slope. If someone is conditioned since infancy to > believe in supersition and myths by authority figures that everyone > apparently takes as fact, what tools do they have for discriminant > thinking when it's important? (Hitler, Manson, Osama, KKK, Robertson, > vs. Star Trek, Neo-Tech.com, ffrf.com, pfaw.org, etc.) > > I didn't really register the lyrics of "Superstition" by Stevie Wonder > until just today: The refrain is: "When you believe in things that you > don't understand, Then you suffer, Superstition ain't the way, ..." > > The lack of leadership and explanation of a clear view of reality and a > basic, consistent philosophy of life is a huge reason that so many are > aimless and confused. This is especially true of the current generation > of teens-20's about which I'm seeing more and more depressing press. > "My country is the world, my religion is to do good." -- Thomas Paine > (High my hero list). > > I'm mildly to strongly opposed to irrationality (i.e. religion, > generally), directly proportional to the degree of rational denial, > intolerance, and likelihood of injury in the proximate case. I'm > tolerant of others but totally intolerant of intolerance. I'm also not > that fond of the spread of memes that I disagree with (i.e. think are > wrong), especially to my children, but I generally fight that with > cleaner and meaner memes. Those that are religious in tolerant and > self-medicating ways (in the mental health sense) with some clearly > defined boundaries on their irrationality are just fine with me. Force > creationism into my childrens' public schools instead of evolution, and > you're going to feel my wrath. > > For my kids, Santa Claus provides a great lesson: something that they > wanted to believe was true, that everyone treated as true, they > eventually grew out of and understood was a convenient myth. > > sdw > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Russell Turpin" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 8:21 AM > > Subject: Fw: How can this be justified? > > > > > > > >>Tony Berkman writes: > >> > >>>Of course, I realize that my own views and rationales > >>>are colored and shaped by who I am and how I was > >>>taught history, whether it be college or Hebrew school, > >>>but all the same I feel an incredibly strong alliance to > >>>Israel .. It is fundamental to the continuance of the > >>>Jewish religion. > >>> > >>And in exactly the same way, many Muslims feel > >>"an incredibly strong alliance" to the nations that > >>implement Islamic government. In both cases, there > >>is a religious precept that "justifies" the government > >>involved, and shields it from any kind of secular > >>criticism. In the case of an Islamic state, it is the > >>notion that Allah ordains that kind of state, and > >>only that kind of state. In the case of Israel, it is > >>the Old Testament story that God gave Israel to > >>the Jews. It's ironic that fundamentalist Jews and > >>fundamentalist Moslems use exactly the same > >>arguments to defend their favored states from any > >>kind of secular criticism. Only the book differs. > >> > >>The greatest current threat to western culture > >>is precisely the kind of religious fundamentalism > >>that links government to religion. As long as that > >>idea lives, and as long as there are states based > >>on it, there will continue to be crusades, jihads, > >>intifadas, and Zionist movements. And in the > >>22nd century, if these are still fought, they will > >>be fought with tailored virii and nanontechnology. > >> > >>Israel, of course, is an ally to the west. For now. > >>But the idea that you express -- the importance > >>and sanctity of a state based on a specific religion > >>-- is precisely the idea that brought down the > >>World Trade Center. In the long run, this is a > >>battle between secular, western culture, and > >>fundamentalist religion. Christianity has been > >>liberalized from its long dance with modernity. > >>Few Christians still believe in significant linkage > >>between state and church. Islam also must > >>become liberalized. And so must Judaism, > >>because this isn't the kind of thing where there > >>can be an exception for one. > >> > >>If you value civilization, your goal should not > >>be to preserve a Jewish state. It should be, in > >>the next century, the complete absence of > >>religious states, and for every individual, > >>throughout the globe to be free to practice their > >>chosen religion, regardless of the nation in > >>which they live, and without suffering legal > >>discrimination from doing so. Those who > >>oppose secular government and religious > >>freedom are backing the terrorists. They may > >>not realize it. They may do it from the best > >>of intentions. The way the lines are currently > >>drawn, of which religion and which states > >>line up against each other, they may be on > >>the side of the "good guys." But in the long > >>run, as long as that meme has vitality, we > >>will suffer this kind of terrorism. That meme > >>needs to go the way of "human sacrifice," > >>"chattel slavery," and other notions that are > >>now beyond the pale. > >> > >>Russell > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > >> > >> > > > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > > > > -- > sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st > Stephen D. Williams > 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax > Dec2000 > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From Sally@KnowNow.com Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:59:10 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:59:10 -0700 From: Sally Khudairi Sally@KnowNow.com Subject: KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing Contact: KnowNow Inc. Stephen Jones +1.650.641.8571 Sally Khudairi +1.650.641.8570 press@knownow.com KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing TPG Ventures, Morgan Stanley, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and RSA Ventures Top List of Investors for Application Internetworking Pioneer MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - 1 October, 2001 - KnowNow today announced the close of $15 million in B-round financing led by venture capital firm TPG Ventures, an affiliate of Texas Pacific Group. The round includes strategic investments from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB), Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MWD) Technology Ventures, Palomar Ventures and RSA Ventures. This new funding brings the company's total private equity funding to more than $23 million, and will help KnowNow grow its position as a leading provider of application internetworking software for real-time information exchange among applications over the Internet. "We have looked at many software companies in the last year and found KnowNow to have a unique and very strong value proposition" said Manfred Krikke, partner at TPG Ventures. "The concept of Application Internetworking, using a single platform to create real time, interactive Web applications as well as connect existing enterprise applications using an Internet standards approach, will prove to be very powerful for customers." "This funding reflects the growing interest in our application internetworking solutions; it will allow us to expand our sales efforts across multiple markets and bolster our technology development," explained Bill Barhydt, President and CEO of KnowNow. "More and more companies are realizing that in order to interconnect disparate applications and infrastructure, the development process must be both flexible and streamlined. With KnowNow, developers can start building desktop and wide area integration solutions today." KnowNow technology enables companies to interchange up-to-date content directly to and from end-user applications such as Excel spreadsheets, Java-based programs or Web-enabled enterprise applications. KnowNow delivers client/server richness through constant communication between a Web page and application servers - both inside and outside the corporate firewall. The company is the first to promote dramatically shorter development cycles than current approaches: KnowNow's simple, standards-based integration software is easy to deploy - without requiring the use of a particular technology or programming environment. Ashley Fieglein and Steve Foster Join Board of Directors "Both Ashley and Steve have contributed to the growth and market prominence of some of the industry's best known companies, including Ariba, Hewlett-Packard and 3Com, and share our vision of leveraging the Internet to pervasively exchange real-time information across applications and firewalls," added Barhydt. "We are honored to have them join our board and look forward to their help with positioning KnowNow for long-term success." Ms. Fieglein focuses on the enterprise software and Internet infrastructure sectors for Morgan Stanley Technology Ventures. Prior to joining Morgan Stanley Technology Ventures in February 2001, Ms. Fieglein was Director of International Strategy and Business Development for Ariba, a global provider of B2B e-commerce solutions. Ashley was previously a member of Morgan Stanley's technology investment banking franchise in Menlo Park, California and has also worked as an investment analyst for hedge funds focused on technology investments. She holds a B.A. in International Relations and an M.A. in International Policy from Stanford University. Mr. Foster is a General Partner at TPG Ventures. Prior to joining TPG Ventures in 2000, Steve was a Partner at Crosspoint Venture Partners. >From 1995 to 1998, Steve was the Director of Business Development for 3Com Corporation. Prior to joining 3Com, he spent six years at Hewlett-Packard where he held a variety of finance, marketing and business development roles. From 1984 to 1988, he was an Audit Manager at Ernst & Young. Steve earned his M.B.A. with honors from Northwestern University in 1989. He received his B.S. degree in 1984 as a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Santa Clara University. The company's first round of funding was led by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in December 2000 and totaled $8 million. "KnowNow is a leader among our Keiretsu of companies that are spearheading solutions for the real-time enterprise," said Kevin Compton, partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. "The caliber of investors that have joined us is further validation of KnowNow's promising future." About Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Founded in 1972, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers began offering entrepreneurs a broader philosophy of value-added investing, not merely access to capital, but access to people as well. KPCB partners cumulatively have over 100 years of industry experience in successful high growth companies. Each partner has been a line manager with accountability for profits and losses, and hands-on responsibility for bringing products to market. This experience has resulted in the creation of over 100 publicly traded companies with another 80 on their way to similar success. KPCB has raised over $1.2 billion in capital and has invested in companies whose total market value exceeds $80 billion. About Morgan Stanley Technology Ventures Morgan Stanley Technology Ventures is a dedicated venture capital arm of Morgan Stanley, focused on serving as active investors in next-generation technology leaders. Technology Ventures works closely with Morgan Stanley's global Investment Banking, Equity Research and IT organizations to leverage the firm's resources, relationships and insights from around the world. Morgan Stanley Technology Ventures invests in early through expansion stage opportunities across all sectors of technology, with current portfolio companies including Corrent, KnowNow and Mobilian. About Palomar Ventures Palomar Ventures, a Southern California venture capital firm with $300 million under management, invests in early-stage information technology companies. Palomar Ventures is currently focused in the strategic areas of infrastructure software, networking communications, next-gen storage and core solutions to make the enterprise more competitive. Investments to date include Again Technologies, Continuous Computing, Dorado, Efficient Networks, Innovics, StoneFly Networks, Syntricity, Telecore (ViaSource), uMachines, Virtella, and YellowShirt. Founded in 1999, Palomar has offices in both Santa Monica, CA and Irvine, CA. About RSA Ventures RSA Ventures is a venture capital fund sponsored by RSA Security Inc., the most trusted name in e-securityTM. The fund is an ROI-driven investment vehicle that combines the strategic value of a corporate investor with the structure of a venture fund to add value to its portfolio companies. RSA Ventures invests in companies that have a compelling vision and the opportunity to be a market leader in the areas of enterprise software and services, Internet infrastructure, and wireless communications. In addition to capital, RSA Ventures' portfolio companies benefit from the skills, experience, trusted brand name, and global presence of RSA Security. More information is available on www.rsav.com. About TPG Ventures TPG Ventures is an affiliate of Texas Pacific Group, and has raised over $450 M in its 2001 fund, focused on investments in leading technology companies. Texas Pacific Group is a private equity investment firm founded by David Bonderman, James G. Coulter and William S. Price, III in 1993 with offices in San Francisco, Palo Alto, Fort Worth, and London. Texas Pacific Group and its affiliated partnerships have aggregate committed capital of more than $7.0 billion, with more than $2.5 billion invested in technology and telecommunications worldwide.=20 About KnowNow KnowNow's application internetworking software enables the exchange of up-to-date content - both inside and outside the corporate firewall - dynamically and persistently over the Internet. With KnowNow, myriad end-user applications, including Java-based programs, Excel spreadsheets and Web-enabled enterprise solutions, evolve into real-time applications with client/server interactivity. Headquartered in Mountain View, California, KnowNow is a privately held company with backing from premier venture capital firms, including Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Palomar Ventures. Developers can download products, sample applications and documentation from the KnowNow Developer Center at http://developer.knownow.com/ ; further information about KnowNow is available at http://www.knownow.com/ . From kelley@interpactinc.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:13:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:13:44 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: How can this be justified? my apologies for all the typhos and grandma errs. i actually proof read. but then i edited. and then i fuxored it up anyway! i think i need more than two hours of sleep a night! :) Cindy....i need the Porch! and the Lagavulin! Geege....we can car pool it: i'll sleep, you drive? ;p >James Madison's explications behind his reasons for constructing the >_entire_ system of the government the way he did. IOW, there was >something there before Kant influenced the SC's jurisprudence. <...> From johnhall@evergo.net Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:10:39 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:10:39 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: How can this be justified? > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelley [mailto:kelley@interpactinc.com] > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 11:59 AM > To: John Hall; 'Jeff Bone' > Cc: 'Russell Turpin'; fork@xent.com > Subject: RE: How can this be justified? > > > At 11:07 AM 10/1/01 -0700, John Hall wrote: > > >Not really. It was Kant, who came later, that did that. It > has since > >been incorporated into Supreme Court Jurisprudence. > > > See > > James Madison's explications behind his reasons for constructing the > _entire_ system of the government the way he did. Or see his opposition to allowing foreign trade in all ports, rather than particular ones. Letting people do what they want and getting rich has been seen as a problem from Plato through Madison and Jefferson and on up to Lincoln. It even pays to be careful about the words. When Lincoln said "Free Labor" he didn't mean what the Libertarians mean when they use the phrase. See Democracy's Discontent: American in Search of a Public Philosophy ('98 Sandel). From deafbox@hotmail.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:19:34 +0000 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:19:34 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: How can this be justified? John Hall writes: >It even pays to be careful about the words. When Lincoln said "Free Labor" >he didn't mean what the Libertarians mean when they use the phrase. I had always assumed that Lincoln used this phrase to distinguish the labor of free men from the labor of slaves. Are you suggesting he meant something else? Or maybe I misunderstand what you think libertarians mean by this phrase? (I don't see this phrase much in modern libertarian writing, since that isn't a large issue today. So maybe there is some odd usage strange to me?) Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From ejw@cse.ucsc.edu Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:19:53 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:19:53 -0700 From: Jim Whitehead ejw@cse.ucsc.edu Subject: DeltaV protocol approved as Proposed Standard I'm very pleased to announce that today the IESG approved the DeltaV Protocol as a Proposed Standard. The DeltaV protocol [1] extends the WebDAV protocol [2] to provide capabilities for versioning and configuration management. DeltaV, like WebDAV, is an extension to HTTP, and thus this protocol has the effect of turning a Web server into a platform for remote collaborative development of software projects, large documentation efforts, or any large collection of inter-related information. The Subversion project [3] is the furthest along in creating a complete solution based on DeltaV -- they recently announced the start of self-hosting, using Subversion in the development of Subversion. Xythos WebFile Server [4][5] has implemented the DeltaV specification on the server side, and provides free test accounts on their Sharemation site [6]. With approval of the DeltaV protocol, the specification enters the RFC editor's queue. Typically there is about a month's delay between approval and publication as an RFC, meaning an RFC number is imminent. Now we get to focus on implementations, interoperability, and solving real-world problems with this technology. [1] http://www.webdav.org/deltav/ [2] http://www.webdav.org/ [3] http://subversion.tigris.org/ [4] http://www.xythos.com/products.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2001JulSep/0213.html [6] http://www.sharemation.com/ - Jim From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:59:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:59:45 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: How can this be justified? First, one comment about your line below: "I don't know that about my own country." I'm really puzzled. The US will stand behind any people in the US. Period. The US will stand behind most other peoples and countries that ask and don't have dirty hands. They even stand behind Israel totally, regardless of how extreme (and desperate really) a particular action might appear here. How can you question whether the US will stand behind the Jewish people. Unless the Jewish people become totalitarian, imperial, and annexingly militant beyond border scraps, the US will always be behind them. Israel and Palestine (and all of it's neighbors for that matter) need to stop fighting. Period. The past is no excuse for anyone, however survival is a valid concern. With only glancing understanding of the whole mess, I'd suggest some kind of complete monitoring and control over who goes where and does what. Seal the borders, use biometrics, whatever until a generation or two goes by and all of this stops. Alternately, make all regional governments secular with security forces actively tracking and locking up any display or action that is racist/reglionist or intolerant. These countries are small enough that it would be cheaper to wire the whole place than to keep living with these losses and military responses. I've begun to think that the 'guards' protecting both Israel and Palistine should be neutral (UN or US (even though Arabs would question US involvement)). sdw Tony Berkman wrote: > I reacted emotionally to your post and mentioned anti-Semitism because > of your comment about the only difference being whom the USA supports. > For me as a Jew and for many other Jews I am sure, there is a world of > difference between the events. I know that I would not be here today if > it were not for Israel and if I ever felt that Israel's existence as a > homeland for the Jewish people were in dire straits, I would go there to > fight or lend my support in any way possible. > > Of course, I realize that my own views and rationales are colored and > shaped by who I am and how I was taught history, whether it be college > or Hebrew school, but all the same I feel an incredibly strong alliance > to Israel (though I've only visited a handful of times), and I know that > all Israel's neighbors, whether "declared" or not are at war with > Israel. Of course it pains me and I feel trouble whenever I read about > civilian (or not) Palestinians being killed, however for me, I feel it > is in order for my OWN survival. It is fundamental to the continuance > of the Jewish religion. I know Israel will stand behind the Jewish > people. I don't know that about my own country. > > So I know it would be foolish of me to expect anyone not Jewish to > censure a post based on the holiday of Yom Kippur. After all, as > someone pointed out bits are bits and it was after all, printed in the > grey lady. But it wasn't the bits, it was the comment. You clearly > feel Israel is acting wrongly and immoraly, and that just struck a chord > in me. Because in some way my own survival depends upon it. > > > At 06:32 PM 9/27/01, you wrote: > >> > I find this an inappropriate post on Yom Kippur. >> >> It was not my intent to take advantage of this holiday -- I will gladly >> answer replies sent in after today (I will be offline until Monday, >> though). >> >> > It is one of my great fears that the Jews are somehow going to be >> held to >> > blame in some circles for the tragedies that occurred. >> >> I did not make this linkage in my post, intentionally. >> >> > I'm not accusing you in any way of being anti-Semitic >> >> So why mention it? For the record, I'm not accusing you of being >> anti-Semitic either. >> >> > However, when you mention that the entire >> > context of the attack doesn't need to be brought to bear, I just >> shake my >> > head. Of course it does, and the entire context could fill a >> > library. >> >> I believe that "fully considering the context" slowly allows you to >> justify >> horrific acts. If you say, X, though horrific, is justified because A >> did Y, >> and then A justified their terrible actions because B did Z, and so >> on, then >> it only leads to a spiral of violence. >> >> - Jim >> >> >> >> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From kelley@interpactinc.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:06:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:06:37 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: How can this be justified? 11:07 AM 10/1/01 -0700, John Hall wrote: > > > > >Not really. It was Kant, who came later, that did that. It > > has since > > >been incorporated into Supreme Court Jurisprudence. > > > > > > See > > > > James Madison's explications behind his reasons for constructing the > > _entire_ system of the government the way he did. > >Or see his opposition to allowing foreign trade in all ports, rather >than particular ones. Letting people do what they want and getting rich >has been seen as a problem from Plato through Madison and Jefferson and >on up to Lincoln. i know how this is related, but you're making some big hops around the hopscotch board there pardner. i quoted Smith's solution to the problem that he saw at the time, an answer he conceived in the 1750s: in government, the focus on the means, on the mechanics of government, on developing scientific algorithms (he thought) would work as checks and balances on competing factions that sought their respective ends in the political forum. He was rejecting what Jeff was rejecting, though he never used the word ideology. However, The Wealth of Nations was a diatribe against mercantalists' ideologies, as i'm sure you know. [1] >It even pays to be careful about the words. When Lincoln said "Free >Labor" he didn't mean what the Libertarians mean when they use the >phrase. are you calling me a libertarian? ya smilin' when ya say that? :) >See Democracy's Discontent: American in Search of a Public Philosophy >('98 Sandel). :) I actually know the guy. This whole strain of thought was central to my work in grad school at the Center for the Study of Citizenship. We hosted folks like Sandel, Alan Wolfe, Harry Boyte etc., etc. to speak to these topics. Some of my research, subsequently, had much to do with the issues in the context of "new social movements" such as responses to plant closings and a fight against the attempts by the state to site a radioactive waste dump in same economically depressed communities. I asked: in what ways are communities attempting to struggle against the colonizing forces of both the market and the state by drawing on the resources they find in civil society? If you cite Sandel, then surely you should see exactly what I'm getting at. There were certainly competing strains of political and civic thought over two centuries ago, but one became what Robert Bellah et al call our "first language of individualism" (utilitarian and expressive individualism; Jeff's views are aligned) and "republican and biblical individualism" which is our second, less dominant (and often sneered at) "second language of individualism". People like Sandel, Bellah, Wolfe, Etzioni, etc are trying to figure out how to reinvigorate communitarian associational life, much admired by Smith in A Theory of Moral Sentiments. For Smith, the market could only work well if people pursued self interest _in_ the market. But that kind of moral logic (yes, I think individualism and the logic of the market are moral logics) needed to be tempered by the rather different moral logics which Smith called "sentiments" and "sympathies" cultivated in civil society. Communitarian thinkers such as Sandel see the first language of individualism, associated with the discourses of market calculation and state power, as colonizing (and sapping) our capacity for sustained discussion on the meaning of the good life and how we ought to live our collective lives together. The latter are better articulated in terms of the second language of individualism: civic and biblical individualism. "American cultural traditions define personality, achievement, and the purpose of human life in ways that leave the individual suspended in glorious, but terrifying isolation. These are limitations of our culture, of the categories and ways of thinking we have inherited, not limitations of individuals. ... Whether chiefly concerned with private or public life, Americans are often deeply involved in caring for others. ... Yet, when we use the moral discourse we share, what we call the first language of individualism, we have difficulty articulating the richness of our commitments. In the language we use, our lives sound more isolated and arbitrary than they actually are." (adapted from Robert Bellah et, Habits of the Heart, p 6, 20) Where Bellah et al are worried about moral relativism and excessive individualism, Alan Wolfe revisits their research and argues that it ain't so bleak in _One Nation, After All_. kelley [1] yes, the founders were deeply afraid of the influence of factionalism and worried that our republic would falter. one work around was to consign morality and concern about the good life to the home (in the care of women) and in the associational life of civil society. Men would return from the fatiques of factionalism to have their brows soothed by the wives who would exert their moralizing influence. yadda. refs if ya want 'em. i'm going to catch a power nap! :) Robert Bellah: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/Bellah/ Alan Wolfe: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/w/wolfe-nation.html (first chapter) http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/08/reviews/980308.08staplet.html (review) From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:05:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:05:07 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing Congratulations!!! sdw Sally Khudairi wrote: > Contact: > > KnowNow Inc. > Stephen Jones +1.650.641.8571 > Sally Khudairi +1.650.641.8570 > press@knownow.com > > > KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing > > TPG Ventures, Morgan Stanley, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and RSA > Ventures Top List of Investors for Application Internetworking Pioneer > > MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - 1 October, 2001 - KnowNow today announced the close > of $15 million in B-round financing led by venture capital firm TPG > Ventures, an affiliate of Texas Pacific Group. The round includes > strategic investments from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB), ... -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From Ken.Coar@Golux.Com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:23:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:23:23 -0400 From: Rodent of Unusual Size Ken.Coar@Golux.Com Subject: KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing Okey, Rohit, you can hire me now.. ;-D -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "All right everyone! Step away from the glowing hamburger!" From johnhall@evergo.net Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:16:43 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 14:16:43 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: How can this be justified? I thought so too, but apparently not. Or rather, he meant something more than just the difference between slave and free. What we normally associate with 'free labor' is the right of contract. If the two parties (employed and employee) agree, then it is 'free labor'. Lincoln came from an American tradition that still placed the farmer farming his own land, or the small proprietor in his own shop, as the central institution in a free society. Wage labor was ok for a limited time in order to obtain a grubstake -- and thus eventually stop working for a wage and enter the free labor pool. Wage relations were it was seen as impossible for a prudent person to accumulate such a grubstake were seen as not much better than slavery. In other words, it wasn't much different than the idealization of the yeoman farmer by Jefferson. In that environment, the equation of slavery in the South with wage based industry in the North apparently had more resonance than I would have thought. It was apparently after the Civil War when it became obvious that the old ideas about 'free labor' were untenable, and that large numbers of people would wind up working for wages their entire life, that the concept switched to freedom of contract. > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On > Behalf Of Russell Turpin > Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 12:20 PM > To: fork@xent.com > Subject: RE: How can this be justified? > > > John Hall writes: > >It even pays to be careful about the words. When Lincoln said "Free > >Labor" > >he didn't mean what the Libertarians mean when they use the phrase. > > I had always assumed that Lincoln used this phrase to > distinguish the labor of free men from the labor of slaves. > Are you suggesting he meant something else? > > Or maybe I misunderstand what you think libertarians > mean by this phrase? (I don't see this phrase much in > modern libertarian writing, since that isn't a large > issue today. So maybe there is some odd usage strange > to me?) > > Russell > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From mike@techdirt.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:08:18 -0700 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:08:18 -0700 From: Mike Masnick mike@techdirt.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Fascinating. I'm still about a week behind on FoRK, but I don't think this has been sent in. It's a series of emails over the past few years from an American rabbi who moved to Israel with his family. It's amazng how quickly and how completely his viewpoints have changed. I've heard a very similar story from a number of Israelis. While they used to think there was a way to peacefully co-exist, they find it harder and harder to believe. Gives a little more background on the situation there. http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/magazine/30ISRAEL.html?pagewanted=all September 30, 2001 E-Mail From an Anxious State By DANIEL GORDIS In July 1998, Daniel Gordis, a rabbi and dean of the rabbinical school at the University of Judaism in Los Angeles, moved with his wife, Beth, and their three children (Talia, then 11; Avi, 8; Micha, 5) to Jerusalem for a one-year fellowship at the Mandel Foundation. Shortly after arriving, he began sending out periodic e-mail messages about life in Israel to friends and family, some of whom forwarded them to others (including an editor at this magazine). A few months after the Gordises landed in Israel, they decided to stay permanently. Below are excerpts from more than 30,000 words of e-mail. The final entry was written after Gordis heard about the attack on the World Trade Center, an event that unexpectedly brought his two worlds together. October 1998 Hi everyone. I think that the major impact of the past few weeks has been that our kids, especially the older ones, are getting a pretty clear glimpse of how different life is here. Rosh Hashanah was a clear example. During our 10-minute walk to shul in the morning, we passed at least six other services in progress. Everywhere, people were dressed in their finest. We could hear shofars being sounded from every direction. Life itself was Rosh Hashanah. I think Tali and Avi realized how great it was to daven with several hundred people, all of whom knew Hebrew and understood exactly what we were saying. With Yom Kippur just around the corner, our wishes to everyone for a year of all good things, but mostly peace. Gmar chatimah tovah, D, B and the kids November 1998 Hi again! Hope that everyone's Yom Kippur was meaningful and pleasant. Things here continue to be fascinating. Today is Thanksgiving. We decided not to celebrate it. It would only make our kids homesick. The father of a friend of our youngest son, Micha, stayed for dinner this evening. He talked a lot -- about being a refusnik for 12 years, about how the Soviets desecrated his mother's grave when he applied to leave, about what it's like to do 30 days of reserve service body-frisking Arabs for arms and explosives at traffic checkpoints, only to come back to work at a construction site (he's a road construction engineer) and have coffee and draw maps with the very same people (Arabs do most of the construction here) he'd body searched a few days earlier. Over some good wine, he talked about how crazy it all makes him, but how after 12 years of waiting in Kiev, there's still never a moment that he's not grateful to be here. Seems to me we ended up having a Thanksgiving dinner anyway. On to Hanukkah. Love from all of us. We'll write again soon. January 1999 Hi everyone! After a great deal of consideration, a good bit of anguish and a lot of excitement, we've decided to try to make a go of it here in Israel. In a lot of ways, as strange as moving to the Middle East sounds to most people, this feels very natural to us, and in some ways, the next logical step in our (almost) 40-something lives. When we went out for dinner for Beth's birthday in September, we were in a restaurant with a variety of couples: an Ethiopian couple, an Israeli couple, us and selected others from all over the place. Beth remarked that the whole country was a modern-day miracle and then asked, ''If you have a chance to live your life as part of a miracle, how do you walk away from that?'' My parents made aliyah in 1969, and though we only stayed for a couple of years, it was enough to get my whole family speaking Hebrew reasonably fluently and, perhaps more important, to make me feel that I belong here, fit in here better than I do in the States. Beth, too, has a long history with the land of Israel. She came for a year as a high-school junior and hoped to return to live in Israel after graduating from college, but life took its twists and turns. So, 24 years later, we're back and ready to pick up where she left off. We really think that this is a great place for our kids. We especially love the way Israel, and Israeli society, have allowed our older kids to blossom. They are independent here in ways that they could never be in the U.S. Tali and Avi both navigate their way to school on the public bus, and can go shopping, buy pizza or just visit a friend. We let both of them walk alone at night to their youth-group meetings; Tali had a sleepover with her youth group and came home at 5:30 a.m., let herself into the apartment and went to sleep! It never occurred to us to wait up for her or to ask her to wake us when she got in. It's just that there's really nothing to worry about. We couldn't buy that kind of security in L.A. Probably no Jewish parents relish the fact that their kids will have to go to the army; but the fact that the whole army scene may soon be diminishing in importance with peace so clearly on the horizon certainly makes this issue less central than it might have been a few years ago. July 2000 Hi everyone! As it's been more than a year since our most recent update, it seems that some sort of communique is in order. The kids and Beth (now going by her Hebrew name, Elisheva) have done really well this year. Here, the miraculous seems to happen completely without warning. Several months ago, our daughter, Tali, had Shabbat dinner at a friend's house. When she returned home she casually mentioned that she thought someone famous had been at the dinner, too. It turned out to be Natan Sharansky, who was there with his daughter, who is Tali's age. I remembered the days that we were out parading with signs ''Free Sharansky.'' If anyone had told me back then that approximately 20 years later his daughter and my daughter would both be Israeli citizens and would be nonchalantly having Shabbat dinner together and playing Monopoly, I would have said he was crazy. At the same time, there's an ongoing painful side to life here. On May 14, the internationally recognized date of Israel's independence, you may recall that huge riots broke out in the territories. Shots were fired, and there were casualties on both sides. I think that most people are afraid that Camp David 2000 is going to fail. If there's no agreement, Arafat will declare a state at some point, and Israel is not likely to stand by and watch (for reasons I don't personally understand). But more important, the Palestinian populace is (understandably) out of patience, and they're likely to return to the streets. But unlike the situation in the intifada in the 1980's, this time they're armed with a lot more than stones. October 2000 Hello to all. A quick note, before Yom Kippur begins in the ''city of peace,'' to wish everyone well. Things are tense, but physically, West Jerusalem is at peace [following rioting that took place after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount at the end of September]. We did assume that the Israel we'd come to would be more or less at peace, and we now realize that we may be in for some rough days, weeks or even a few months. But even with all the tension, we're not ambivalent about being here. We're here because we believe that Jews need a country of their own, and we know that it's a history of sticking it out here when the going got tough that has kept the state going. We're very safe, and frankly, I'd much rather be here during all this than watching it from afar. I always felt in the States during these episodes that I belonged here, and in a strange way, I feel blessed to be able to be here for this, whatever it may bring. Love from all the Gordis clan. December 2000 It's time to say a quick hello, and to send wishes for a joyous Hanukkah or merry Christmas. The most pressing part of life here over the last two months has been the matzav (the Hebrew word for ''situation,'' the euphemism that the entire country uses to refer to the catastrophe in which we find ourselves). A bit more than a month ago, when things were really out of control, I told Elisheva that if she wanted to take the kids back to the States for a while, I'd be supportive of that, and she looked at me like I was completely nuts. (Not an unusual way for her to look at me, of course.) She's the one who always wanted to be here, and in some ways is the most passionate about staying. (She's become a bit rabidly right wing politically for my taste [!], but is really enjoying herself.) About two weeks ago, we took our fellows from the Mandel School to Ein Harod in the Galilee to meet some Israeli Arabs to hear their perspective. We met with a principal of an Arab school, financed by the Israeli government and governed by the Ministry of Education, as are all Israeli schools whether they're for Jews or Arabs. (Some are mixed, but they're few and far between.) This principal, who proved to be a politically moderate Israeli Arab, told us that his high-school students, all Muslim, have to take at least two units of Hebrew but are not permitted to study the Koran as part of the regular school day. They are required to study Bialik, Tchernichovsky and the rest of the classic Zionist poets, but Darwish, the Palestinian national poet, is not allowed. He told us that when he took his students to a Jewish high school in Haifa for a day of interaction, the Jewish students wanted to talk about the Palestinian charter, which they'd studied in social studies (called citizenship here). His students, the Arabs, were dumbfounded, because their school was not allowed to teach the charter, and they didn't know anything about it. As we sat and listened to this guy, who clearly said that he wants peace, coexistence, etc., the right-wingers among the fellows were noticeably silent. The ridiculously small-minded way which we both carry out the occupation and treat Israeli Arabs (Israeli citizens, like this principal) is simply undeniable. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the Orthodox Israeli philosopher who argued in July 1967 that we should retreat right away and give back everything we'd captured the previous month because an extended occupation would rot the soul of the country, was clearly right. But the leftists were in for more of a shock. We went to the Galilee to meet with representatives of three of the largest, most mainstream Arab Israeli political parties. Despite minor differences among them, they all shared the following: (a) they do not acknowledge any difference between themselves and the Palestinians and now want to be called Israeli Palestinians, not Israeli Arabs; (b) they insist that their ''brothers'' be given a state with East Jerusalem as its capital; (c) they insist on the right of return for the refugees (a huge political issue here that gets little play in the West, probably because everyone knows that it will never happen); (d) they insist that if the state genuinely wants to respect them as citizens, then the national anthem and its references to 2,000 years of Jewish yearning for Zion has to go. So far, no real surprises. At a certain point in the conversation, one of the fellows raised his hand and basically said: ''What you're demanding actually makes perfect sense from your point of view. But from our perspective, from the perspective of people whose parents or grandparents came here from across the world to build the one place on earth where Jews would be able to live in a Jewish state with Jewish values at its core -- what can you say to reassure us that the Jewishness of the state won't disappear if you're given what you want?'' The most articulate of the three speakers, the leader of a major Arab party represented in the Knesset, responded more or less as follows: ''Your question shows that you don't really understand the Middle East. The Middle East is a Muslim part of the world, and this country will ultimately be Muslim, too. It may happen next year, or in 50 years, or in a hundred years. But it's going to happen. The sooner you accept the inevitable, the sooner the region will know peace, and then we can all get on with life.'' Here were several dozen rabidly left-wing Israeli intellectuals, confronted for the first time with the realization that even these Israeli citizens want something radically different from what these left-wing Jews are willing to contemplate. In addition, their whole intellectual arsenal has been crafted to battle against the stranglehold that they believe Orthodoxy has on private life, so much so that they paid no attention to what they wanted to preserve in the Jewish state. February 2001 It's Monday morning, the day before elections, and a kind of eerie calm prevails. Last month, seeking to gain some relief from the crisis, and wanting to see something that reflected a well-entrenched democratic tradition, we decided to watch the Bush inauguration. The kids actually liked the pomp and circumstance. But Elisheva and I found the opening prayer and the benediction incredibly Christian. Many of our friends here and back in the U.S. wrote that they were appalled by the blatantly Christian character of the ceremony. I wasn't appalled at all. The U.S., as great a place as it is to live (and by virtually all measurable standards, it's a much better place to live than Israel), is simply a Christian country. Why shouldn't they be allowed to mention Jesus? I now realize, more and more, that the inauguration encapsulated why we're here in the first place. America never felt like home, and Israel always has. Aliyah was not so much a decision as a willingness to give in to some gravitation-like force. Last week, I was walking home from work at the end of the day (at least one advantage of having left the sprawl of Los Angeles) and stopped at a light. Also waiting at the light, in the middle lane, was a car with four young, well-dressed Palestinian women. In keeping with unspoken Israeli etiquette, they didn't look at me, and I didn't pay them much attention, either. Meanwhile, another car pulled up next to them in the left lane. This car had four Jewish kids in it, all in their late teens or early 20's -- two men and two women -- wearing army uniforms. Something apparently rolled under one of the seats of their car, and laughing hysterically, they were trying to pull it out but couldn't. So, they all opened their doors, and stood outside the car, presumably to bend down and find whatever it was. As they got out, their M-16's slung over their shoulders, laughing good-naturedly, I noticed that the four Palestinian women looked terror-stricken to see four armed soldiers suddenly standing next to their car. I saw four kids, barely older than my daughter, having a grand old time about some joke, while these women saw the enemy, the occupying soldiers, unpredictable danger. Walking home, I realized the mess we're in, and how desperate we all are to disentangle, to separate from each other. That's what's tempting about voting for Barak in the election tomorrow. That's why even (many) people who will vote for Sharon will regret that they couldn't vote for Barak. People want peace, at best, and a bloodless separation if peace isn't possible. Unfortunately, tomorrow we have to decide whether to be the first Jews in history to willingly give up the Temple Mount (voting for Barak) or the first generation of Israelis to say no to peace (Sharon). Really, when you come down to it, when we walk into the polls tomorrow, the question is which dream are we willing to betray. March 2001 Hi everyone. I got an e-mail the other day from a human rights organization I used to be a bit involved with, asking for people to travel together to a small Palestinian village on the other side of the green line that's been completely cut off by the large trenches that the Israeli Defense Forces have dug. The people in the village can't get access to medical care, can't get to school, etc. The e-mail said that this is no way to treat a civilian population, and Jewish values demand that we do something. So bring your shovels and we'll fill in the trenches. A line at the end of the e-mail said that this ''should be'' pretty safe. But, it noted, there is some danger. The whole thing struck me as noble but absurd. We'd spend an entire day filling in a trench or two that the I.D.F. bulldozer would open up again in an hour. And we'd have to do it in fear of being shot at by the people we were trying to help. No, thanks. When we first got here, I did lots of stuff like going to Palestinian villages to meet with people whose homes had been bulldozed by the army, collecting money to get them materials to rebuild, etc. Now, two years later, I still care about the things that I cared about when I went to those villages in 1999. The closing off of villages causes untold pain and suffering for the Palestinians. But I also know that if those trenches are filled, someone will get out and try to hurt us. The army's clamping down -- quietly, but very firmly -- and we're all breathing easier. Well, on to Pesach. April 2001 Hi all. These days, the kids no longer ask about peace. I think they know the answer. They've gotten used to the sounds of tank shelling at night, of not being allowed to take buses, of seeing the face of the latest dead soldier on the front page. Nor do they ask if this will get worked out before they have to go to the army. They know the answer to that too. Tali's had a rather acidic digging-her-heels-in-the-sand response. A pretty open-minded kid for the most part, she consistently indicates her profound distaste for the programs her school does with a group of ninth-grade girls from a local Arab school. ''I don't have anything to talk to them about,'' she says, ''and they can't stand us. So why bother?'' Our liberal tendencies are to give her a gentle lecture about how you build relationships, how talking is critical, how this is the only way to move forward. But she's right. They really can't stand us, and -- though she won't say it -- the daily Israeli death toll makes her not able to stand them. May 2001 I was working in Tel Aviv this week. One evening, I had a beer with a friend at one of those trendy Tel Aviv pubs. He's in his mid-30's and had just gotten back from Milu'im (his annual stint of reserve duty). He said it was the hardest Milu'im he'd ever done. Usually, he said, they run around, shoot a bit and basically have a good time. This time they took part in vigorous war games. Tanks, A.P.C.'s, helicopters, planes, the works. The task was to ''retake the Golan'' after three days of Syrian control. This friend of mine, who made aliyah almost 20 years ago, came from England, did the army, college, graduate school, got married and has four kids, is extremely politically active -- the works. And, he's leaving. Not for good, he says, but for three to five years, because he just can't take the intensity anymore. For me, that revelation was much more distressing than any other part of our conversation, because he'd always struck me as one of the die-hards. He says he still is -- he just wants a break. I think he's much more representative of the larger picture than we commonly suspect. Yesterday, we took our fellows to Rabin Square, the spot where the prime minister was murdered. It's a pretty stark monument, and a depressing place. It literally always makes me cry. But as we talked about Rabin, it was clear that the sense of tragedy that used to accompany any mention of his name has dissipated. We used to think that with his death, the peace process also died. But now, most of us believe he was wrong. Noble, but wrong. Arafat probably wouldn't have behaved any differently at the end with Rabin than with Barak. He wouldn't have signed. And he would probably have resorted to violence, because that's what he does. And in the meantime, because of Oslo and the rest, the Palestinians are armed, organized, legitimate. And they're killing us. The Palestinians are ready for massive armed confrontation, and we're not. This is an ugly, dirty war, and we're being just ugly and dirty enough to bring down the world's wrath on us, but not nearly ugly and dirty enough to win it. To win it, we'd have to wipe them out, and though we could, we won't. This is going to go on for a long time, and like my friend in the pub, people are tired of it. Even the right-wingers and the left-wingers among the fellows and among our friends basically don't argue anymore. We all know the truth. There's no peace to be had. They want us out of here. So we can either pack our bags and go back to the States and Europe, or we can prepare to fight it out for the foreseeable future. Some of us will leave, some will stay. (That's not a hint, by the way. We're staying.) Some of us will die and some will live. Some of them will live, and some will die. And in the end, there will still be millions of Palestinians left who think that the building I live in belongs to them, and they'll never sign anything that doesn't give them the right to this street. And we'll never sign anything that does. On the bus back from Tel Aviv yesterday, it suddenly struck me that it's really possible that this country won't make it. No one here wants to fight forever, but no one thinks that the Palestinians will compromise on anything. They've been told by their own leaders over and over again that it's all theirs, and they're willing to fight for it. It was the first time that I could seriously envision the whole enterprise just falling apart, little by little: people leaving, no one coming (certainly not from places where Jews are welcomed), the world turning against us, the backbiting that arises out of the frustration and rage getting worse, the war of attrition going on endlessly; and in the end our signing a deal that we shouldn't. I wondered if I should share that thought with Elisheva, and decided against it. She's depressed enough as it is (unlike my euphoric tenor!). But last night, right after dinner, as she was reading the paper and I was unpacking from Tel Aviv, she looked up and said, ''Did it ever occur to you that this whole country could be one big failed experiment?'' So much for not burdening her with my worries. . . . Shabbat shalom and chag same'ach. Here, we'll do our best. July 2001 A couple of months ago the Mandel School invited a writer to talk about his book on Stalin's ''secret'' pogroms. He brought along three of the adult daughters of Jewish intellectuals Stalin had executed in the 1950's. As they told their stories, we could hear outside the windows of the seminar room the pounding of tank shells, firing at something we couldn't identify. Everyone was aware of it. But we were also aware of how much has changed. As these elderly women told of the disappearance and murder of their fathers, I couldn't help noting that this time around we don't have to be passive. We have the capacity to react, to protect ourselves, to make sure that history doesn't repeat itself. August 2001 The day before I was heading to the States for a long-overdue vacation, the bomb went off at the pizza parlor in the middle of Jerusalem. That night the city was in a kind of subdued shock. The war's come home. This isn't about the territories, we all know. It's about our right to be here -- in any part of this place. This isn't about settlers, or the expansion of settlements, but about the fundamental right of the Jews to have one little place on earth that they can call their own. That's why the intersection of King George and Jaffa streets was the perfect place for the attack. It's Times Square, or Michigan Avenue. The ultimate statement that there is no square inch of the country that's not a battleground. Interestingly, people weren't as hysterical as I would have expected. The restaurants were full, people laughing and enjoying each other's company as if nothing much had happened. What are we supposed to believe now? That hearing the sounds of ambulances racing across the city, sirens blaring, is normal? That it's just part of life when going to have a slice of pizza for lunch means that you might be blown to bits? And what, I ask myself, should we instruct Tali, our not-yet-15-year-old daughter, who's on a plane winging her way back to Israel? She's going to stay here by herself for a couple of weeks until we get back. Should we tell her she can't go downtown? No pizza on Emek Refa'im, the major street near our house? No buses? No going out of the house? Just order everything in and be a prisoner in your own home? I fly to New York, meet Elisheva and the kids and drive up the Taconic Parkway. No military checkpoints. No Arab villages on the side of the road where your antennae have to be more sensitive. Farms that look as if they've known only peace and predictability for hundreds of years. What happened to our country, that place full of hope, that place that always felt happy and so replete with promise? How did we get where we are? With nowhere to turn, nothing to do? Because that, of course, is where we are. None of the options are any good. Every Israeli has had this conversation hundreds of times. We could unleash a full-scale war, and probably win, but win what? Recapture the land we've given back since Oslo? And then what? Just to be back where we were before the peace process began? Or we can continue this way -- they kill us, and we kill them. A low level of loss, to be sure, but how long can the country take this? How long until sane Israelis who have the money say to themselves that this just isn't a normal place to live, a fair place to raise kids? Is it possible that we'll lose this war -- and this place -- not because we get attacked and overrun, but because too many of us are going to get too tired of being scared, exhausted, pursued? We know that peace isn't around the corner. We've learned how deep runs the hatred. And we're all stuck in this together, with no place to go. That, of course, is the real point. There's no other place to go. Israel, with all its agony, is home. It's the only spot on the planet that we have a shot at calling our own, so we can't walk away from it. And that, it strikes me, is why it will somehow work out in the end. Because it simply has to. Sept 11, 2001 It's been two hours since the World Trade Center disaster. We're glued to the TV. The big kids are silent, taking in the images. Micha eventually wanders in, and we explain what's happened. To our surprise, he watches for a few moments and then bursts into tears. He says he's crying because when he was in New York two weeks ago, he wanted to go to the top of the World Trade Center, but we said we didn't have time. Now, he says, he'll never get to go. But we know it's not really that. For him, New York City -- walking in Central Park, ice skating at Chelsea Piers -- was the place where he was safe from all this. Now he knows there's really no escape. He's only 8 years old, and he has nowhere to run to. ''Is Uncle Elie O.K.?'' Avi wonders. We've been trying all day to call the States, but there's no getting through. We assure him that Uncle Elie is fine. ''But how can you be sure he didn't go down there for a meeting?'' he asks. We can't, of course. Avi goes to sleep on the verge of tears, and it strikes me, now we're experiencing what our family experiences every time there's a suicide bombing in Israel. And in the States, they're now living with the feelings that we know so well: the panic, the confusion, the fear, the fury. New Yorkers, tragically, will learn what it's like to live on edge all the time. Nervousness each time the subway stops. Take the tunnel? Or is the bridge a better idea? Should we go out to dinner or stay at home? The questions that change an entire way of life, questions that Americans will now, like us, begin to ask each day. I'm ready for the holidays, for the beginning of a new year. Of course, last Rosh Hashanah was the beginning of all this horror. I look out the window at the beauty of this city even in the dark of night, a city that's survived attack and siege for thousands of years. Maybe, just maybe, next year will be better. ---- Daniel Gordis is the director of the Mandel Foundation's Jerusalem Fellows program at the Mandel School. He has written several books and is now at work on a book about Israel since the collapse of the peace process. From deafbox@hotmail.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:16:34 +0000 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:16:34 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Daniel Gordis writes: >At a certain point in the conversation, one of the fellows raised his hand >and basically said: "What you're demanding actually makes perfect sense >from your point of view. But from our perspective, from the perspective of >people whose parents or grandparents came here from across the world to >build the one place on earth where Jews would be able to live in a Jewish >state with Jewish values at its core -- what can you say to reassure us >that the Jewishness of the state won't disappear if you're given what you >want?" And this precisely illustrates the problem. It is at the root of the current war between the modern west, and fundamentalist groups who want state religion. The fellow who asked this question is far closer to Osama bin Laden, who fights for states with a particular Islamic character, than he is to citizens of western states who believes in secular democracy. Yes, given recent history, and current alliances, Israel is our friend. As is Saudi Arabia. Inevitably, though, these problems will persist as long as there are states with official religions. The US and the other western democracies need to start pushing the idea that a state-preferred religion is every bit as wrong as a state-preferred race, and has no place in the world of the 22nd century. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From mike@DataChannel.com Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:28:54 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:28:54 -0700 From: Mike Dierken mike@DataChannel.com Subject: KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14AD0.D601CDE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Now you can finally buy that sky-car... http://www.moller.com/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Sally Khudairi [mailto:Sally@KnowNow.com] > > > KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14AD0.D601CDE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing

Now you can finally buy that sky-car...
http://www.moller.com/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sally Khudairi [mailto:Sally@KnowNow.com]
>
>
> KnowNow Raises $15Million in B-Round Financing

------_=_NextPart_001_01C14AD0.D601CDE0-- From martyh@nmcourts.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:46:24 -0600 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:46:24 -0600 From: Marty Halvorson martyh@nmcourts.com Subject: The end of liberty At 10/1/01 12:23 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: >Marty Halvorson wrote: > > How does this work when potentially dangerous individuals can change their > > "apparent" identification very easily? >Fake IDs may get you into bars when you're 19 y/o but they're usually not >adequate to fool trained security or law enforcement officers. No need for >DNA, fingerprints, etc... just checking *everyone's* ID *well* at the >point of >departure would be a vast improvement. The folks who crashed the planes had a least one ID belonging to someone else. Worked just as well for them as it does to get into bars. All they needed was the ID belonging to someone with a reasonable resemblance. Didn't even need to fake an ID. As long as the ID presented fulfills the requirements, e.g., the photo on the ID looks like the person presenting it, I don't see how checking "everyone's ID real well" is going to help. Before 911 the agent at the gate or ticket counter compared my ID photo with me every time I flew. I don't see how your suggestion will work without biometric data on the ID, that's checkable against the person presenting that ID. Even then it's only a matter of time before someone figures out how to fake the "new" ID cards. For example, there was a case in New Mexico a couple of years ago where a smart kid was selling ID's to his friends. This was just after New Mexico had instituted holograms covering the photo, to make them "counterfeit proof". True enough, they couldn't stand up to "real" close scrutiny, but they worked quite well for quite a few kids. I claim that if a kid can make an acceptable counterfeit using his home PC, a professional can make one that would fool a security guard at the airport. Peace, Marty Halvorson New Mexico Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Court Judicial Information Division martyh@nmcourts.com (505) 476-6916 From tberkman@rcn.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:53:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:53:58 -0500 From: Tony Berkman tberkman@rcn.com Subject: How can this be justified? At 02:59 PM 10/1/01, you wrote: >First, one comment about your line below: "I don't know that about my own >country." I'm really puzzled. The US will stand behind any people in the >US. Period. I'm not sure it's so cut and dry Stephen. After all, the US didn't stand behind Japanese Americans in the not-so-distant past. What if some situation causes panic and unrest. How confident are you that the country won't again punish a single group. Suppose, for instance, terrorist attacks were to become pervasive (a biological attack here, a suicide bomb there, all over the country. How comfortable would Arab-Americans be that the country would "Stand behind them. Period" I'm not saying it wouldn't, but uncertain times can give rise to questionable tactics. What if AIDS had escalated much more rapidly than it did? How comfortable would Gay Americans be in the countries unconditional support, etc. etc. I feel badly that I apparently offended many people and brought out some real vitriol with my casual use of "anti-Semitism." It really wasn't directed towards anyone on the list. I had read what was, in my mind, an extremely anti-Semitic editorial in the Boulder Daily Camera the previous day (I can't find the bits on-line), and it was still troubling me when I came upon Jim's post which started the thread. In any case, what I was getting at about our country was only that throughout history the Jews have constantly been targeted and killed (as have many other groups...). And while America is certainly the best friend Israel currently has and offers the most freedoms to Jews and other religions, ethnicities, etc. to practice what religion we choose and enjoy the civil liberties we do, I think for many Jews there is a feeling that in some way, we must rely on each other first and foremost, in order to survive. Having said that, I am not one to give a blanket excuse to Israel to take all the actions it does and have been vocal and filled with sadness when I see things that strike me as just plain wrong being perpetrated by the Israelis. And I hated Netanyahu. There is a part of me that agrees with everything Russel wrote with regard to Secular states. But there is another part of me that feels like it is very important for Israel to remain a haven for the Jewish people, and I don't know if there is another way.... Regards, Tony From jbone@jump.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:23:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:23:38 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: The end of liberty Marty Halvorson wrote: > As long as the ID presented fulfills the requirements, e.g., the photo on > the ID looks like the person presenting it, I don't see how checking > "everyone's ID real well" is going to help. Several different issues: * Fake IDs vs. false but authentic IDs (i.e., homemade vs. "real" gov't issued but false identity) * Single authentic ID belonging to somebody else * Multiple authentic ID belonging to somebody else (BTW, people get into bars -w- other people's IDs because (a) bouncers aren't well-trained in ID recognition, and (b) they generally don't care that much anyway --- they just have to be able to say they did a first-order job on it and didn't, say, let an 19 yr-old white guy in with a 45 yr-old Puerto Rican woman's ID. :-) Anyone with a minimum of training can be taught to recognize a fake ID. False IDs are more difficult to recognize, but are more difficult to obtain as well. A first-pass screen for this is to require multiple picture IDs; vital information and so forth can then be checked. There's usually identifying information on the card that can be checked against appearance, too, besides the fact that there's a picture. The chances of anybody being able to get several pieces of authentic but false identification are pretty slim --- unless they're well-funded and well-connected. (Which AFAWK these guys were.) At the end of the day, I think we've got to recognize that --- as with computer security --- the only way to have real security is to have total isolation. We need to do a better job, sure; and requiring multiple forms of ID + training and motivation (that latter's already taken care of by virtue of 911) for security agents goes a long, long way. Biometrics would be better, sure, but the question is whether the incremental improvement over what's possible -w- normal ID technology and a little diligence is worth the cost. > Before 911 the agent at the > gate or ticket counter compared my ID photo with me every time I flew. I > don't see how your suggestion will work without biometric data on the ID, > that's checkable against the person presenting that ID. Even then it's > only a matter of time before someone figures out how to fake the "new" ID > cards. I guarantee they're checking them better today than they were on 9/10. ;-) Still, I think it's reasonable to require a law-enforcement style ID recognition class for all gate and security agents. Even so, this misses the point. > For example, there was a case in New Mexico a couple of years ago where a > smart kid was selling ID's to his friends. This was just after New Mexico > had instituted holograms covering the photo, to make them "counterfeit > proof". True enough, they couldn't stand up to "real" close scrutiny, but > they worked quite well for quite a few kids. I claim that if a kid can > make an acceptable counterfeit using his home PC, a professional can make > one that would fool a security guard at the airport. The issue is that what's "acceptable counterfeit" in one context isn't necessarily acceptable in another. It's a mistake to compare the two uses... jb From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 21:43:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 21:43:58 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: How can this be justified? Thanks for the clarification. See below. Tony Berkman wrote: > At 02:59 PM 10/1/01, you wrote: > >> First, one comment about your line below: "I don't know that about my >> own country." I'm really puzzled. The US will stand behind any >> people in the US. Period. > > > > I'm not sure it's so cut and dry Stephen. After all, the US didn't > stand behind Japanese Americans in the not-so-distant past. What if > some situation causes panic and unrest. How confident are you that the > country won't again punish a single group. Suppose, for instance, > terrorist attacks were to become pervasive (a biological attack here, a > suicide bomb there, all over the country. How comfortable would > Arab-Americans be that the country would "Stand behind them. Period" > I'm not saying it wouldn't, but uncertain times can give rise to > questionable tactics. What if AIDS had escalated much more rapidly than > it did? How comfortable would Gay Americans be in the countries > unconditional support, etc. etc. > > I feel badly that I apparently offended many people and brought out some > real vitriol with my casual use of "anti-Semitism." It really wasn't > directed towards anyone on the list. I had read what was, in my mind, > an extremely anti-Semitic editorial in the Boulder Daily Camera the > previous day (I can't find the bits on-line), and it was still troubling > me when I came upon Jim's post which started the thread. > > In any case, what I was getting at about our country was only that > throughout history the Jews have constantly been targeted and killed (as > have many other groups...). And while America is certainly the best > friend Israel currently has and offers the most freedoms to Jews and > other religions, ethnicities, etc. to practice what religion we choose > and enjoy the civil liberties we do, I think for many Jews there is a > feeling that in some way, we must rely on each other first and foremost, > in order to survive. > > Having said that, I am not one to give a blanket excuse to Israel to > take all the actions it does and have been vocal and filled with sadness > when I see things that strike me as just plain wrong being perpetrated > by the Israelis. And I hated Netanyahu. There is a part of me that > agrees with everything Russel wrote with regard to Secular states. But > there is another part of me that feels like it is very important for > Israel to remain a haven for the Jewish people, and I don't know if > there is another way.... I'll posit that the US is a better friend to Jewish people than Israel is, in the medium run at least. Mixing religion with government will bite you in the butt sooner or later, a clear fact that the religious right in the US is confused about. Or race and government (to cover both senses of the word 'Jewish'). To point out an obvious and neutral pair of cases: Imagine that Israel stops having trouble with it's neighbors, settles into a nice democracy, and lives happily ever after. Being a state that favors the Jewish religion and/or Jewish racial segment of the population, problems eventually develop: (Disclaimer: I have virtually no idea what requirements, favoritism, negative factors, laws, cultural taboos, etc. are imposed on non-Jewish in Israel, but it's been mentioned and I'm well aware of the spectrum that occurs everywhere to some extent.) A) Jewish citizens start tending to become more secular and the percentage of believers gradually and persistantly drops. While still of Jewish descent, they are now considered less Jewish because of their beliefs and are persecuted more and more. (Doesn't this already happen between the ultra-orthodox Jews and everyone else, including virtually all US Jewish aligned people?) I'll point out that the Church of England is still the state religion of Great Britain, but the percentage of believers is something like single digits. (Clarification from a Brit please...) What if those ultra-orthodox Jews were to rule that you aren't a proper Jew because of your modern ways? What are you going to do besides move back to the US? B) Jewish citizens start to inter-marry with non-Jewish races more and more, thereby blurring the racial integrity and producing problems for progeny of 'full-Jews' who are now very upset by the system that may have protected them originally. This doesn't even begin to talk about immigration, foreign visitors (me coming from the US for instance, with no superstitious content or deference), etc. Of course, we expect that Israel won't be executing those that might try to spread Christianity or other primitive reactions that some Islamic countries have, but some degree of this happens when religion (or race) is allowed to govern who is to be disciplined. I would like to have all of those trying to get various types of religion into the US government practices to seriously think about what success could mean: Christianity, worldwide, is a minority. Does that mean that in certain neighborhoods with ethnic concentration their children could be taught Buddism, Islamic, Judism, or something in their public schools? (Oh, but everyone believes in God. Everyone Prays (our way). Everyone follows the 10 commandments. A little advertisement from OUR priest at the football game can't hurt anyone, right? How about us non-theists??) > Regards, > > Tony sdw -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From mike@techdirt.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:43:23 -0700 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:43:23 -0700 From: Mike Masnick mike@techdirt.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel I apologize if any of this has been covered in the past week in Russell's posts. As I said, I'm a bit behind on FoRK. At 11:16 PM 10/1/01 +0000, Russell Turpin wrote: >Daniel Gordis writes: >>At a certain point in the conversation, one of the fellows raised his hand >>and basically said: "What you're demanding actually makes perfect sense >>from your point of view. But from our perspective, from the perspective of >>people whose parents or grandparents came here from across the world to >>build the one place on earth where Jews would be able to live in a Jewish >>state with Jewish values at its core -- what can you say to reassure us >>that the Jewishness of the state won't disappear if you're given what you >>want?" > >And this precisely illustrates the problem. It is at >the root of the current war between the modern west, >and fundamentalist groups who want state religion. >The fellow who asked this question is far closer to >Osama bin Laden, who fights for states with a >particular Islamic character, than he is to citizens >of western states who believes in secular democracy. I disagree. Israel is a homeland for Jews in the same way that Ireland is a homeland for the Irish. The traditions of the Jews have been codified as a religion, sure, but it is more of an ethnic group than a religion (as many Jews - especially many Israeli Jews will freely admit to). The fact that it really wasn't that long ago that so many Jews were killed throughout Europe just for being Jews makes me believe in the importance of a Jewish state. Isreal is still a democracy, it just has Jewish characteristics. Just like Ireland has Irish characteristics. Besides, it's amazing that you picked out that one paragraph that when put alone takes it all out of context and blames it on the Jews. You leave out the next paragraph where the other guy responds by saying that all of the Middle East must be a Muslim state and (basically) if the Jews want peace they should *leave*. There have been plenty of Jews in Israel who have tried over and over again to work for peace in the middle east. They have tried to build a democracy that treats everyone fairly. In response, they are told they must die or leave because it must be a muslim state and "all jews must die"? And you want to blame the Jews? Lovely. Yes, there are some right wing nuts in Israel, but to put this all on the Jews in Israel is so demeaning, and so ridiculous. Israel is a democracy, and I don't see why the basis of that democracy, secular or religious, matters. The US is a democracy that is based on it's own "religion" which could easily be defined as a mix of christianity and consumerism. It's the democracy that's important. I want a Jewish homeland because there was none 60 years ago when my relatives needed one badly. Instead they died in gas chambers. I want a Jewish homeland because should someone come to power wherever I am that decides (again) that all Jews must die, I want to be able to hop a flight to a homeland. What is so wrong with that in your book? Are there problems in Israel? Certainly. Will they be solved by a "secular democracy"? Hell no. Don't blame the Jews for not allowing that to happen. You are putting your own world view (that religion is "bad") into this argument without any rationale. Yes, certainly some things done in the name of religion are bad, but does that mean all things in the name of religion are? Besides, I might put some weight behind your argument if the fight in Israel was *about* creating a secular democracy - but it's not. It's about making it a Muslim country, or keeping it as a Jewish homeland. Making it a "secular democracy" (which, I imagine would be seen throughout the region as a "U.S. democracy", anyway) solves nothing. -Mike From jm@jmason.org Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:52:58 +1000 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:52:58 +1000 From: Justin Mason jm@jmason.org Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Mike Masnick said: > I disagree. Israel is a homeland for Jews in the same way that Ireland is > a homeland for the Irish. Ooh, bad example ;) Even disregarding the disastrous situation in Northern Ireland for the past 30 years, the south (ie. the Republic of Ireland) has spent most of the last 20 years, at least, consciously making itself a more secular state. Many bad things happened before then, when Ireland *was* a religious state, and most people there don't want that kind of society anymore as a result. --j. (Irish) From deafbox@hotmail.com Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:11:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:11:38 -0500 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: How can this be justified? Tony Berkman writes: > There is a part of me that agrees with everything > Russell wrote with regard to Secular states. But > there is another part of me that feels like it is very > important for Israel to remain a haven for the > Jewish people, and I don't know if there is > another way ... Let me be clear: I fully support havens for Jews who are oppressed because of their religion. And not just one haven; *all* the western democracies should share responsibility for this. And not just for Jews, but for any group that is terribly oppressed. Britain and the US carry a large black mark on their record, for failing to provide greater refuge to European Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. The world has changed since the 1930s. There are groups who face similar horrors today. But they are not Jews. (At least, to my knowledge; there may be some group of Jews who now face this.) There are tribes in Africa who are targeted in genocidal wars. There are peoples living in refugee camps, evicted from their home, yet allowed no other place to go. There are a variety of nations where women suffer clitoridectomy, revenge murder for "dishonoring" their family, and fiery sacrifice when they are widowed. And again, the western democracies are failing to provide refuge for these groups, largely because they fear even a small influx of poor immigrants who have a strange culture. Israel now shares in this failure. It freely admits Jews, mostly from America and European nations, where Jews have the same rights as all other citizens. So what? These people are not fleeing a holocaust. Most of them are not fleeing oppression of any kind. This may be politically expedient, but it is not provision of a refuge. If Israel wants to honor the memory of the holocaust, it would institute a special immigration program for people who now face similar oppression to what European Jews faced in the 1930s and 1940s. Despite the fact that they are not Jews. And in doing so, it would hold up a lamp to the other western democracies. "Look. Each year we admit such refugees, the victims of war and genocide, the world's refuse, to this percentage of our population. Now you do the same. You, America, whose Statue of Liberty directs this. You, England, who failed to do so for Jews, when it was needed. You, Germany and Japan, to twice that percentage, in expiation for past crime. Look, we admitted 5,000 Bosnian Muslims fleeing from ethnic cleansing in Europe. How many, America, have you admitted?" *That* would honor the holocaust. The moral of the holocaust is NOT that it should never again happen to Jews. The moral is that it should never again happen to ANY people. Yet it is happening. And the rich democracies again turn their head, because it is happening to people in the third world who are poor and uneducated, whom we are afraid to admit. > The US didn't stand behind Japanese Americans > in the not-so-distant past. What if some situation > causes panic and unrest. How confident are you > that the country won't again punish a single group? What causes this is precisely the notion that a nation is for some people, but not others. History presents us a choice. The old idea is that people are safe when they are in their own nation, but not elsewhere, and screw those who have no nation. White protestants are safe in America, the Japanese are safe in Japan, and the Jews are safe in Israel, but none are safe in other nations, and the Kurds and !Kung and Tlingit are safe no where in the world, because they don't have a nation. So each group wars until it has enough territory, or until they no longer exist, and each nation feels free to enact law or policy that favors "its" people. Or we can create a world where each government respects all ethnic and religious groups, even if its history gives it a homogenous population. And yes, I realize that we have a long way to go, and that even the western democracies who have gone the furthest down this path still have further to go. But the choice is clear, and the only way down this second path is to reject the first. It seems to me this is the lesson of the holocaust. And also of related events, such as British and US refusal to admit Jewish refugees, and the US imprisonment of its Japanese. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong. But that's how I read this history. Russell From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:24:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:24:45 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Justin Mason wrote: > Mike Masnick said: > > >>I disagree. Israel is a homeland for Jews in the same way that Ireland is >>a homeland for the Irish. >> > > Ooh, bad example ;) > > Even disregarding the disastrous situation in Northern Ireland for the > past 30 years, the south (ie. the Republic of Ireland) has spent most of > the last 20 years, at least, consciously making itself a more secular > state. And a description I read once explained the problems in Northern Ireland by pointing out that the Catholic and Protestant people each had their own vertically integrated governments, schools, shops, etc. Essentially, seperate but equal segregation in intertwined neighborhoods. Both the religious spins of their sub-governments (which sounded like neighborhood based village-like councils or something) and the segregation caused friction to spiral out of control. A secular government, economy, and other general interaction causes everyone to spend more time with opposing viewpoints thereby preventing 'thermal runaway' of various kinds. It also both tends to soften cultures or subcultures and sometimes to create and strengthen them as new ideas are tried with like-minded individuals. The great paradox, writ large via the Internet, is that by mixing peoples of various ethnic and racial backgrounds you increase the cross section that persue various interests that might not have critical mass in their own small enclave. (Arts, music, science, business, etc.) > > Many bad things happened before then, when Ireland *was* a religious > state, and most people there don't want that kind of society anymore > as a result. I'm glad to know this. Thanks. > > --j. (Irish) > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > sdw -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From deafbox@hotmail.com Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:36:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 22:36:55 -0500 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy (was: NYTimes email) Mike Masnick writes: > Besides, it's amazing that you picked out that one > paragraph that when put alone takes it all out of > context and blames it on the Jews. You leave out > the next paragraph where the other guy responds > by saying that all of the Middle East must be a > Muslim state .. I am *much* more sympathetic to Israel than I am to *any* of the officially Islamic states, none of which even resembles a democracy. You're right, though. I should have included the next paragraph. It makes for interesting repetition. > The US is a democracy that is based on it's own > "religion" which could easily be defined as a mix > of christianity and consumerism. .. US government is NOT based on Christianity, and that has been very important in US history. This came up some time ago. I will pose the same challenge now that I posed then: Can you provide specific examples of how US government or law is based on Christianity? (There are a few, but most people can't spot them.) 'Tis true, of course, that most Americans are Christian. And that has a tremendous impact culturally. But it is not the basis for US government. > It's the democracy that's important. .. There's more to democracy than having elections. In my view, ethnic and religious neutrality are critical components of democratic government. America became significantly more democratic with the 14th Amendment. Russell From sdw@lig.net Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:44:50 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:44:50 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: How can this be justified? I agree with this with the observation that no country can absorb unlimited numbers of immigrants at an unlimited rate without possibly severe consequences to 'natives'. The US economy should not be ruined by importing half of the residents from some country we had nothing to do with. Obviously we should take what we can with no major detriment to ourselves, and in many cases it's a positive. Better would be to prevent refugees in the first place. Based on statistics that seem to show how much pigs we are, I'd say that the US citizenry is totally outnumbered by gigantic populations in various parts of the world. Why population explosions aren't rationally curtailed is another topic. Various genocidal and regressive regimes should be stopped, although if the US moves to do that too much we're blamed for creating the refugees... The UN should revoke a countries right to self-govern if it can't get it's act together! (Royal) We should just go in and teach them how it's done. (Ok, mostly joking there.) As I've said before, give a 1000 Americans, taken from a good cross-section of society, a plot of land anywhere in the world and you'd see fractal democracy take hold right away. Peaceful society would be built, commerce created, and with a generally rational government and defense. Some of these third world groups seem 1000+ years behind us. How do we bring them up to date without alarming the culture police or freaking out the citizens? How do you convince a head hunter in the Congo to take a factory job? sdw Russell Turpin wrote: > Tony Berkman writes: > >>There is a part of me that agrees with everything >>Russell wrote with regard to Secular states. But >>there is another part of me that feels like it is very >>important for Israel to remain a haven for the >>Jewish people, and I don't know if there is >>another way ... >> > > Let me be clear: I fully support havens for Jews > who are oppressed because of their religion. And > not just one haven; *all* the western democracies > should share responsibility for this. And not just > for Jews, but for any group that is terribly > oppressed. Britain and the US carry a large black > mark on their record, for failing to provide > greater refuge to European Jews in the 1930s > and 1940s. > > The world has changed since the 1930s. There > are groups who face similar horrors today. But > they are not Jews. (At least, to my knowledge; > there may be some group of Jews who now face > this.) There are tribes in Africa who are targeted in > genocidal wars. There are peoples living in refugee > camps, evicted from their home, yet allowed no > other place to go. There are a variety of nations > where women suffer clitoridectomy, revenge > murder for "dishonoring" their family, and fiery > sacrifice when they are widowed. And again, the > western democracies are failing to provide refuge > for these groups, largely because they fear even > a small influx of poor immigrants who have a > strange culture. > > Israel now shares in this failure. It freely admits > Jews, mostly from America and European nations, > where Jews have the same rights as all other > citizens. So what? These people are not fleeing a > holocaust. Most of them are not fleeing oppression > of any kind. This may be politically expedient, but > it is not provision of a refuge. > > If Israel wants to honor the memory of the > holocaust, it would institute a special immigration > program for people who now face similar > oppression to what European Jews faced in the > 1930s and 1940s. Despite the fact that they are > not Jews. And in doing so, it would hold up a > lamp to the other western democracies. "Look. > Each year we admit such refugees, the victims > of war and genocide, the world's refuse, to this > percentage of our population. Now you do the > same. You, America, whose Statue of Liberty > directs this. You, England, who failed to do so > for Jews, when it was needed. You, Germany > and Japan, to twice that percentage, in expiation > for past crime. Look, we admitted 5,000 > Bosnian Muslims fleeing from ethnic cleansing > in Europe. How many, America, have you > admitted?" > > *That* would honor the holocaust. > > The moral of the holocaust is NOT that it should > never again happen to Jews. The moral is that it > should never again happen to ANY people. Yet > it is happening. And the rich democracies again > turn their head, because it is happening to people > in the third world who are poor and uneducated, > whom we are afraid to admit. > > >>The US didn't stand behind Japanese Americans >>in the not-so-distant past. What if some situation >>causes panic and unrest. How confident are you >>that the country won't again punish a single group? >> > > What causes this is precisely the notion that a > nation is for some people, but not others. History > presents us a choice. The old idea is that people > are safe when they are in their own nation, but not > elsewhere, and screw those who have no nation. > White protestants are safe in America, the Japanese > are safe in Japan, and the Jews are safe in Israel, > but none are safe in other nations, and the Kurds > and !Kung and Tlingit are safe no where in the > world, because they don't have a nation. So each > group wars until it has enough territory, or until they > no longer exist, and each nation feels free to > enact law or policy that favors "its" people. > > Or we can create a world where each government > respects all ethnic and religious groups, even if > its history gives it a homogenous population. And > yes, I realize that we have a long way to go, and > that even the western democracies who have gone > the furthest down this path still have further to go. > > But the choice is clear, and the only way down this > second path is to reject the first. It seems to me > this is the lesson of the holocaust. And also of > related events, such as British and US refusal to > admit Jewish refugees, and the US imprisonment > of its Japanese. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong. But > that's how I read this history. > > Russell > > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:56:06 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 20:56:06 -0700 From: Max Dunn maxdunn@siliconpublishing.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel > The US is a democracy that is based on it's > own "religion" which could easily be defined > as a mix of christianity and consumerism. > It's the democracy that's important. Yes, there is little difference between the TV set Today and the church of 100 years ago. And for the few that the TV doesn't completely engulf, the cult of science is the other side of US "religion". Though the state isn't founded on religion, the people here have religious tendencies just like every culture. "When you believe in things that you don't understand" is the problem whether what is believed comes from the TV set, oblivious national tradition (such as the cold war fanatacism that has led us to this point), or a religious leader. The US has had and still has its share of fanatics too, despite our marvelous separation of church and state: all countries need to reign in their fanatics, whether the fanatics consider their profound convictions "religious" or not. Max From johan.hjelm@era-t.ericsson.se Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:57:49 +0900 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:57:49 +0900 From: Johan Hjelm johan.hjelm@era-t.ericsson.se Subject: Idea: A conduit for corporate funding of free software This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------5D9BA1A54B63663647293A33 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think you want something more than collab.net... they are focussed on the infrastructure. The problem is that you have to *guarantee* that the requirements get implemented, and that it happens on time. Then, there are a few other things. One reason companies like Ericsson pay Microsoft a hoard of money is that somebody is responsible for fixing bugs - which your idea would address. Another reason, though, is that they provide education and various other services around the products (or make sure it is provided). Education is really important; it is not enough to make the product easy to use, there also has to be education providers, people willing to publish "Excel for dummies", and so on. You have to add some value that Microsoft does not provide, and while they are not nice people, they actually do a good job of providing customer (which may not be the same as user) value. "Cheaper" is one good value that you can always look for, though. A lot of people will go mad when they discover WordPad is gone from the newer releases of Windows (so much for including word processing as a part of the operating system functions). But what a company like Ericsson would look for would not simply be cheaper, it would be "good enough for secretaries as well as engineers". Of course, with proper project management and enough programmers to help out, the bug fixing is a trivial problem. I am more worried about the rest of it. Johan Andy Armstrong wrote: > Here's an idea; it might not be new, but it's new to me. > > It seems to me that one of the reasons why commercial software still > dominates the desktop is that free software developers would rather > concentrate on gnarly nuts and bolts stuff like web servers, programming > languages and operating systems -- these are certainly the areas where > the most mature and highly evolved free software is found. > > There will, I suspect, always be a tendency for elite free software > moths to be drawn to these bright flames given an otherwise level > playing field. But what if corporations were able to tilt the playing > field in the direction of the kind of applications they'd rather see > developed? > > There's an unprecedented groundswell of anti-Microsoft feeling within > companies outside the technology sector as they wake up to the > realisation that Redmond has them by the short and curlies and doesn't > intend to let go any time soon. > > How would it be if there was an organisation to serve as project > management intermediaries between these companies and the massed ranks > of free software developers. It would solicit user requirements from > corporate clients and recruit, instruct and pay suitable developers to > meet those requirements. > > At the moment if XYZ Corp wants a particular feature added to FreeWrite > they have no idea how to go about making it happen. Their in-house > techies probably don't program, and they have no corporate culture of > commissioning and managing bespoke development. In fact they probably > won't even articulate the desire for the feature to themselves because > their relationship to the software they use is that they take what > they're damn well given by Microsoft -- they're not used to having the > back channel. > > Enter the organisation I'm describing. It's a schizophrenic beast; it's > corporate facing flank is all suited and booted -- ready, willing and > able to speak the corporate argot -- while the bit that hangs with the > free software crowd sports vendorware, beards and sandals. In > electronics terms it's an organisation that exists to correct the > impedance mismatch that exists between corporate customers and the > hacker elite. > > Its first job is to educate XYZ Corp and its ilk that, because this is > free software, they can have any changes they're able to specify and pay > someone to develop. Having got that message across it joins the dots to > find out what the corporate client needs, recruite appropriate > developers and get the job done and paid for. XYZ Corp needs to > understand that the work they pay for will be GPL'd, which means that > their competitors will get the same benefit, but so what? That's no > worse than when new features appear in proprietary software and at least > this way they get to have a say in the direction the development takes. > > It seems to me to be a plan with no obvious flaws -- so much so in fact > that I'm sure it must exist. > > What does the panel think? > > -- > Andy Armstrong, Tagish > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Johan Hjelm, Senior Specialist Ericsson Research Japan Read more about my recent book http://www.wireless-information.net ************************************ --------------5D9BA1A54B63663647293A33 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="johan.hjelm.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Johan Hjelm Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="johan.hjelm.vcf" begin:vcard n:Hjelm;Johan tel;cell:+81-90-3042-5516 tel;work:+81-468-47 53 83 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:johan.hjelm@nrj.ericsson.se fn:Johan Hjelm end:vcard --------------5D9BA1A54B63663647293A33-- From kelley@interpactinc.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:30:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 00:30:45 -0400 From: Kelley kelley@interpactinc.com Subject: IM War http://www.filepile.org:8080/f/pictures/instantmessaging.jpg From deafbox@hotmail.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 06:29:57 +0000 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 06:29:57 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Mike Masnick writes: >You are putting your own world view (that religion is "bad") into this >argument without any rationale. .. I'm not arguing that religion is bad. I'm arguing that STATE religion is bad. There is a very strong rationale for that. It is almost the same rationale that a STATE race is bad. >Besides, I might put some weight behind your argument if the fight in >Israel was *about* creating a secular democracy - but it's not. It's about >making it a Muslim country, or keeping it as a Jewish homeland. .. You greatly underestimate what I advocate. My view is that the UN should take a stance against Islamic governments, the same way now it takes a stance against white governments. I'm not pushing just for Israel to become a secular government. I'm pushing for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Syria, and Iraq to become secular governments. As long as the battle is whether this piece of land should be Muslim or Jewish, we will suffer this kind of terrorism. The answer is: it should be neither. Land shouldn't be Muslim or Jewish. Governments shouldn't be Muslim or Jewish. People should be whichever they choose to be. And yes, I realize this is a long road. Arguing now for the elimination of state religion is like arguing, in 1950, for the elimination of communism. Or arguing in the 18th century for the elimination of slavery. But slavery is now outlawed everywhere, and practiced only in a few remote areas. The wall fell. When Castro dies and North Korea changes its ways, we will be rid of communism. State religion is to the 21st century what communism was to the 20th century. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From paul@ActiveState.com Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:47:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 23:47:29 -0700 From: Paul Prescod paul@ActiveState.com Subject: How can this be justified? Russell Turpin wrote: > >... > If Israel wants to honor the memory of the > holocaust, it would institute a special immigration > program for people who now face similar > oppression to what European Jews faced in the > 1930s and 1940s. Despite the fact that they are > not Jews. And in doing so, it would hold up a > lamp to the other western democracies. I think you're missing the point. Israel is a homeland for the Jews like Ireland is a homeland for the Irish. It isn't about religion, but about ethnicity. Now I'll agree that focusing so much on ethnicity is backwards but it is also human nature and it isn't going to go away. No matter how liberal Israel's laws were, the ethnic tensions would remain. But more to the point, Israel's laws towards Arabs are really not of much concern to either side. If Arabs were full citizens (as they should be) it wouldn't really solve the regions problems. Palestinians don't want to be a minority in an otherwise-Jewish state. They want their own country back (all of it!). And Jews don't want to share a state with Arabs, even if the Arabs were a minority today they would be a majority soon enough due to birth rates, family unification and general immigration. Now if you were an Israeli, would you feel comfortable thinking your kids or grandkids might live in a mostly-Arab state when you are surrounded by mostly-Arab states with abysmal human rights records and a hatred of Jews? There is no win-win situation available. The laws of Israel might be as terrible as apartheid but they are (in my mind) not directly relevant to the real question of "how do we get out of this mess?" Even human rights-minded Palestinians would probably rather we discussed the implications of shooting stone-throwing children rather than the rights of Arabs under the laws of Israel. Paul Prescod From andy@tagish.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 08:55:09 +0100 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 08:55:09 +0100 From: Andy Armstrong andy@tagish.com Subject: Idea: A conduit for corporate funding of free software Johan Hjelm wrote: [snip] > Of course, with proper project management and enough programmers to help > out, the bug fixing is a trivial problem. I am more worried about the rest > of it. I guess I don't really know the totatility of what a large company gets from its relationship with Microsoft. I may well be underestimating how reassuring it is to be told what technology you need and what its future direction should be by the vendor. While the original idea was predicated on the assumption that companies would want to have some input into the design of the software they use I can see how that might not be the case. I work quite often with large public sector entities and all they don't seem to rely on Microsoft for anything other than the software. -- Andy Armstrong, Tagish From andy@tagish.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:33:03 +0100 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:33:03 +0100 From: Andy Armstrong andy@tagish.com Subject: A conduit for corporate funding of free software Gordon Mohr wrote: > > Yes, I think it's a very good idea, but probably has to start > small, stay small until there are some modest success stories, etc... > > Both those efforts tried too hard too soon. As was the mode of the time ;-) I'm not sure I have time to do anything with it, but I'm pretty sure it could work. I certainly wouldn't make any friends at Microsoft... -- Andy Armstrong, Tagish From Robert.Harley@inria.fr Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:53:43 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:53:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: Robert Harley Robert.Harley@inria.fr Subject: Crypto-gram This month's Crypto-gram is a good read: http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0109a.html: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crypto-gram Newsletter September 30, 2001 by Bruce Schneier [...] In this issue: The Attacks Airline Security Regulations Biometrics in Airports Diagnosing Intelligence Failures Regulating Cryptography Terrorists and Steganography News Protecting Privacy and Liberty How to Help [...] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some of the linked articles are good too... Face recognition useless in airports Study claims no steganography on eBay [...] L8r, R .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ / \ \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From deafbox@hotmail.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:50:56 +0000 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:50:56 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: "Minority in otherwise-Jewish state" (was: NYTimes: email) Paul Prescod writes: >Palestinians don't want to be a minority in an otherwise-Jewish state. I wouldn't want to live in a Jewish state, either. But I wouldn't mind being a minority in a secular state. (Indeed, if demographic trends continue, I soon will be. Anglos are due to become a minority in Texas, in the next few years. And that's fine with me, because even when Texas is majority hispanic, it will *not* be a Hispanic state the way Israel is a Jewish state. This will be merely a demographic fact, not a description of state policy.) >Now if you were an Israeli, would you feel comfortable thinking your kids >or grandkids might live in a mostly- >Arab state when you are surrounded by mostly-Arab states with abysmal human >rights records and a hatred of Jews? The question is: Are they willing for their kids and grandkids to live in a secular state, that has a good human rights record, where the Arab citizens, who might be a majority or a large minority, also want to maintain the government as a secular democracy? Given the NYTimes email that started this thread, I suspect the answer to *this* question is "no," for a majority of Israelis as well as a majority of Arabs in Israel. And that is the problem, because as long as the two groups are intransigent that the answer is either "Jewish state" or "Muslim state," the problem will remain. The western democracies should shift their international policy to make it clear that those two answers, that that *kind* of answer, is wrong. Jewish states and Muslim states have no more place in the 22nd century than white states or black states. I find it interesting that most people who live in western democracies understand that the very notion of a Muslim state is wrong, and that such states, in the future, should become secular. Without hesitation, and also without bias against Islam, I can say that Turkey has moved in a direction that eventually Iran and Iraq should move, and that the Muslim rebels in Indonesia and the Philipines are dangerous movements that we should oppose. The one group in the west who can't say these things are those who support Israel AS a Jewish state. And they are largely blind to the fact that that support undermines their ability to oppose in principle one of the most dangerous movements in the world today. They can say only "we oppose terrorism," however that is defined. They are unable to say "we oppose the reactionary branches of Islam that fight for Islamic states." And if they do say that, it has little weight, because they can say it only from the viewpoint of religion A versus religion B. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:53:46 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:53:46 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Paul Prescod wrote: > Now if you were a [Jewish] Israeli, would you feel comfortable thinking > your > kids or grandkids might live in a mostly-Arab state...? To illustrate just how pea-brained this is, let's substitute a few words as such: Israeli <-- American, Arab <-- "Black", Jewishs <-- "White." "Now if you were an White American, would you feel comfortable thinking your kids or grandkids might live in a mostly-Black state...?" Welcome to Idaho. (Thanks, but no thanks.) Now, we get all up in arms whenever anyone else in the world pulls this kind of crap, why do we let the Israelis get away with it, indeed, support them in doing so? Residual guilt over not getting into WWII quick enough, or not opening up the gates fast enough? Do the sins of the fathers really need to be visited on the sons, and for how many generations? For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? Why does anyone need a "homeland" in this day and age? Do the Irish practice apartheid? Is the Navajo nation a fortified, segregated piece of land within our territorial borders? jb From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:31:43 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 11:31:43 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_163.1c333fb.28eb37df_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 2:30:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, deafbox@hotmail.com writes: > The answer is: it should > be neither. Land shouldn't be Muslim or Jewish. > Governments shouldn't be Muslim or Jewish. People > should be whichever they choose to be. > > more shoulds per square inch between you and jeff, and no demonstrable understanding of what being a jew means to a jew. judaism is not something they tack on after your nationality, as a subset. it is genetic, passed down thru the mother. it is a belief in being the, not a, chosen people (why else would physiological heritage matter?). i know exactly where you've drawn your line: fine and well, you say, but why do we have to (literally) buy into their beliefs? because they won't change them, we do what is pragmatic: nation build. (just slipped on wet tile and hyperflexed my knee - i'm sure i've either torn or stretched the medial meniscus or bruised a bone. owie and fuck.) --part1_163.1c333fb.28eb37df_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 2:30:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, deafbox@hotmail.com writes:


The answer is: it should
be neither. Land shouldn't be Muslim or Jewish.
Governments shouldn't be Muslim or Jewish. People
should be whichever they choose to be.



more shoulds per square inch between you and jeff, and no demonstrable understanding of what being a jew means to a jew.  judaism is not something they tack on after your nationality, as a subset.  it is genetic, passed down thru the mother. it is a belief in being the, not a, chosen people (why else would physiological heritage matter?).  

i know exactly where you've drawn your line: fine and well, you say, but why do we have to (literally) buy into their beliefs?  because they won't change them, we do what is pragmatic: nation build.

(just slipped on wet tile and hyperflexed my knee - i'm sure i've either torn or stretched the medial meniscus or bruised a bone.  owie and fuck.) --part1_163.1c333fb.28eb37df_boundary-- From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:32:00 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 10:32:00 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > more shoulds per square inch between you and jeff, and no > demonstrable understanding of what being a jew means to a jew. Perhaps the problem isn't no demonstrable understanding, rather complete understanding and complete rejection of its validity? You don't get it, do you Geege: That Doesn't Matter. Being Jewish, Irish, Navajo, Purple, or a Garlic Lover SHOULDN'T (ahem) accord you any special status in civilization. And that's not a statement of ideals, it's an observation: look at what happens when we differentiate. > judaism is not something they tack on after your nationality, as a > subset. it is genetic, passed down thru the mother. it is a belief > in being the, not a, chosen people (why else would physiological > heritage matter?). Wow, now that makes a lot of sense. "It is genetic... it is a belief..." And you know, the whole language here rubs me the wrong way: "the, not a, chosen people" doesn't sound so far away from the ubermensch, does it? I sense subtle but deep hypocrisy lurking here... > i know exactly where you've drawn your line: fine and well, you say, > but why do we have to (literally) buy into their beliefs? because > they won't change them, we do what is pragmatic: nation build. Go look up pragmatism, Geege. You're using it incorrectly. jb From deafbox@hotmail.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:53:44 +0000 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:53:44 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Geegee writes: >Judaism is not something they tack on after your nationality, as a subset. >It is genetic, passed down thru the mother. it is a belief in being the, >not a, chosen people (why else >would physiological heritage matter?). The problem is that there are also Moslem groups -- not all, but some -- who believe that the only legitimate governments are those that practice Shari'ah, as interpreted by Muslim judges. And they take this belief just as seriously as do the Jews who believe that the Jewish God ordains Israel as The Justified religious state. I understand how both groups can hold such beliefs. The problem is that this kinds of belief, and the movements they foster, may be the greatest danger facing western civilization in this century. So far, those who believe in a Jewish state -- not just in Israel's right to exist as a government, but as a religious state -- have been able to position this idea as favorable to the west, and distinguish this idea from the reactionary Muslims who believe in Islamic states. That positioning will not last. In the long run, you get a choice. Either you side with democracy, modernity, and civilization, and you liberalize your theology so that it does not require a religious state. Or you set yourself against democratic government, and commit yourself to never ending wars between religious states. And Muslims will have to make the same choice. You desparately want to walk a narrow path between these alternatives, because you have not yet liberalized your theology. You're in the same situation as a Catholic or Protestant in Europe a few centuries ago, where religious wars burned for centuries, killed a large fraction of the population, and no peace lasted, because it is the nature of a religious state not to trust any state whose religion is different. Just as the 17th century Spaniard could not imagine a Spanish government that wasn't Catholic, most Israelis can't imagine an Israeli government that isn't Jewish, and most Pakistanis can't imagine a Pakistani government that isn't Muslim. Until all such reactionaries expand their imagination and liberalize their theology, these wars will burn. I hope the rest of us can help you down that path before these wars are fought with nuclear and biological weapons. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:00:39 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:00:39 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Bottom line: several root-cause problems in a lot of this stuff. (A) Incomplete (or nonexistant) separation of religion / ethnicity / state. (B) "Tribalism" leading to incomplete integration in geographic community, leading to resentment by neighbors not in whatever is the designated "in crowd" tribe in question. (C) Too much focus on the past, and unwillingness to let bygones be bygones. (D) A fundamental belief in the validity of discrimination along any of several dimensions. (E) Infectious memes that organize individuals into superorganisms endowed with a belief in their own moral superiority, i.e., "we are the chosen people of God / we are genetically superior and intellectually more gifted / etc." All of these things are problems, and humans can choose to let go of such primitive, outdated beliefs or cling to them and suffer the consequences. jb From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:23:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:23:16 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Osama's Top Brass >From Time.com: Osama's Top Brass How bin Laden's hidden inner circle does his dirty work BY DANIEL EISENBERG Osama bin Laden may be public Enemy No. 1 in America's war on terrorism, but his is far from a one-man operation. Like any savvy CEO, the wealthy Saudi knows how to delegate. So while he concentrates on the big picture, he leaves the nagging details of his holy war to a capable group of top lieutenants. ... ---- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011008-176955,00.html jb From gbolcer@endeavors.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:41:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:41:41 -0700 From: Gregory Alan Bolcer gbolcer@endeavors.com Subject: Idea: A conduit for corporate funding of free software They used to provide that "something more" which included breakdown of actual dollar amounts for individual requirements and also schedules. They've moved away from it some, but the idea was there--real, for pay, software engineering complete with all the accouterments including docs. Tech writers need money too. Greg Johan Hjelm wrote: > > I think you want something more than collab.net... they are focussed on the > infrastructure. > > The problem is that you have to *guarantee* that the requirements get > implemented, and that it happens on time. Then, there are a few other > things. One reason companies like Ericsson pay Microsoft a hoard of money is > that somebody is responsible for fixing bugs - which your idea would > address. Another reason, though, is that they provide education and various > other services around the products (or make sure it is provided). Education > is really important; it is not enough to make the product easy to use, there > also has to be education providers, people willing to publish "Excel for > dummies", and so on. > From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:37:16 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:37:16 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_12.1354ff22.28eb635c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 11:39:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > > > more shoulds per square inch between you and jeff, and no > > demonstrable understanding of what being a jew means to a jew. > > Perhaps the problem isn't no demonstrable understanding, rather > complete understanding and complete rejection of its validity? Who the hell are you to validate or invalidate? > > You don't get it, do you Geege: That Doesn't Matter. doesn't matter to YOU > Irish, Navajo, Purple, or a Garlic Lover SHOULDN'T (ahem) > accord you any special status in civilization. unless you believe it does, which is not something handed down as a decision by the board of directors of how things ought to be in jeff's world. > nd that's not a statement of ideals, it's an observation: look at what > happens when we differentiate. right, according ot you, you never make statements of ideals, even as you make them. what do you call all your "shouldisms"? > > > judaism is not something they tack on after your nationality, as a > > subset. it is genetic, passed down thru the mother. it is a belief > > in being the, not a, chosen people (why else would physiological > > heritage matter?). > > Wow, now that makes a lot of sense. "It is genetic... it is a > belief..." And you know, the whole language here rubs me the wrong > way: "the, not a, chosen people" doesn't sound so far away from the > ubermensch, does it? I sense subtle but deep hypocrisy lurking > here... it's THEIR BELIEF, bone. they're not out to kill or change the world order - or even to proselytize. > > > i know exactly where you've drawn your line: fine and well, you say, > > but why do we have to (literally) buy into their beliefs? because > > they won't change them, we do what is pragmatic: nation build. > > Go look up pragmatism, Geege. You're using it incorrectly. I'm using it exactly as i intended, Jeff. Substitute "practical." I didn't get to finish my thought on lineage because took a bodily damage break, but I was beginning to explain why Jews are not exactly like Babtists or Catholics or Mormons, who's belief system does not incorporate the value "homeland." > > jb --part1_12.1354ff22.28eb635c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 11:39:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:

> more shoulds per square inch between you and jeff, and no
> demonstrable understanding of what being a jew means to a jew.

Perhaps the problem isn't no demonstrable understanding, rather
complete understanding and complete rejection of its validity?


Who the hell are you to validate or invalidate?


You don't get it, do you Geege:  That Doesn't Matter.



doesn't matter to YOU

Being Jewish,
Irish, Navajo, Purple, or a Garlic Lover SHOULDN'T (ahem) accord you any special status in civilization.


unless you believe it does, which is not something handed down as a decision by the board of directors of how things ought to be in jeff's world.

A
nd that's not a statement of ideals, it's an observation:  look at what happens when we differentiate.


right, according ot you, you never make statements of ideals, even as you make them.  what do you call all your "shouldisms"?



> judaism is not something they tack on after your nationality, as a
> subset.  it is genetic, passed down thru the mother. it is a belief
> in being the, not a, chosen people (why else would physiological
> heritage matter?).

Wow, now that makes a lot of sense.  "It is genetic...  it is a
belief..."  And you know, the whole language here rubs me the wrong
way:  "the, not a, chosen people" doesn't sound so far away from the
ubermensch, does it?  I sense subtle but deep hypocrisy lurking
here...
it's THEIR BELIEF, bone.  they're not out to kill or change the world order - or even to proselytize.


> i know exactly where you've drawn your line: fine and well, you say,
> but why do we have to (literally) buy into their beliefs?  because
> they won't change them, we do what is pragmatic: nation build.

Go look up pragmatism, Geege.  You're using it incorrectly.
I'm using it exactly as i intended, Jeff.  Substitute "practical."  I didn't get to finish my thought on lineage because took a bodily damage break, but I was beginning to explain why Jews are not exactly like Babtists or Catholics or Mormons, who's belief system does not incorporate the value "homeland."  


jb
--part1_12.1354ff22.28eb635c_boundary-- From paul@ActiveState.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:43:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:43:11 -0700 From: Paul Prescod paul@ActiveState.com Subject: How can this be justified? Jeff Bone wrote: > >.... > > To illustrate just how pea-brained this is, let's substitute a few words as > such: Israeli <-- American, Arab <-- "Black", Jewishs <-- "White." > > "Now if you were an White American, would you feel comfortable thinking your > kids or grandkids might live in a mostly-Black state...?" > > Welcome to Idaho. (Thanks, but no thanks.) Whites and blacks are about fifty years ahead in race relations in America. Why do you think that civil rights was such a slow process? Not just because social change is slow. It was also to give black people a chance to integrate into American society. The civil rights movement was mostly non-violent and I believe it succeeded precisely because white people looked at black people taking blows and showing self-restraint and they said sub-consciously: "those people are ready to be part of our citizenry". Nevertheless, you are in fantasyland if you doubt that immigration laws are set up to allow people with other cultural backgrounds in only at the rate that they can be "assimilated" into American culture. Economically it would probably be best to "open the floodgates" and let in many more people. > Now, we get all up in arms whenever anyone else in the world pulls this kind > of crap, why do we let the Israelis get away with it, indeed, support them > in doing so? Jeff: open your eyes! Most of the world is segmented along ethnic boundaries. What do you think the war in Kosovo was about? It was about giving Kosovars an unofficial, not-quite-soverighn homeland because they were abused by the ethnic majority. What was Rwanda about? If you were an Israeli would you "trust" that Rwanda could never happen in Israel? Would you have faith that the governmental systems are so robust that they could never be corrupted even by people who hate Jews and Jewish culture and have no democratic tradition? Remember that Germany was a democracy and probably "color-blind" also. > For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? Why does anyone need a > "homeland" in this day and age? What day and age are you living in, Jeff? One without Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Kosovo and a hundred other ethic wars? Mere laws cannot protect ethnic minorities in most parts of the world. It would be wonderful if they could. But they can't. > ... Do the Irish practice apartheid? Apartheid is not really the issue. (that's the point) Neither side in the Israel/Palestine claims that apartheid is the issue. It isn't even on the negotiating table. Neither side wants to live in a shared secular country. > ... Is the > Navajo nation a fortified, segregated piece of land within our territorial > borders? Fortified, no. I would presume that the Navajo nation "owns" reserve land that is essentially segregated as other first nations groups do. Paul Prescod From morton@dennisinter.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:49:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:49:01 -0400 From: Damien Morton morton@dennisinter.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel I'm using it exactly as i intended, Jeff. Substitute "practical." I didn't get to finish my thought on lineage because took a bodily damage break, but I was beginning to explain why Jews are not exactly like Babtists or Catholics or Mormons, who's belief system does not incorporate the value "homeland." =20 .... Does it make them closer to Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maoris, and/or Native North and South Americans then? Only with nukes. Heres my question then: is there a universal principle that can be gleaned from the existance of Israel? Does the Israeli right-to-exist then apply to other disposessed peoples? Is a chosen-people mythology and a book all that is required? What constitutes a legitimate attachment to 'land'? From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:50:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:50:49 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > Who the hell are you to validate or invalidate? Just expressing an opinion --- though one based on observation of all the trouble "tribalism" has caused worldwide throughout history. > unless you believe it does, which is not something handed down as a > decision by the board of directors of how things ought to be in > jeff's world. "Jeff's world" (whatever that is) isn't controlled by a board of directors or anybody else, thanks. Nice attempt to paint me as the evil capitalist in favor of corporatocracy, Geege, I'll take that as a high compliment. :-) > right, according ot you, you never make statements of ideals, even > as you make them. what do you call all your "shouldisms"? Get off the "should" thing, it's just a word and unfortunately a necessary one when discussing things that don't exist today but would be potential improvements. As for ideals vs. pragmatism / practicality, again... In the past I have perhaps made (and will probably in the future continue to occasionally make) the mistake of arguing using the rhetoric of ideals. What's interesting to me is results, nothing more, nothing less. My position in this argument: clearly, tribalism is a pathologically flawed concept that *ALWAYS* creates undesirable outcomes. It should not be tolerated any longer. Choosing to not tolerate tribalism is an action founded on pragmatism --- concern for effects rather than ideals. > it's THEIR BELIEF, bone. they're not out to kill or change the > world order - or even to proselytize. And I would call it a silly belief, if it were not so dangerous. Look at the result of putting their belief into action. To summarize the belief: "the Jews need a homeland where they can be safe from the ravages of the world. We need segregation as a necessary component of our security." Net result: decades of turmoil. > I'm using it exactly as i intended, Jeff. Substitute "practical." Fine, you're using that word incorrectly, too --- or at a minimum abusing it. Look up practical. Just to save you the effort, from dictionary.com, note the *first* definition: prac·ti·cal (prakt-ih-kuhl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals: gained practical experience of sailing as a deck hand. We can clearly see the practical results of Zionism in the history of the Middle East over the last 40ish years. It is patently *not* a "practical" solution to the problem of achieving peace, stability, and security for any of the players involved, *including* Jewish Israelis. It is instead an idealistic / unrealistic / impractical illusion defended by Jewish denial and blood and subsidized by American guilt and dollars. > I didn't get to finish my thought on lineage because took a bodily > damage break, but I was beginning to explain why Jews are not > exactly like Babtists or Catholics or Mormons, who's belief system > does not incorporate the value "homeland." Okay, let me be more specific, then: any religious / ethnic belief system that incorporates the value "homeland" is primitive, dangerous, and incompatible with Western civilization in the long haul. jb From carey@tstonramp.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:08:43 -0800 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 12:08:43 -0800 From: carey carey@tstonramp.com Subject: NONE Some of this is so fleeping ignorant I just had to respond. Jeff Bone wrote: > >.... > > To illustrate just how pea-brained this is, let's substitute a few words as > such: Israeli <-- American, Arab <-- "Black", Jewishs <-- "White." > > "Now if you were an White American, would you feel comfortable thinking your > kids or grandkids might live in a mostly-Black state...?" > > Welcome to Idaho. (Thanks, but no thanks.) Paul said : >Whites and blacks are about fifty years ahead in race >relations in >America. Why do you think that civil rights was such a >slow process? Not >just because social change is slow. It was also to >give black people a >chance to integrate into American society. This is ill. In a few brief sentences you managed to dredge up the very tired, dull and ignorant view that blacks are somehow inferior. Did you ever possibly think that maybe it took so damn long because you had enough white folks who were just too plain scared to allow blacks to 'integrate' in the first place? Segregating the educational system, denying freedoms.. these take their tolls. Blacks had been living on this continent almost as long as the Europeans had been inhabiting it... I'm sure that they had fine minds when it came to aclimating and dealing with society. The civil >rights movement was >mostly non-violent and I believe it succeeded >precisely because white >people looked at black people taking blows and showing >self-restraint >and they said sub-consciously: "those people are ready >to be part of our >citizenry". Right.. because before the entire lot of black folks was just a teeming hoard of gorilla people who would scream through the yard and bludgeon whitey. No. There was a lot of change going on.. on both sides. Black people started taking less (while that doesn't necessarily mean they broke out into violence, it does mean that there was more assertiveness) and white people started figuring out that hey, these folks are human. They moved on. You should too. Nevertheless, you are in fantasyland if you doubt that immigration laws are set up to allow people with other cultural backgrounds in only at the rate that they can be "assimilated" into American culture. I don't remember reading that he said that ... IN FACt, the mix between assimilation and cultural heritage is what makes this a pretty damn sexy nation. >Economically it would probably be best to "open the >floodgates" and let >in many more people. >> Now, we get all up in arms whenever anyone else in the world pulls this kind >> of crap, why do we let the Israelis get away with it, indeed, support them >> in doing so? >Jeff: open your eyes! Most of the world is segmented >along ethnic >boundaries. What do you think the war in Kosovo was >about? Oil. Pipelines and control. It was about >giving Kosovars an unofficial, not-quite-soverighn >homeland because they >were abused by the ethnic majority. Right. And they have that now. Mmmhm. >What was Rwanda about? IT seemed like it was about us sitting back and watching slaughter. >If you were an Israeli would you "trust" that Rwanda >could never happen >in Israel? Would you have faith that the governmental >systems are so >robust that they could never be corrupted even by >people who hate Jews >and Jewish culture and have no democratic tradition? Perhaps you can't. But I think there's still a lot more logic in the sensible secular government idea thrown around by Russell /Jeff than having a discriminatory system that is apparently and obviously NOT WORKING. >Remember that >Germany was a democracy and probably "color-blind" >also. When? Maybe my history on germany sucks... pre-hitler I don't remember this time? >> For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? Why does anyone need a >> "homeland" in this day and age? >What day and age are you living in, Jeff? One without >Cyprus, Northern >Ireland, Rwanda, Kosovo and a hundred other ethic >wars? Mere laws cannot >protect ethnic minorities in most parts of the world. >It would be >wonderful if they could. But they can't. And I guess the US is just a failed experiment at that cause too eh? >> ... Do the Irish practice apartheid? >Apartheid is not really the issue. (that's the point) >Neither side in >the Israel/Palestine claims that apartheid is the >issue. It isn't even >on the negotiating table. Neither side wants to live >in a shared secular >country. But apartheid is the issue if that is what is being practiced, said or unsaid. By regulating, and segregating (as numerous examples on FoRK have brought up (most notably the NYT email ) there is a ethic/religious apartheid going on. ITs evident. Whether its on the negotiating table or not doesn't make for a hill of beans. The practice still prevails. ITs equivalent to saying that all those years that S. Africa practiced apartheid, that it didn't really matter until they discussed it. From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:01:47 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:01:47 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Up front: Paul brings up several different very good points that I haven't addressed --- however: not having addressed them does not imply anything about my position. Try as I might, writing the infinitely-comprehensive e-mail has been an unachievable task to date. ;-) Onward... Paul Prescod wrote: > Nevertheless, you are in fantasyland if you doubt that immigration laws > are set up to allow people with other cultural backgrounds in only at > the rate that they can be "assimilated" into American culture. I never stated whether I doubted or believed this, and am unclear on its relevance to the points I've made. > Jeff: open your eyes! Most of the world is segmented along ethnic > boundaries. What do you think the war in Kosovo was about? It was about > giving Kosovars an unofficial, not-quite-soverighn homeland because they > were abused by the ethnic majority. What was Rwanda about? This only underscores my point: the notion of segregated homelands is a dangerous concept. > > For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? Why does anyone need a > > "homeland" in this day and age? > > What day and age are you living in, Jeff? One without Cyprus, Northern > Ireland, Rwanda, Kosovo and a hundred other ethic wars? Mere laws cannot > protect ethnic minorities in most parts of the world. It would be > wonderful if they could. But they can't. This doesn't answer my question: *why does anyone need a "homeland" in this day and age?* I'm not unaware of Cyprus, etc. Quite the contrary: I'm suggesting that all of these things share a common memetic disease, the notion that segregation is desirable and homelands necessary. > > ... Do the Irish practice apartheid? > > Apartheid is not really the issue. (that's the point) Neither side in > the Israel/Palestine claims that apartheid is the issue. It isn't even > on the negotiating table. Neither side wants to live in a shared secular > country. Well.... (a) Good point, and it wasn't my intent to suggest that either side is innocent or even occupies any sort of moral high ground, but (b) "apartheid" is in fact a part of the issue, as evidenced by the recent UN Conf. on Race Relations which we (the US) pissed all over. > I would presume that the Navajo nation "owns" reserve > land that is essentially segregated as other first nations groups do. Have you ever been on the res, Paul? It's an informative experience... :-) jb From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:21:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:21:18 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Interesting verbage I can't tell what all is going on in this sentence... I don't know whether it's a positioning coup or a doublespeak nightmare. Widely reported comment by Bush today: 'President Bush told reporters on Tuesday that a Palestinian state was always "part of a vision" if Israel's right to exist is respected.' This was, of course, immediately applauded by the Arab League. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/02/league.bush/index.html Anyone have the actual text of what he said? jb From ejw@cse.ucsc.edu Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:37:48 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 12:37:48 -0700 From: Jim Whitehead ejw@cse.ucsc.edu Subject: How can this be justified? The following site provides a concise history of Israel and Zionism, which I've been finding useful as background reading. I have no doubt that it is seriously limited as a history, but it does seem to capture the highlights and key trends. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html Interestingly, it appears that many early Zionists just wanted a state somewhere, not necessarily in Palestine. - Jim From cdale@techmonkeys.net Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:25:48 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:25:48 -0500 (CDT) From: CDale cdale@techmonkeys.net Subject: Living in Iran I have a friend who is going over to Iran to work for a while. He's from Canada, and is very used to saying what he wants to, and propping up his feet and things like that. Is there anyone on the list who has first-hand knowledge of the customs there, specifically the nonos, or who knows of a good site to read that would give us some insight? Nervous, Cindy -- "My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not signed." (Christopher Morley) From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:27:33 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:27:33 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_21.1209a33a.28eb7d35_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 12:08:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > any of several dimensions. (E) Infectious memes that organize individuals > into superorganisms endowed with a belief in their own moral superiority, > i.e., > "we are the chosen people of God / we are genetically superior and > intellectually more gifted / etc." > > All of these things are problems, and humans can choose to let go of such > primitive, outdated beliefs or cling to them and suffer the consequences. > > jb GLARINGINLY RIDIC: so you haven't just endowed yourself with moral and intellectual superiority by calling someone else's belief system primitive and outdated? can't you manage to invoke the first without casting down all those "others" around you? aren't your preaching here, jeff, or don't you recognize your own religion? you should have thought of this years ago and claimed tax-free status. --part1_21.1209a33a.28eb7d35_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 12:08:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


any of several dimensions.  (E)  Infectious memes that organize individuals
into superorganisms endowed with a belief in their own moral superiority, i.e.,
"we are the chosen people of God / we are genetically superior and
intellectually more gifted / etc."

All of these things are problems, and humans can choose to let go of such
primitive, outdated beliefs or cling to them and suffer the consequences.

jb
GLARINGINLY RIDIC:  so you haven't just endowed yourself with moral and intellectual superiority by calling someone else's belief system primitive and outdated?  can't you manage to invoke the first without casting down all those "others" around you?  aren't your preaching here, jeff, or don't you recognize your own religion?

you should have thought of this years ago and claimed tax-free status. --part1_21.1209a33a.28eb7d35_boundary-- From Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:33:52 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 22:33:52 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eugene Leitl Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > GLARINGINLY RIDIC: so you haven't just endowed yourself with moral and > intellectual superiority by calling someone else's belief system primitive > and outdated? can't you manage to invoke the first without casting down all Which one is the expiring model and which isn't we'll learn soon enough. > those "others" around you? aren't your preaching here, jeff, or don't you > recognize your own religion? > > you should have thought of this years ago and claimed tax-free status. Anything goes goes exactly nowhere. From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:28:16 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:28:16 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Required viewing? Frontline Diares: Into the Forbidden Zone Monday, October 22 at 9 p.m. ET/PT (also 6 pm PT - single feed channel) National Geographic Channel Follow journalist Sebastian Junger and photographer Reza as they are smuggled into the only section of Afghanistan not controlled by the Taliban. http://www.nationalgeographic.com/tv/channel/index.html Thanks to Rasheed Baqai for the bits. jb From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:37:04 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:37:04 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_16f.1cbf939.28eb7f70_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 2:49:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, morton@dennisinter.com writes: > Heres my question then: is there a universal principle that can be > gleaned from the existance of Israel? here's my question: who says we need universal priciples? oh, yeah, the guy who wants everything nice and consistent, all right angles, no elegance or complexity, no nimble-mindedness: jeff bone, the cement galoshes of intellectual raiment. :-) --part1_16f.1cbf939.28eb7f70_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 2:49:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, morton@dennisinter.com writes:


Heres my question then: is there a universal principle that can be
gleaned from the existance of Israel?
here's my question: who says we need universal priciples?  oh, yeah, the guy who wants everything nice and consistent, all right angles, no elegance or complexity, no nimble-mindedness: jeff bone, the cement galoshes of intellectual raiment.

:-) --part1_16f.1cbf939.28eb7f70_boundary-- From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:39:08 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:39:08 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_b9.149931be.28eb7fec_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 2:58:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > My position in this argument: clearly, tribalism is a > pathologically flawed concept that *ALWAYS* creates undesirable > outcomes. what isn't and doesn't, taken to any unchecked extreme? --part1_b9.149931be.28eb7fec_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 2:58:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


My position in this argument:  clearly, tribalism is a
pathologically flawed concept that *ALWAYS* creates undesirable
outcomes.


what isn't and doesn't, taken to any unchecked extreme?   --part1_b9.149931be.28eb7fec_boundary-- From morton@dennisinter.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:41:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:41:37 -0400 From: Damien Morton morton@dennisinter.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14B82.A17E3DF6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 -----Original Message----- From: Grlygrl201@aol.com [mailto:Grlygrl201@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:37 PM To: Damien Morton; fork@xent.com Subject: Re: NYTimes: email from Israel In a message dated 10/2/01 2:49:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, morton@dennisinter.com writes:=20 Heres my question then: is there a universal principle that can be=20 gleaned from the existance of Israel? here's my question: who says we need universal priciples? oh, yeah, the guy who wants everything nice and consistent, all right angles, no elegance or complexity, no nimble-mindedness: jeff bone, the cement galoshes of intellectual raiment.=20 :-) =20 Consistency is the cornerstone of justice. Without it anyone can claim special privileges and you end up for a free-for-all. Its uncivilised. =20 I need universal principles. If Israelies are to gain my support, then the principles behind their actions need to be universal. You dont, however, see Israelis lining up to support any other 'homelanders' do you? =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14B82.A17E3DF6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Grlygrl201@aol.com = [mailto:Grlygrl201@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 = 4:37=20 PM
To: Damien Morton; fork@xent.com
Subject: Re: = NYTimes:=20 email from Israel

In a=20 message dated 10/2/01 2:49:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, = morton@dennisinter.com=20 writes:


Heres my question then: is there a = universal=20 principle that can be
gleaned from the existance of=20 Israel?


here's my=20 question: who says we need universal priciples?  oh, yeah, the = guy who=20 wants everything nice and consistent, all right angles, no elegance or = complexity, no nimble-mindedness: jeff bone, the cement galoshes of=20 intellectual raiment.

:-)  
Consistency is the cornerstone of justice. = Without it=20 anyone can claim special privileges and you end up for a free-for-all. = Its=20 uncivilised.
 
I need=20 universal principles. If Israelies are to gain my support, then the = principles=20 behind their actions need to be universal. You dont, however, see = Israelis=20 lining up to support any other 'homelanders' do you?
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01C14B82.A17E3DF6-- From paul@ActiveState.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:49:34 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:49:34 -0700 From: Paul Prescod paul@ActiveState.com Subject: How can this be justified? Jeff Bone wrote: > >... > > This only underscores my point: the notion of segregated homelands is a dangerous > concept. No one disagrees. But we have no ability to wish the concept away. All we can do is try to minimize damage. Now we're stuck with Israel, which is a relatively culturally-homogenous place, in the middle of the Middle East which also has some contradictory cutural baggage. Let's talk about cultures, not ethnicities, or religions, because culture is really what matters. We know that Catholics and Protestants can get along so the problems in Northern Ireland are not appropriately termed "religious." Religion is a proxy for culture. Now what are we going to do about Israel. We could argue that the two people should be able to share the same land and create a merged, democractic, color/culture-blind Israeli/Palestinian state. Only that's not what anyone wants. So why offer it to them? We could claim that the original idea was bad and thus merely "dissolve" the state of Israel through a choice not to recognize it as a state. We could stand back and watch the war that ensues after we give up any leverage on them, knowing that we did the Right Thing from a principled point of view. The leaders of surrounding Arab states would love this solution. Both people want separate states based on their cultural backgrounds. Maybe 100 years from now they will think this was a silly idea but in the meantime it is more productive to figure out how we can get from here to there rather than arguing that they "shouldn't" want what they want. Paul Prescod From paul@ActiveState.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:56:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 13:56:59 -0700 From: Paul Prescod paul@ActiveState.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel > Consistency is the cornerstone of justice. Right now, I think that peace is more important than justice, protestors not-with-standing. We're starting from a fundamentally unjust place. The Jews shouldn't have taken over the Palestinians homeland. There should have been no Holocaust. There should not have been a Jewish diaspora. If there were an all-powerful world policeman then maybe we could impose justice now. But really the best we can hope for is for the people to stop killing each other long enough for them to come to the same conclusions about peace and justice that you have. > Without it anyone can claim special privileges and you end up > for a free-for-all. Its uncivilised. Free-for-all and incivility are the natural state of the planet. We can't wish order onto it. The conditions for justice must grow. They cannot be imposed. Paul Prescod From bill@whump.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:01:39 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:01:39 -0700 From: Bill Humphries bill@whump.com Subject: Osama's Top Brass On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, at 09:23 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > Osama bin Laden may be public Enemy No. 1 in America's war on > terrorism, but his is far from a one-man operation. Like any savvy > CEO, the wealthy Saudi knows how to delegate. I'm amused by the business metaphor. I'm wondering when bin Laden becomes a case-study at the Harvard Business School. -- whump From bill@wstoddard.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:12:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:12:11 -0400 From: Bill Stoddard bill@wstoddard.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04D4_01C14B65.5FFADA20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Self reference alert, self reference alert. Quick, where's my copy of = Godel, Escher, Bach. I've fallen down and I can't get up... Bill (who is sometimes obscure) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Grlygrl201@aol.com=20 To: jbone@jump.net ; deafbox@hotmail.com=20 Cc: fork@xent.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 4:27 PM Subject: Re: NYTimes: email from Israel In a message dated 10/2/01 12:08:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, = jbone@jump.net writes:=20 any of several dimensions. (E) Infectious memes that organize = individuals=20 into superorganisms endowed with a belief in their own moral = superiority, i.e.,=20 "we are the chosen people of God / we are genetically superior and=20 intellectually more gifted / etc."=20 All of these things are problems, and humans can choose to let go of = such=20 primitive, outdated beliefs or cling to them and suffer the = consequences.=20 jb GLARINGINLY RIDIC: so you haven't just endowed yourself with moral = and intellectual superiority by calling someone else's belief system = primitive and outdated? can't you manage to invoke the first without = casting down all those "others" around you? aren't your preaching here, = jeff, or don't you recognize your own religion?=20 you should have thought of this years ago and claimed tax-free status. = ------=_NextPart_000_04D4_01C14B65.5FFADA20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Self reference alert, self reference = alert. Quick,=20 where's my copy of Godel, Escher, Bach. I've fallen down and I can't get = up...
 
Bill (who is sometimes = obscure)
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Grlygrl201@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 = 4:27=20 PM
Subject: Re: NYTimes: email = from=20 Israel

In a = message dated=20 10/2/01 12:08:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


any of several dimensions.  (E)  Infectious = memes that=20 organize individuals
into superorganisms endowed with a belief = in their=20 own moral superiority, i.e.,
"we are the chosen people of God / = we are=20 genetically superior and
intellectually more gifted / etc." =

All=20 of these things are problems, and humans can choose to let go of = such=20
primitive, outdated beliefs or cling to them and suffer the=20 consequences.

jb

GLARINGINLY RIDIC:  so = you haven't=20 just endowed yourself with moral and intellectual superiority by = calling=20 someone else's belief system primitive and outdated?  can't you = manage to=20 invoke the first without casting down all those "others" around you?=20  aren't your preaching here, jeff, or don't you recognize your = own=20 religion?

you should have thought of this years ago and = claimed=20 tax-free status. ------=_NextPart_000_04D4_01C14B65.5FFADA20-- From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:04:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:04:36 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > GLARINGINLY RIDIC: so you haven't just endowed yourself with moral > and intellectual superiority by calling someone else's belief system > primitive and outdated? Poor choice of words, you are right. However: primitive --- clearly --- by virtue of being a societal form dating back to the dawn of manking, and outdated by virtue of the fact that in today's world of globalization, diversity, and disappearing borders these kinds of things cause more problems than they solve. No value judgement was intended, merely observation. For the record, though, I don't think it takes a moral or intellectual giant to recognize the things referred to (call it "tribalism") as either primitive or outdated. At least I hope it doesn't. > can't you manage to invoke the first without casting down all those > "others" around you? aren't your preaching here, jeff, or don't you > recognize your own religion? Religion is based on faith in the unprovable. I'm just drawing conclusions from observations. It's a fundamentally different process. You do recognize that, don't you Geege? jb From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:05:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:05:12 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Eugene Leitl wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > > > GLARINGINLY RIDIC: so you haven't just endowed yourself with moral and > > intellectual superiority by calling someone else's belief system primitive > > and outdated? can't you manage to invoke the first without casting down all > > Which one is the expiring model and which isn't we'll learn soon enough. True, true... jb From jeff@vertexdev.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:14:17 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:14:17 -0700 From: Jeff Barr jeff@vertexdev.com Subject: Osama's Top Brass I think that some of this "delegation" nonsense allows OBL to delude himself into thinking that others are responsible for what has transpired. I imagine him as a somewhat vague communicator who might issue strange half-question/half-statement directives to his direct reports (hey, might as well continue with the business metaphors). Instead of making a direct order he might say something like "Hmmm, what would happen if planes were to crash in to the World Trade Center?" The DRs nod in agreeement to what OBL tells himself is a hypothetical question, and then proceed (as all parties know they will) to carry out the scheme. Or his DRs bring him ideas, and he nods in assent... Just my 2 cents worth of free psychological profiling for the day. Jeff; -----Original Message----- From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of Bill Humphries Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 2:02 PM To: Jeff Bone Cc: fork@xent.com Subject: Re: Osama's Top Brass On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, at 09:23 AM, Jeff Bone wrote: > Osama bin Laden may be public Enemy No. 1 in America's war on > terrorism, but his is far from a one-man operation. Like any savvy > CEO, the wealthy Saudi knows how to delegate. I'm amused by the business metaphor. I'm wondering when bin Laden becomes a case-study at the Harvard Business School. -- whump http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:16:25 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:16:25 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_bc.1ac77f1e.28eb88a9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 4:42:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, morton@dennisinter.com writes: > Consistency is the cornerstone of justice. Without it anyone can claim > special privileges and you end up for a free-for-all. Its uncivilised. > > I need universal principles. If Israelies are to gain my support, then the > principles behind their actions need to be universal. You dont, however, > see Israelis lining up to support any other 'homelanders' do you? > Their actions are of less concern to me in this argument - ours our. Is it a universal principle of the USA that we demand consistency in action before we support? Let's discuss worthiness criteria across the board. Oh, nevermind, let's not. --part1_bc.1ac77f1e.28eb88a9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 4:42:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, morton@dennisinter.com writes:


Consistency is the cornerstone of justice. Without it anyone can claim special privileges and you end up for a free-for-all. Its uncivilised.

I need universal principles. If Israelies are to gain my support, then the principles behind their actions need to be universal. You dont, however, see Israelis lining up to support any other 'homelanders' do you?


Their actions are of less concern to me in this argument - ours our.  Is it a universal principle of the USA that we demand consistency in action before we support? Let's discuss worthiness criteria across the board.

Oh, nevermind, let's not.   --part1_bc.1ac77f1e.28eb88a9_boundary-- From ThosStew@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:16:35 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:16:35 EDT From: ThosStew@aol.com ThosStew@aol.com Subject: Osama's Top Brass In a message dated 10/2/2001 5:14:56 PM, jeff@vertexdev.com writes: >I think that some of this "delegation" nonsense allows OBL to delude >himself into thinking that others are responsible for what has >transpired. No, it has to do with security. it's how you set up a networked cell organization. it's not even "delegation" Tom From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:13:49 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:13:49 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/2/01 2:49:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > morton@dennisinter.com writes: > > > >> Heres my question then: is there a universal principle that can be >> >> gleaned from the existance of Israel? > > here's my question: who says we need universal priciples? oh, yeah, > the guy who wants everything nice and consistent, all right angles, > no elegance or complexity, no nimble-mindedness: jeff bone, the > cement galoshes of intellectual raiment. Refer to previous messages: results, not principles. I'll take most of the rest of it as an unintended compliment: nice is good, consistent is good, orthogonality is good, no (unnecessary) complexity is good. As for no elegance, well, I guess that's an expression of preference, but for me things that are nice and consistent and orthogonal and simple are inherently elegant. As for nimble-mindedness, I'll merely direct your attention to the incredible amount of effort that gets wasted by the "nimble-minded" in pursuing complex solutions in favor of simple, obvious ones. As for cement galoshes, fine. If you want to call dogged, aggressive pursuit of a set of concepts to their ultimate logical conclusion "the cement galoshes of intellectual raiment" that's fine with me. IMO, the true "cement galoshes" are sentimentality, group-selfishness, primitivism, and fear of change; I happen to believe that half-ass fallbacks invoking the bugaboo of "real world complexity" are either irrational or just intellectually lazy. "Ooh, the world is a complicated and messy place, and that justifies X, Y, and Z. Problems P, Q, and R that result from X, Y, Z are just unavoidable, this is the best we can do." Lazy. Pat. Status quo. Irrational. jb From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:14:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:14:14 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/2/01 2:58:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > jbone@jump.net writes: > > > >> My position in this argument: clearly, tribalism is a >> pathologically flawed concept that *ALWAYS* creates undesirable >> outcomes. > > what isn't and doesn't, taken to any unchecked extreme? Sorry, I can't parse this. jb From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:25:13 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:25:13 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_13c.25a8d47.28eb8ab9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 5:13:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > Religion is based on faith in the unprovable. I'm just drawing > conclusions from observations. It's a fundamentally different > process. You do recognize that, don't you Geege? > > jb who wouldn't? i can do it without asigning values. you do know how to do that, don't you, jeff? --part1_13c.25a8d47.28eb8ab9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 5:13:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


Religion is based on faith in the unprovable.  I'm just drawing
conclusions from observations.  It's a fundamentally different
process.  You do recognize that, don't you Geege?

jb
who wouldn't?  i can do it without asigning values. you do know how to do that, don't you, jeff? --part1_13c.25a8d47.28eb8ab9_boundary-- From Robert.Harley@inria.fr Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:26:19 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:26:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: Robert Harley Robert.Harley@inria.fr Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy Russell Turpin: >US government is NOT based on Christianity, >[...] Can you provide >specific examples of how US government or >law is based on Christianity? Well, the quarter in my hand says "IN GOD WE TRUST" (plus "1971" and "LIBERTY" and such like). This is about as Christian as it gets. NB: I believe said motto was added to U.S. currency at the height of the "Reds under the bed" scare... R .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ / \ \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:28:51 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:28:51 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: How can this be justified? --part1_ea.1bb5194c.28eb8b93_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 4:50:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paul@ActiveState.com writes: > Both people want separate states based on their cultural backgrounds. > Maybe 100 years from now they will think this was a silly idea but in > the meantime it is more productive to figure out how we can get from > here to there rather than arguing that they "shouldn't" want what they > want. > > Paul Prescod > Actually, this is what I meant when I wrote "pragmatic," only way less eloquently. Go, Paul. --part1_ea.1bb5194c.28eb8b93_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 4:50:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, paul@ActiveState.com writes:


Both people want separate states based on their cultural backgrounds.
Maybe 100 years from now they will think this was a silly idea but in
the meantime it is more productive to figure out how we can get from
here to there rather than arguing that they "shouldn't" want what they
want.

Paul Prescod

Actually, this is what I meant when I wrote "pragmatic," only way less eloquently.
Go, Paul. --part1_ea.1bb5194c.28eb8b93_boundary-- From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:23:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:23:04 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Paul Prescod wrote: > > This only underscores my point: the notion of segregated homelands is a dangerous > > concept. > > No one disagrees. But we have no ability to wish the concept away. Nor did I say we have such ability. We do have (civilized) tools at our disposal, for instance complete economic and social isolation. > All > we can do is try to minimize damage. Now we're stuck with Israel, which > is a relatively culturally-homogenous place, in the middle of the Middle > East which also has some contradictory cutural baggage. Let's talk about > cultures, not ethnicities, or religions, because culture is really what > matters. "Culture" is even more abstract and vague than "ethnicity" or "religion." > We could argue that the two people should be able to share the same land > and create a merged, democractic, color/culture-blind > Israeli/Palestinian state. Only that's not what anyone wants. So why > offer it to them? Guess what? The purpose of "law" in the large --- systems of government, etc. --- isn't to give everyone what they want. This is a complete myth propagated by demagogues in promotion of *all* systems of gov't: communism, fascism, democracy. The purpose of any legal and governmental framework is or should be to encourage coexistance while maximizing personal choice. Those are, IMO, the universally-shared desired results. Where you start getting into trouble is when people band together behind the "legitimacy" of law to enforce their will and averse interest on others. > We could claim that the original idea was bad and thus merely "dissolve" > the state of Israel through a choice not to recognize it as a state. We > could stand back and watch the war that ensues after we give up any > leverage on them, knowing that we did the Right Thing from a principled > point of view. Perhaps this is the pragmatic solution --- i.e., if it can be determined that there will *never* be peace in the Middle East (and possibly the world) until one or the other side has completely dominated the region, then perhaps we should let regional geopolitics run its course rather than continuing to artificially support either side. > Both people want separate states based on their cultural backgrounds. > Maybe 100 years from now they will think this was a silly idea but in > the meantime it is more productive to figure out how we can get from > here to there rather than arguing that they "shouldn't" want what they > want. "Action, not words!" Feh. We need to figure out where "here" and "there" are before we act. And given how abysmally we've failed in our policies in this regard all along --- always supporting bad guys against temporarily even-badder guys until they're gone, at which point the bad guys we supported turn around and bite the hand that feeds them --- I think the discussion has a ways to go, yet. jb From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:39:28 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:39:28 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_127.4ff5ba0.28eb8e10_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 5:22:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > Lazy. Pat. Status quo. Irrational. > > jb > > > you wouldn't recognize change if it spit in your space. do you honestly think your approach is fresh? your outdated negative associations limit your ability to come up with anything fresh: complex = beaurocratic, simple = revolutionary, TO YOU. to the rest of us, who've passed thru stage-one social analysis and come out the other side, your notions of how the world should be borders on platitude. read more paul. --part1_127.4ff5ba0.28eb8e10_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 5:22:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


Lazy.  Pat.  Status quo.  Irrational.

jb



you wouldn't recognize change if it spit in your space.  do you honestly think your approach is fresh?  your outdated negative associations limit your ability to come up with anything fresh: complex = beaurocratic, simple = revolutionary, TO YOU.  to the rest of us, who've passed thru stage-one social analysis and come out the other side, your notions of how the world should be borders on platitude.

read more paul. --part1_127.4ff5ba0.28eb8e10_boundary-- From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:35:52 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:35:52 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: >> Religion is based on faith in the unprovable. I'm just drawing >> conclusions from observations. It's a fundamentally different >> process. You do recognize that, don't you Geege? >> >> jb > > who wouldn't? i can do it without asigning values. you do know how > to do that, don't you, jeff? Understand that there's a difference in you *interpreting what I say as having certain value assignments* and any value assignments that I might actually be making. I'll also note that it's very, very difficult to discuss this kind of stuff without using terms that are, unfortunately, loaded words. "Primitive" is one of them. For future reference, Geege, maybe you'll find this list useful. It's not comprehensive, but perhaps you can draw some conclusions from it. Judgement words: silly, stupid, ridiculous, absurd, "too much," elegant, unnecessary, nice, bad, good, evil, right, wrong, productive, superior, inferior, moral, immoral, etc. Descriptive adjectives: primitive, outdated, incomplete, nonexistant, simple / complex, pragmatic, practical, ideological. I may be judgemental from time to time, but I at least try to be explicit about it when doing so. :-) I'm not stating that tribalism is "bad," just that it's increasingly apparent that it's inconsistent / incompatible with the kind of global, diverse "Western" civilization that we all seem to enjoy and which --- observably --- leads to higher average standards of living on a material basis. That doesn't mean that one is superior to the other; it's not an ethnocentric statement, merely a statement of observed effects relative to a system of values most of us on this list share (i.e., a notion of a material poverty condition.) jb From morton@dennisinter.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:48:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:48:49 -0400 From: Damien Morton morton@dennisinter.com Subject: the end of tribalism How to fight tribalism 101: Encourage migrations: makes sure people dont bond according to geographic considerations Encourage mixed marriages: make sure no-one can claim any 'pure' heritage Teach everyone the same language: make sure there are no linguistic differentiators Dont teach history: make sure people forget the past and concentrate on the present Make the patient comfortable: a little bit of sugar helps the medicine go down Oh my god! Im describing late 20th century America! From johnhall@evergo.net Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:53:50 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:53:50 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: How can this be justified? > Behalf Of Paul Prescod > > We could claim that the original idea was bad and thus merely > "dissolve" the state of Israel through a choice not to > recognize it as a state. We could stand back and watch the > war that ensues after we give up any leverage on them, > knowing that we did the Right Thing from a principled point > of view. The leaders of surrounding Arab states would love > this solution. Not if they are living in a large city. Israel will not go quietly into the night. From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:56:31 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:56:31 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_15.1b9d6a4d.28eb920f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 5:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > Understand that there's a difference in you *interpreting what I say > as having certain value assignments* and any value assignments that I > might actually be making. I'll also note that it's very, very > difficult to discuss this kind of stuff without using terms that are, > unfortunately, loaded words. "Primitive" is one of them. Does this move have a name? --part1_15.1b9d6a4d.28eb920f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 5:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


Understand that there's a difference in you *interpreting what I say
as having certain value assignments* and any value assignments that I
might actually be making.  I'll also note that it's very, very
difficult to discuss this kind of stuff without using terms that are,
unfortunately, loaded words.  "Primitive" is one of them.
Does this move have a name? --part1_15.1b9d6a4d.28eb920f_boundary-- From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:52:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:52:48 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Geege v. Jeff, the Title Bout (only on FPV - FoRKPerView) Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > you wouldn't recognize change if it spit in your space. That is absolutely ludicrous, btw. If you'd like to pursue that tangent, have at it. Lemme tell ya, though: I'm *nothing* if not change-oriented pretty much across the board. :-) My problem isn't change, it's standing still. Always had trouble doing that. ;-) > do you honestly think your approach is fresh? Nope, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants and contributing very little new stuff here. I'm not claiming "freshness" of approach, either --- I'm hoping that some day we can all (me included) shrug off irrationality and sentimentality and catch up with some of those giants. It's a long process, and it's inevitably frustrating to all parties involved. BTW, just for the record: I'm just as susceptible to irrationality and sentimentality as the average Joe, and part of this kind of discourse for me is just that, a process of ferreting out and eliminating these defects in my own positions and thought processes. Even you, Geege, contribute valuably to that process. :-) But you're still a defective irrational sentimental neo-liberal "save the planet" primitive compexicist neo-maxi zoom dweebie. ;-) > your outdated negative associations limit your ability to come up > with anything fresh: complex = beaurocratic, simple = revolutionary, > TO YOU. I'm not interested in revolution *at all.* Better equations would be complex = unworkable & problematic, simple = workable & effective. Remember that "sophisticated" and "sophistry" are closely related words. > to the rest of us, who've passed thru stage-one social analysis If you can't attack the position itself successfully, attack the underlying process in some vague fashion? You can do better than that, Geege. If you want to invalidate my position, go for it --- attack the position. Illustrate how I'm wrong. Demonstrate how good and wonderful and peaceful and prosperous and happy the world has been throughout history as a result of these memes I'm calling defective. Don't stoop to such a weak and ineffective tactic as obliquely casting aspersions on whatever analytical process you think or claim that I've made or not made. > and come out the other side, your notions of how the world should be > borders on platitude. And I'll merely argue that (and I'll be more gentle here in the interest of precision) *what I believe to be* your notion of how the world should be doesn't border on unworkable, it demonstrates it every day in failures great and small. jb From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:54:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:54:40 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/2/01 5:44:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > jbone@jump.net writes: > > > >> Understand that there's a difference in you *interpreting what I >> say >> as having certain value assignments* and any value assignments >> that I >> might actually be making. I'll also note that it's very, very >> difficult to discuss this kind of stuff without using terms that >> are, >> unfortunately, loaded words. "Primitive" is one of them. > > Does this move have a name? I've kind of lost track, but I'm open to suggestions, it probably should have a name. (Damn migraine splitting my head in two right now, the SigMove Name Generator is offline. ;-) jb From deafbox@hotmail.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 22:06:10 +0000 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 22:06:10 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy Russell Turpin: >>Can you provide specific examples of how US government or law is based on >>Christianity? Robert Harley writes: >Well, the quarter in my hand says "IN GOD WE TRUST." This is about as >Christian as it gets. This fails to answer the question. The decorations on money are cultural tokens. Nothing more, nothing less. In Canada, the money has maple leaves. In Texas, public property abounds with pictures of the Alamo. None of this says anything about how government is structured, or the principles on which US law is based. On the dollar bill in my hand, there is a picture of a pyramid. Does this mean the US government is based on Egyptian principles? Of less importance, that motto isn't even Christian. It is merely theistic. Only atheists should be somewhat disappointed by its appearance on their money. For the most part, though, they realize that this is mere decoration, having no more importance than the pyramid, the eye, the key, or the scale. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From mike@DataChannel.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:09:59 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:09:59 -0700 From: Mike Dierken mike@DataChannel.com Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14B8E.FA323C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > On the > dollar bill in my hand, there is a picture of a pyramid. > Does this mean the US government is based on Egyptian > principles? Only those borrowed by the Illuminati. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14B8E.FA323C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" RE: Christianity, US government, democracy

> On the
> dollar bill in my hand, there is a picture of a pyramid.
> Does this mean the US government is based on Egyptian
> principles?
Only those borrowed by the Illuminati.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C14B8E.FA323C40-- From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:05:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:05:06 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy Robert Harley writes: > Well, the quarter in my hand says "IN GOD WE TRUST." This is about as > Christian as it gets. Well, actually no, it doesn't specify whose "GOD". It's a pretty generic term. Having said that, IMO we'd be better off not asking that question at all. jb From carey@tstonramp.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:17:54 -0800 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:17:54 -0800 From: carey carey@tstonramp.com Subject: NONE I had to reread what I said to get your context: Here's what I actually said: I don't remember reading that he said that ... IN FACt, the mix between assimilation and cultural heritage is what makes this a pretty damn sexy nation. which I wholeheartedly agree with. Youquoted me saying : Perhaps you can't. But I think there's still a lot more logic in the sensible secular government idea thrown around by Russell /Jeff than having a discriminatory system that is apparently and obviously NOT WORKING. Which I also agree with. I don't see the dichotomy of those statements. Having a rich cultural heritage is good, having it be run by a religious government is bad. ERgo why the US system is something I dig, but I can't possibly understand a rigid, religiously based political system that is neither rich, but instead is very segregated, rigid and boring. Not calling Jews or the state of Jewishness boring per se, but its my general philosophy that the more you lump together the better the environment is. Israel (at least in the context of these conversations, and my limited knowledge ) is rather happy just being jewish. Good for them, but I don't necessarily like it From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:33:48 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:33:48 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: Geege v. Jeff, the Title Bout (only on FPV - FoRKPerView) --part1_22.1cb0baae.28eb9acc_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:01:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > And I'll merely argue that (and I'll be more gentle here in the > interest of precision) *what I believe to be* your notion of how the > world should be doesn't border on unworkable, it demonstrates it every > day in failures great and small. > > jb i don't have notions of how the world should be - that's your thing. your notions are inelastic - i have a problem with inelasticity, period. --part1_22.1cb0baae.28eb9acc_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:01:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


And I'll merely argue that (and I'll be more gentle here in the
interest of precision) *what I believe to be* your notion of how the
world should be doesn't border on unworkable, it demonstrates it every
day in failures great and small.

jb
i don't have notions of how the world should be - that's your thing.  your notions are inelastic - i have a problem with inelasticity, period. --part1_22.1cb0baae.28eb9acc_boundary-- From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:37:24 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:37:24 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NONE --part1_8c.d68c023.28eb9ba4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:16:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, carey@tstonramp.com writes: > > > > > > I had to reread what I said to get your context: > > Here's what I actually said: > > I don't remember reading that he said that ... IN FACt, the mix between > > assimilation and cultural heritage is what makes this a pretty damn sexy > > nation. > > which I wholeheartedly agree with. > > Youquoted me saying : > > Perhaps you can't. But I think there's still a lot more logic in the > sensible secular government idea thrown around by Russell /Jeff than > having a discriminatory system that is apparently and obviously NOT > WORKING. > > > Which I also agree with. I don't see the dichotomy of those statements. > Having a rich cultural heritage is good, having it be run by a > religious government is bad. ERgo why the US system is something I dig, > but I can't possibly understand a rigid, religiously based political > system that is neither rich, but instead is very segregated, rigid and > boring. > > Not calling Jews or the state of Jewishness boring per se, but its my > general philosophy that the more you lump together the better the > environment is. Israel (at least in the context of these conversations, > and my limited knowledge ) is rather happy just being jewish. Good for > but what matters to us as americans is that we honor what they like rather than impose what we like. to what degree we decide to honor is the debate. --part1_8c.d68c023.28eb9ba4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:16:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, carey@tstonramp.com writes:







I had to reread what I said to get your context:

Here's what I actually said:

I don't remember reading that he said that ... IN FACt, the mix between

assimilation and cultural heritage is what makes this a pretty damn sexy

nation.

which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Youquoted me saying :

Perhaps you can't.  But I think there's still a lot more logic in the
sensible secular government idea thrown around by Russell /Jeff than
having a discriminatory system that is apparently and obviously NOT
WORKING.


Which I also agree with.  I don't see the dichotomy of those statements.
 Having a rich cultural heritage is good, having it be run by a
religious government is bad.  ERgo why the US system is something I dig,
but I can't possibly understand a rigid, religiously based political
system that is neither rich, but instead is very segregated, rigid and
boring.

Not calling Jews or the state of Jewishness boring per se, but its my
general philosophy that the more you lump together the better the
environment is.  Israel (at least in the context of these conversations,
and my limited knowledge ) is rather happy just being jewish.  Good for
them, but I don't necessarily like it


but what matters to us as americans is that we honor what they like rather than impose what we like.  to what degree we decide to honor is the debate. --part1_8c.d68c023.28eb9ba4_boundary-- From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:35:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:35:56 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Geege v. Jeff, the Title Bout (only on FPV - FoRKPerView) Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > i don't have notions of how the world should be - that's your thing. For crying out loud. Let's get off the should thing, shall we? Do we need an RFC-style document formally defining terms like MUST, SHOULD, MAY? Cf. [1] > your notions are inelastic - i have a problem with inelasticity, > period. That's a good attack. Not sure how to respond to it. Applying the concept of elasticity to something as inherently elastic as "notions" is a bit confusing... I'll also point out that *you yourself* have in the past --- not up for a bout of e-mail archaeology, but I'm sure this is accurate --- accused me of taking positions that aren't stable *enough* to be taken, i.e. endlessly refining and restating and shifting positions. That doesn't sound inelastic, does it? (Your own words in that context belie your claim of change-aversion on my part. Which is it, Geege? Make up your mind, we can play it either way you want. Just be consistent.) I like to think my process is to take a position and hold it until and only until a weakness or invalidity or inconsistency is demonstrated, at which point said position is repaired if possible or abandoned. That's the desired process though I'm sure it isn't always achieved. Which "inelastic" notions in particular are you talking about? jb [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:45:51 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:45:51 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: Geege v. Jeff, the Title Bout (only on FPV - FoRKPerView) --part1_77.1c02a3dc.28eb9d9f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:44:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > Which "inelastic" notions in particular are you talking about? > > jb > > let's take this off fork. --part1_77.1c02a3dc.28eb9d9f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:44:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


Which "inelastic" notions in particular are you talking about?

jb



let's take this off fork. --part1_77.1c02a3dc.28eb9d9f_boundary-- From carey@tstonramp.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:48:54 -0800 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 15:48:54 -0800 From: carey carey@tstonramp.com Subject: NONE Geege said.. but what matters to us as americans is that we honor what they like rather than impose what we like. to what degree we decide to honor is the debate. Do you honestly believe this? If so, I have a few history lessons. Germany, Japan, most of South America (re drugs), Russia, China... the list can continue In each case we have hinted, forced or otherwise imposed what we like unto the situation. Sometimes this has been good (we've stopped human rights abuses, we've destroyed some of the mass inequality that prevailed, or removed slavery) othertimes, its been purely political or in my opinon selfish (Kosovo, Iraq). Could you honestly consience a country where rampant abuses were going on (the people were starving, denied rights and utterly destroyed by the ruling government -- probably numerous examples that my migrane brain isn't coming up with ) and we sat by with your mentality of 'we need to honor what they like'? I couldn't. From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:42:20 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 17:42:20 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NONE Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > but what matters to us as americans is that we honor what they like > rather than impose what we like. to what degree we decide to honor > is the debate. Only to the extent that it does not threaten our own prosperity, stability, etc. --- our culture, if you will, or at least its observable effects. Once that happens, the gloves are off. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, but if any party makes it a zero-sum game, then "we" owe it to ourselves to "win" if we can. If as some have suggested this is a showdown between some pretty scary memes --- secular vs. nonsecular gov't, discrimination vs. equality, tribalism vs. egalitarianism, pluralism vs. monoculture --- then my argument would be that we have no obligation to honor the desires of those whose preferred systems threaten ours by their very existance. If that's the case --- and whether or not that's the case is another (and IMO more important) part of the debate. jb From garym@canada.com 02 Oct 2001 19:39:43 -0400 Date: 02 Oct 2001 19:39:43 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy >>>>> "R" == Russell Turpin writes: R> ... On the dollar bill in my hand, there is a picture of a R> pyramid. Does this mean the US government is based on Egyptian R> principles? I find it very hard to believe that an educated person would not know the meaning of that symbol and why it is on their money. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso) From garym@canada.com 02 Oct 2001 19:58:36 -0400 Date: 02 Oct 2001 19:58:36 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy Just for fun: http://www.forerunner.com/mandate/X0043_Five_Functions_of_Go.html For the record, though, it is common knowledge that the constitution of the United States owes the bulk of it's basis to the constitition of the native american federations, of which Ben Franklin and others were respected observers. There is, after all, a good reason the Boston Tea Party was executed in native garb. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso) From cdale@techmonkeys.net Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:29:14 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:29:14 -0500 (CDT) From: CDale cdale@techmonkeys.net Subject: Geege v. Jeff, the Title Bout (only on FPV - FoRKPerView) SOMEONE FILL THE JELLO VAT@#! -- "My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not signed." (Christopher Morley) From gojomo@usa.net Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:40:47 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:40:47 -0700 From: Gordon Mohr gojomo@usa.net Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy Gary Lawrence Murphy writes: > >>>>> "R" == Russell Turpin writes: > > R> ... On the dollar bill in my hand, there is a picture of a > R> pyramid. Does this mean the US government is based on Egyptian > R> principles? > > I find it very hard to believe that an educated person would not > know the meaning of that symbol and why it is on their money. I was educated. I didn't know. (Do you have a hard time believing many things?) I've probably read the reasoning several times before, but for some reason the details didn't stick. So, checking, I found: http://www.ustreas.gov/opc/opc0085.html#eye%20and%20pyramid Q: What is the significance of the symbols on the back of the one-dollar bill? I'm particularly interested in the eye and the pyramid. A: The eye and the pyramid shown on the reverse side of the one-dollar bill are in the Great Seal of the United States. The Great Seal was first used on the reverse of the one-dollar Federal Reserve note in 1935. The Department of State is the official keeper of the Seal. They believe that the most accurate explanation of a pyramid on the Great Seal is that it symbolizes strength and durability. The unfinished pyramid means that the United States will always grow, improve and build. In addition, the "All-Seeing Eye" located above the pyramid suggests the importance of divine guidance in favor of the American cause. The inscription ANNUIT COEPTIS translates as "He (God) has favored our undertakings," and refers to the many instances of Divine Providence during our Government's formation. In addition, the inscription NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM translates as "A new order of the ages," and signifies a new American era. - Gordon From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:55:30 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 20:55:30 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: what jeff and i discuss off-fork --part1_f8.1070c3fc.28ebbc02_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Seriously, flaccid pickles creep me out." sorry, i had to do it. :-) (reminds me of when w bush, aftter meeting pm tony blair for the first time, said "we found we have a lot in common. for instance, we both like colgate toothpaste." to which blair responded "now we'll have to provide the context or people might wonder..." ) (btw, anybody catch blair's speech today? the post-speech press analysis focused on blair "going further than bush"in his promise to exact justice. i focused on his promise to support - and his expectation of "other nations" to support - the kyoto treaty. likening global warming to terrorism, he said "we have the wit and the will to find solutions.") hmmmm, geege --part1_f8.1070c3fc.28ebbc02_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Seriously, flaccid pickles creep me out."  

sorry, i had to do it.  :-)

(reminds me of when w bush, aftter meeting pm tony blair for the first time, said "we found we have a lot in common. for instance, we both like colgate toothpaste." to which blair responded "now we'll have to provide the context or people might wonder..." )

(btw, anybody catch blair's speech today?  the post-speech press analysis focused on blair "going further than bush"in his promise to exact justice.  i focused on his promise to support - and his expectation of "other nations" to support - the kyoto treaty. likening global warming to terrorism, he said "we have the wit and the will to find solutions.")

hmmmm,
geege --part1_f8.1070c3fc.28ebbc02_boundary-- From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:07:29 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:07:29 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NONE --part1_29.1ba19581.28ebbed1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:46:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, carey@tstonramp.com writes: > probably > numerous examples that my migrane brain isn't coming up with ) and we > sat by with your mentality of 'we need to honor what they like'? > > I couldn't. > caveats abound, naturally, but what should be taken for granted is that honoring "what they like" is not in contention with what we believe to be right and good. i was addressing, specifically, the Jewish beliefs. no need to globalize that one statement into absurdity. please. --part1_29.1ba19581.28ebbed1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 6:46:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, carey@tstonramp.com writes:


probably
numerous examples that my migrane brain isn't coming up with ) and we
sat by with your mentality of 'we need to honor what they like'?

I couldn't.


caveats abound, naturally, but what should be taken for granted is that honoring "what they like" is not in contention with what we believe to be right and good.  i was addressing, specifically, the Jewish beliefs.  no need to globalize that one statement  into absurdity.  please. --part1_29.1ba19581.28ebbed1_boundary-- From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:22:01 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:22:01 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_114.56f8920.28ebc239_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 11:54:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, deafbox@hotmail.com writes: > Until all such reactionaries expand their imagination and > liberalize their theology, these wars will burn. I hope > the rest of us can help you down that path before these > wars are fought with nuclear and biological weapons. > > Russell > > > er, wait. i don't think you understand that i'm explaining, not defending. and as paul said, it's culture, not religion. the u.s is as xenophobic as the next country, don't kid yourself. which came first, the tribe or the religion? geege --part1_114.56f8920.28ebc239_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 11:54:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, deafbox@hotmail.com writes:


Until all such reactionaries expand their imagination and
liberalize their theology, these wars will burn. I hope
the rest of us can help you down that path before these
wars are fought with nuclear and biological weapons.

Russell




er, wait. i don't think you understand that i'm explaining, not defending. and as paul said, it's culture, not religion.  the u.s is as xenophobic as the next country, don't kid yourself.

which came first, the tribe or the religion?
geege --part1_114.56f8920.28ebc239_boundary-- From sdw@lig.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:26:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:26:19 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/2/01 12:08:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > jbone@jump.net writes: > > > any of several dimensions. (E) Infectious memes that organize > individuals > into superorganisms endowed with a belief in their own moral > superiority, i.e., > "we are the chosen people of God / we are genetically superior and > intellectually more gifted / etc." > > All of these things are problems, and humans can choose to let go of > such > primitive, outdated beliefs or cling to them and suffer the > consequences. > > jb > > GLARINGINLY RIDIC: so you haven't just endowed yourself with moral and > intellectual superiority by calling someone else's belief system > primitive and outdated? can't you manage to invoke the first without > casting down all those "others" around you? aren't your preaching here, > jeff, or don't you recognize your own religion? > > you should have thought of this years ago and claimed tax-free status. Is this 'relativism' that I keep hearing about? (If not, please educate me on the difference.) We can decide, with at least some degree of self-critical neutrality, that a certain practice or belief is 'superior'. Of course superiority has to be measured on various axis, but this isn't too hard when comparing cultures, beliefs, and practices. It's also not too hard in many cases to sort those ideas into more and less primitive. Do I really need to point out examples? Now, if you are comparing a raw religion with another without refering to a specific cultural expression, then things are much more foggy. Even socialism/Marxism/communism was once a possible rational experiment area, now disproved by a hundred years of failed attempts and deeper psycho-social understanding. sdw -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From Grlygrl201@aol.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:33:07 EDT Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:33:07 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_150.1ee1a8a.28ebc4d3_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 9:27:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sdw@lig.net writes: > We can decide, with at least some degree of self-critical neutrality, > that a certain practice or belief is 'superior'. Of course superiority > has to be measured on various axis, but this isn't too hard when > comparing cultures, beliefs, and practices. It's also not too hard in > many cases to sort those ideas into more and less primitive. Do I > really need to point out examples? sure, go for it. with self-critical neutrality, why don't you list in descending order of superiority some cultures, beliefs and practices? geege --part1_150.1ee1a8a.28ebc4d3_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/2/01 9:27:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sdw@lig.net writes:


We can decide, with at least some degree of self-critical neutrality,
that a certain practice or belief is 'superior'.  Of course superiority
has to be measured on various axis, but this isn't too hard when
comparing cultures, beliefs, and practices.  It's also not too hard in
many cases to sort those ideas into more and less primitive.  Do I
really need to point out examples?
sure, go for it.  with self-critical neutrality, why don't you list in descending order of superiority some cultures, beliefs and practices?

geege --part1_150.1ee1a8a.28ebc4d3_boundary-- From webtagz@yahoo.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:36:23 -0700 (PDT) From: rudy rouhana webtagz@yahoo.com Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy Dude, let's get academic about the dollar bill! Here is a very educated assessment of the symbols on the dollar bill ;) http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/onedollarbill.html With some das_boot'ish midi action going on in the background... -R --- Gordon Mohr wrote: > Gary Lawrence Murphy writes: > > >>>>> "R" == Russell Turpin writes: > > > > R> ... On the dollar bill in my hand, there is a picture of a > > R> pyramid. Does this mean the US government is based on Egyptian > > R> principles? > > > > I find it very hard to believe that an educated person would not > > know the meaning of that symbol and why it is on their money. > > I was educated. I didn't know. (Do you have a hard time > believing many things?) > > I've probably read the reasoning several times before, but > for some reason the details didn't stick. So, checking, I > found: > > http://www.ustreas.gov/opc/opc0085.html#eye%20and%20pyramid > > Q: What is the significance of the symbols on the back of > the one-dollar bill? I'm particularly interested in the > eye and the pyramid. > > A: The eye and the pyramid shown on the reverse side of > the one-dollar bill are in the Great Seal of the United > States. The Great Seal was first used on the reverse of > the one-dollar Federal Reserve note in 1935. The > Department of State is the official keeper of the Seal. > They believe that the most accurate explanation of a > pyramid on the Great Seal is that it symbolizes strength > and durability. The unfinished pyramid means that the > United States will always grow, improve and build. In > addition, the "All-Seeing Eye" located above the pyramid > suggests the importance of divine guidance in favor of > the American cause. The inscription ANNUIT COEPTIS > translates as "He (God) has favored our undertakings," > and refers to the many instances of Divine Providence > during our Government's formation. In addition, the > inscription NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM translates as "A new > order of the ages," and signifies a new American era. > > - Gordon > > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com From sdw@lig.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:11:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:11:07 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/2/01 9:27:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > sdw@lig.net writes: > >> We can decide, with at least some degree of self-critical neutrality, >> that a certain practice or belief is 'superior'. Of course superiority >> has to be measured on various axis, but this isn't too hard when >> comparing cultures, beliefs, and practices. It's also not too hard in >> many cases to sort those ideas into more and less primitive. Do I >> really need to point out examples? > > > > sure, go for it. with self-critical neutrality, why don't you list in > descending order of superiority some cultures, beliefs and practices? > > geege I know better, but here are a few stream-of-thought responses: (Order within groups is not clearcut and depends on your axis precedence. For instance, I tend to think that France's romantic social fabric is more advanced and more healthy than the US's traditional puritanical views in certain aspects (i.e. adultary). At the same time, they are too trusting of socialism-flavor governance. In other words, personal relationships seem smoother there (France) and business/citizen relationships seem smoother here (US).) Overall social/political/cultural performance: best practice (to date): US/CA/GB/FR/AUS/NZ/Others, modern era Japan (racist, government confusion), India (red tape, the rest is a guess as I have little data and only stories from Indian friends) Emerging: N. Ireland, Cuba, Brazil (fragmented knowledge: they don't have outright genocide, however Brazil's abuse of natives and street-orphans isn't very civilized.) Note that these are mostly modern with minor political gaps. Russia is in the US Chicago gangster era, or just after on the axis of economic system evolution. It hopefully can progress through the various stages quickly but it could take a generation or two to completely saturate in the system. China (pre-democratic gov., etc.) Primitive: Congo, Afghanistan (canabalism-derived culture, genocide, abuse of women, death sentences for everything) Primitive and/or horrifically regressive meme disease: Regimes of: Pol Pot, Hitler, Ivan the Terrible (maybe), Spanish Inquisition On other axis: Medical care: Modern medical care vs. witch doctors vs. faith healing vs. leaving the injured (The best way to fund medicine in general is up in the air. Is it more like defense or entertainment? Very confusing.) Forms of gov: Representative Democracy with modern features ('safety net', defense, certain regulation) vs. Communism/Socialism Owning Housing: The US system of mortgages/banks/Fanny Mae/investors simple banks/investors/mortgages indentured servants feudal systems I won't go into detailed resolution here, but it's pretty plain on a case by case basis: Humanism (AHA see: humanist.net) Progressive/adaptive/positive Religion (For some definition of progressive) Orthodox religion (for some definition of orthodox) Oppressive religion (those that cause unnecessary mental anguish and dysfunction) abusive and/or militant religion (any religion that actively attacks others) This ones easy, right? (Guess again.) Rational Irrational sdw From wbaisley@enspherics.com Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:19:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:19:24 -0500 From: Wayne E Baisley wbaisley@enspherics.com Subject: How can this be justified? > To the extent that we empower superorganisms to act adverse to the > interests of any individual it should be done carefully and minimally. > For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? Why does anyone > need a "homeland" in this day and age? A breathtaking transition from "people's interests are supreme" to "people, who cares what they want", and in just 24 hours! I musta missed some something. Cheers, Wayne "As with the old Greek innkeeper Procrustes, the utopians either stretched the human organism to the arbitrary dimensions of the utopian bed, or they lopped off its limbs." Lewis Mumford "Someone keeps moving my chair." TMBG From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:58:31 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:58:31 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy Gordon Mohr wrote: > Gary Lawrence Murphy writes: > > >>>>> "R" == Russell Turpin writes: > > > > R> ... On the dollar bill in my hand, there is a picture of a > > R> pyramid. Does this mean the US government is based on Egyptian > > R> principles? > > > > I find it very hard to believe that an educated person would not > > know the meaning of that symbol and why it is on their money. > > I was educated. I didn't know. (Do you have a hard time > believing many things?) In Gordon's defense: I didn't know this either until seeking it out. jb From jbone@jump.net Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:59:38 -0500 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:59:38 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: what jeff and i discuss off-fork Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > "Seriously, flaccid pickles creep me out." > > sorry, i had to do it. :-) Yeah, well. It's good to know that we all have broad interests. ;-) > (btw, anybody catch blair's speech today? the post-speech press > analysis focused on blair "going further than bush"in his promise > to exact justice. i focused on his promise to support - and his > expectation of "other nations" to support - the kyoto treaty. > likening global warming to terrorism, he said "we have the wit and > the will to find solutions.") I really dig Blair. Anybody else? jb From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:00:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:00:57 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NONE Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > caveats abound, naturally, but what should be taken for granted is > that honoring "what they like" is not in contention with what we > believe to be right and good. No, that should not be taken for granted. Survival is tantamount. That's a root context for evaluating all other considerations. jb From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:05:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:05:09 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel "Stephen D. Williams" wrote: > We can decide, with at least some degree of self-critical neutrality, > that a certain practice or belief is 'superior'. Of course superiority > has to be measured on various axis, but this isn't too hard when > comparing cultures, beliefs, and practices. It's also not too hard in > many cases to sort those ideas into more and less primitive. Do I > really need to point out examples? Thank you, Stephen. For me, one axis that makes sense when considering "societal forms" and their instantiation in gov't and law is the old yet vague and probably undefinable economic saw: "maximum prosperity for the maximum number of people." Yes, this is a value judgement --- but one based on lowest common denominator values that even ideological adversaries can agree on... > Now, if you are comparing a raw religion with another without refering > to a specific cultural expression, then things are much more foggy. > Even socialism/Marxism/communism was once a possible rational experiment > area, now disproved by a hundred years of failed attempts and deeper > psycho-social understanding. Exactly. I have nothing against Marxism in principle; it's that it's just as disproven as a pragmatic socioeconomic system as, say, Lamarckian evolution is in biology --- probably even moreso. Whatever works, mon. jb From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:09:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:09:11 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Christianity, US government, democracy rudy rouhana wrote: > With some das_boot'ish midi action going on in the background... Mas culture props to Rudy for the Das Boot reference, what're we gettin' all Dennis Millerish, babes? ;-) jb From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:11:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:11:24 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Wayne E Baisley wrote: > A breathtaking transition from "people's interests are supreme" to > "people, who cares what they want", and in just 24 hours! I musta > missed some something. You missed the part where "the people" != "the individuals that make up said people." Tyranny of the majority, democracy as a flawed system, survival of the fittest meme, etc. etc. etc. Sometimes it's just a fact: the users don't always know what's best for them. ;-) And they can't ever be relied on to tell us what's best for "us" in any case. ;-) :-) (half serious) jb From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:36:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 00:36:59 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Against Ideology I wanted to quote a whole selection from an incredibly provocative book [1] I've read several times now, for which my opinions have yet to converge... I can't decide it this book is more like _The Bell Curve_ (stinker, in my opinion) or _The Panda's Thumb_ (great book.) Would love to get some critical feedback on it, but can't seem to generate any response on it. (My opinion has run from "screed" circa a year or more ago to "extremely cogent if slanted" in light of recent events. It is, unassailably, well-researched.) I think this quote strikes right at the heart of many of our perenniel debates... "An ideology is usually a high-minded mask for a group's itch to take power and resources from other social groups. It's a meme - a cluster of ideas anxious to fatten on the substance of a superorganism's neighbors. Hans Morgenthau, [2 -jb] [cf. 3 -jb] the political theorist, has said that men don't willingly accept the truth about human nature and especially political nature. The aim of politics, Morgenthau says, is not to make people better or to alleviate misery; it is to increase the power of another man or group of men. Morgenthau says our enemies are never as bad as we make them out to be, and we are never as good as we think. We're convinced we're MORAL. [my emphasis -jb] And we know damn well that our enemy is only our for power and resources, but has no morals at all. Yet, we, too, are out for power and resources. And our enemy, like us, has a moral sense. He uses that moral sense just as we do, says Morgenthau, to narrow the aperture of his consciousness and ignore is appetite for power." I submit that this provides a powerful objective lens with which to view the political motivations of any sociopolitical system, whether communism, fascism, totalitarianism, democracy, libertarianism, social democracy, socialism, Marxism, pure capitalism, Islamism, or Zionism. Or any other -ism. To hesitantly quote a suspect but (I suspect) sage moment of pop culture from my formative years [4]... Ferris Bueller: Ferris: It's not that I condone facism....or any "ism" for that matter. "Isms" in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an "ism", they should believe in themself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles...I just believe in me." A good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus, I'd still have to bum rides off of people! While I thankfully don't (yet, pending further economic disaster) have to bum rides off people, I couldn't otherwise agree more. :-) jb [1] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0871136643/ [2] Herman Harvey intv. -w- Morgenthau, tape, Sum and Substance, Newport Books on Tape [3] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275967379/ [4] http://www.moviesounds.com/ferrisb.html From fork_list@hotmail.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:01:10 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:01:10 -0700 From: Mr. FoRK fork_list@hotmail.com Subject: Mesh-Based Content Routing using XML Sounds cool... but can you use it to chat? == http://www.psrg.lcs.mit.edu/publications/Papers/xml-sosp01.html Mesh-Based Content Routing using XML Alex C. Snoeren, Kenneth Conley, and David K. Gifford 18th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles, Banff, Canada, October 2001 We have developed a new approach for reliably multicasting time-critical data to heterogeneous clients over mesh-based overlay networks. To facilitate intelligent content pruning, data streams are comprised of a sequence of XML packets and forwarded by application-level XML routers. XML routers perform content-based routing of individual XML packets to other routers or clients based upon queries that describe the information needs of down-stream nodes. Our PC-based XML router prototype can route an 18 Mbit per second XML stream. Our routers use a novel Diversity Control Protocol (DCP) for router-to-router and router-to-client communication. DCP reassembles a received stream of packets from one or more senders using the first copy of a packet to arrive from any sender. When each node is connected to n parents, the resulting network is resilient to (n-1) router or independent link failures without repair. Associated mesh algorithms permit the system to recover to (n-1) resilience after node and/or link failure. We have deployed a distributed network of XML routers that streams real-time air traffic control data. Experimental results show multiple senders improve reliability and latency when compared to tree-based networks. From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:02:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:02:56 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel "Stephen D. Williams" wrote: > Primitive: > Congo, Afghanistan (canabalism-derived culture, genocide, abuse of > women, death sentences for everything) Agreed. Add to the list: any gov't where some particular genetic makeup or faith-based belief structure is the basis for citizenship / full rights or where some faith-based belief structure is the basis of justice, i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq -- though interestingly Iraq is less so (i.e. more secular) than most other Arab / Islamic societies, perhaps besides Jordan -- Pakistan, the Balkans (who knows?), maybe Turkey (again, who knows?), Yemen, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and... our favorite buddy, Israel... the list goes on. I'm not sure whether any / all of these are borderline between your "primitive" category and the "primitive / horrifically regressive meme disease" categories. Having an Sbarro or McDonald's franchise does not an advanced culture (read, less provocatively: compatible with "Western culture") make... The problem isn't the "3rd world" anymore: it's the 2nd-world, 2nd-dimension --- 2D being basis for social inclusion / exclusion... > Medical care: > Modern medical care vs. witch doctors vs. faith healing vs. leaving the > injured > (The best way to fund medicine in general is up in the air. Is it more > like defense or entertainment? Very confusing.) I would submit that judging countries on the basis of available medical care is a bit misleading --- it's hard to have first-class medical care when all your dollars are spent on guns, not butter... > Owning Housing: > The US system of mortgages/banks/Fanny Mae/investors > simple banks/investors/mortgages > indentured servants > feudal systems Perhaps controversally, I would submit that "indentured servitude" is a qualitatively different thing than "slavery" --- it is the result of a mutually-agreeable and time-limited contract entered into between two parties, and I can't think of any good reason why this shouldn't be permissible if both parties consent to it. For instance, why shouldn't I be able to sell myself into sexual servitude to Geege for $500k a year for four years, if that's what she wants? ;-) On the whole: rational, Stephen. jb From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:24:41 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:24:41 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: [Fwd: Against Ideology] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------DB866039A39A335DE898A409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Woops, forgot the list, maybe this is pertinent... --------------DB866039A39A335DE898A409 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Message-ID: <3BBAAF0F.64502BFE@jump.net> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:24:15 -0500 From: Jeff Bone X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Atkins Subject: Re: Against Ideology References: <3BBAA3FB.FDFFB712@jump.net> <3BBAAE92.A905E6BB@posthuman.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian Atkins wrote: > Jeff Bone wrote: > > > > (snip Jeff and Bloom rediscover what any ole evolutionary psychologist > could tell you about overgrown monkey behavior) Interestingly... there's a whole section of said book devoted to monkey behavior. Like most pop "science" books, this isn't devoted to discovery rather it's devoted to spreading the recognition. Ironic isn't it that most humans don't even recognize when they're acting like monkeys... > Don't have a cow man. Yes, based on what we know nowadays we can see > that most ideologies are flawed. However there also are some relatively > recent ones that have learned from these mistakes, and those shouldn't > be thrown out with the others. You and me, Brian, we're like this --> <-- on this issue. It's unfortunate that so many can't recognize the same things... if only more people understood and internalized (and applied) evopsych. jb --------------DB866039A39A335DE898A409-- From fork_list@hotmail.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:31:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:31:15 -0700 From: Mr. FoRK fork_list@hotmail.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel > Primitive: > Congo, Afghanistan (canabalism-derived culture, genocide, abuse of > women, death sentences for everything) Canabalism culture? In the Congo? I'm from the Congo... got any links to back that up? From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:30:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:30:54 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel "Mr. FoRK" wrote: > > Primitive: > > Congo, Afghanistan (canabalism-derived culture, genocide, abuse of > > women, death sentences for everything) > Canabalism culture? In the Congo? I'm from the Congo... got any links to > back that up? Just the last time you and your mama ate that neighbor from one "village" over. We've got video. Want us to post? M'Bwihg'gambamba looks pretty narsty roasting on that spit. What kind of name is "Mr. Fork" anyway? ;-) jb From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:43:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:43:11 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Spam but possibly interesting to the writers onlist This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4E4476C354433EF43574D307 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------4E4476C354433EF43574D307 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from mail22.jump.net (mail22.jump.net [206.196.91.22]) by blanco.clickfeed.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f936fZl28665 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:41:41 -0500 Received: from yourarticle.net (host213-123-251-159.in-addr.btopenworld.com [213.123.251.159]) by mail22.jump.net (8.11.6/) with SMTP id f936fT210064 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 01:41:29 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <200110030641.f936fT210064@mail22.jump.net> From: "Ian Richards" To: Subject: Your Article - The Journalistic Portal for Copy Sender: "Ian Richards" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:41:50 +0100 Reply-To: "Ian Richards" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Hello Since the launch of www.yourarticle.net there has been a considerable uptake of registration from Editors, Journalists, PR Agencies, Corporate Press Offices and Authors throughout North America, Europe, Asia and the Pacific. The web site has now been further enhanced with the latest technology to facilitate ease of use in both downloading and uploading articles and now thanks to sponsorship its completely FREE TO USE - Just register on line. If you haven't already registered take a moment to do so at www.yourarticle.net and benefit from the foremost global portal for journalistic copy. Its completely FREE OF CHARGE, whether you're just looking for content or wish to upload an article or press release for others to view or use. We hope you find Your Article of benefit Ian Richards www.yourarticle.net Please forward this email to a colleague if you think it would be of interest to them If you have received this email in error or wish to have your email address removed from our data base, please send a blank email to remove@yourarticle.net and your email address will be immediately removed from our data base. --------------4E4476C354433EF43574D307-- From fork_list@hotmail.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:59:39 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 23:59:39 -0700 From: Mr. FoRK fork_list@hotmail.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel > What kind of name is "Mr. Fork" anyway? An assumed name. For no particular reason. From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:00:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:00:11 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel "Mr. FoRK" wrote: > > What kind of name is "Mr. Fork" anyway? > An assumed name. For no particular reason. Okay, I'm satisfied by that. BTW, I'm not sure the "cannibalism" comment was actually justifiable from facts. jb From khare@w3.org Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:09:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 03:09:52 -0400 (EDT) From: khare@w3.org khare@w3.org Subject: NYTimes.com Article: Eastern Middle School This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by khare@w3.org. An excellent reminder: fundamentalism can abuse jetliners, but never manufacture them! That civil society -- PTAs and trade shows -- are more important than political society! --RK khare@w3.org Eastern Middle School October 2, 2001 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN I recently attended meet-the-teacher night at Eastern Middle School, my daughter Natalie's school in Silver Spring, Md. The evening began with the principal noting that Eastern, a public school in suburban Washington, had 40 different nationalities among its students. Before the teachers were introduced, the school's choir and orchestra, a Noah's ark of black, Hispanic, Asian and white kids, led everyone in "God Bless America." There was something about the way those kids sang together, and the earnest, if not always melodious, way the school orchestra pounded out the National Anthem, that was both moving and soothing. As I took in the scene, it occurred to me how much the Islamic terrorists who just hit America do not understand about America. Their constant refrain is that America is a country with wealth and power but "no values." The Islamic terrorists think our wealth and power is unrelated to anything in the soul of this country - that we are basically a godless nation, indeed the enemies of God. And if you are an enemy of God you deserve to die. These terrorists believe that wealth and power can be achieved only by giving up your values, because they look at places such as Saudi Arabia and see that many of the wealthy and powerful there lead lives disconnected from their faith. Of course, what this view of America completely misses is that American power and wealth flow directly from a deep spiritual source - a spirit of respect for the individual, a spirit of tolerance for differences of faith or politics, a respect for freedom of thought as the necessary foundation for all creativity and a spirit of unity that encompasses all kinds of differences. Only a society with a deep spiritual energy, that welcomes immigrants and worships freedom, could constantly renew itself and its sources of power and wealth. Which is why the terrorists can hijack Boeing planes, but in the spiritless, monolithic societies they want to build, they could never produce them. The terrorists can exploit the U.S.- made Internet, but in their suffocated world of one God, one truth, one way, one leader, they could never invent it. Lord knows, ours is hardly a perfect country. Many times we have deviated from the American spirit or applied it selfishly. But it is because we come back to this spirit more times than not, in more communities than not, that our country remains both strong and renewable. Why can't we convey that? In part, we're to blame. President Bush denigrated Washington during his campaign and repeated the selfish mantra about the surplus that "it's your money - not the government's money." How thankful we are today that we have a Washington, D.C., with its strong institutions - FEMA, the F.A.A., the F.B.I. and armed forces - not to mention a surplus to help manage our way out of this crisis. In part we don't talk about these issues so we don't embarrass our autocratic allies in the Middle East. But this negative view of America as a nation that achieved wealth and power without any spiritual values is also deliberately nurtured by governments and groups in the Middle East. It is a way of explaining away their own failures to deliver a better life for their own people: The Americans are powerful only because they stole from us or from others - not because of anything intrinsically spiritual or humane in their society. A society that will dig until it has found every body in the World Trade Center rubble - because at some level it believes every individual is created in the image of God - a society that raises $600 million for the victims in two weeks, is a godless, spiritless place? Guess again. These terrorists so misread America. They think our strength lies only in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - the twin pillars of our wealth and power - and if they can just knock them down we'll start to fold: as if we, like them, have only one truth, one power center. Actually, our strength lies in the slightly dilapidated gym of Eastern Middle School on parent-teacher night, and in thousands of such schools across the land. That is where you'll find the spirit that built the twin towers and can build them over again anytime we please. So in these troubled times, if you want to feel reassured about how strong this country is, or what we're fighting to preserve, just attend a P.T.A. meeting. It's all there, hiding in plain sight. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/opinion/02FRIE.html?ex=1003092992&ei=1&en=48ac8250aa15f393 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson Racer at alyson@nytimes.com or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to help@nytimes.com. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:18:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:18:14 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: NYTimes.com Article: Eastern Middle School khare@w3.org wrote: > This article from NYTimes.com > has been sent to you by khare@w3.org. > > An excellent reminder: fundamentalism can abuse jetliners, but never manufacture them! That civil society -- PTAs and trade shows -- are more important than political society! --RK Cutting right to the point, our fearless leader as always exercises laser precision... (no sarcasm at all in this, total sincerity. Nice sum, RK.) Criticisms of the text below... > Why can't we convey that? In part, we're to blame. > President Bush denigrated Washington during his campaign > and repeated the selfish mantra about the surplus that > "it's your money - not the government's money." How > thankful we are today that we have a Washington, D.C., with > its strong institutions - FEMA, the F.A.A., the F.B.I. and > armed forces - not to mention a surplus to help manage our > way out of this crisis. And now the political motivation comes out. Is all this a universally-accepted set of truths? I don't think so. > In part we don't talk about these issues so we don't > embarrass our autocratic allies in the Middle East. "Political expediency." Even more than those allies, we don't want to alienate their supporters "back home." Given their political clout, contributions, and our dependency of domestic business on the output of those allies, etc... > A society that will dig until it has found every body in > the World Trade Center rubble - because at some level it > believes every individual is created in the image of God - > a society that raises $600 million for the victims in two > weeks, is a godless, spiritless place? Guess again. "It" (our society) doesn't have to be "Godful." It just has to have a conscience. Or, more precisely, "it" doesn't have to have (indeed cannot have) anything at all --- the individuals that make it up have to have those qualities. We the individuals of the United States have demonstrated these qualities in spades these days... jb From paul@ActiveState.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:07:56 -0700 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 01:07:56 -0700 From: Paul Prescod paul@ActiveState.com Subject: How can this be justified? Jeff Bone wrote: > >... > > Nor did I say we have such ability. We do have (civilized) tools at our disposal, for > instance complete economic and social isolation. On principle alone. Regardless of the practical consequences. >... > > "Culture" is even more abstract and vague than "ethnicity" or "religion." Life is full of vague abstractions. Especially when you are discussing sociology and geopolitics. I'm sorry to force you to discuss things you are uncomfortable with. > > We could argue that the two people should be able to share the same land > > and create a merged, democractic, color/culture-blind > > Israeli/Palestinian state. Only that's not what anyone wants. So why > > offer it to them? > > Guess what? The purpose of "law" in the large --- systems of government, etc. --- isn't > to give everyone what they want. The purpose of international law is basically to prevent wars. Justice and consistency are distant second places. Giving people what they want -- to the degree that is possible -- helps to prevent wars. > ... This is a complete myth propagated by demagogues in > promotion of *all* systems of gov't: communism, fascism, democracy. The purpose of any > legal and governmental framework is or should be to encourage coexistance while > maximizing personal choice. Those are, IMO, the universally-shared desired results. That's your belief. Practitioners of sharia would obviously disagree. Insofar as we have to share a planet with them, we'll have to learn to compromise and they hopefully will also. >... > > We could claim that the original idea was bad and thus merely "dissolve" > > the state of Israel through a choice not to recognize it as a state. We > > could stand back and watch the war that ensues after we give up any > > leverage on them, knowing that we did the Right Thing from a principled > > point of view. > > Perhaps this is the pragmatic solution --- i.e., if it can be determined that there will > *never* be peace in the Middle East (and possibly the world) until one or the other side > has completely dominated the region, How could you ever determine such a thing? > ... then perhaps we should let regional geopolitics run > its course rather than continuing to artificially support either side. I think you are attracted to this solution because it is simple. That's a little scary. >... > Feh. We need to figure out where "here" and "there" are before we act. "Here" is an oppressor and an underclass that wants them destroyed in one and a half states. "There" is two equal states with hopefully cordial relations. This solution is complicated in a lot of ways (that's why they've been negotiating it for years) but it is also the one that most acknowledges human nature and the state of the world. > .... And given how > abysmally we've failed in our policies in this regard all along --- always supporting > bad guys against temporarily even-badder guys until they're gone, at which point the bad > guys we supported turn around and bite the hand that feeds them --- I think the > discussion has a ways to go, yet. That strategy won the cold war. A "simpler" solution probably would not have. Perhaps I am a sentimentalist because I recognize that there are no easy solutions to the Middle East and I don't think that it would be productive to impose a solution that seems simple to us, like merely "outlawing" culture-specific states. Paul Prescod From Grlygrl201@aol.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:16:45 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:16:45 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NONE --part1_145.28338cc.28ec5bad_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 1:02:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes: > Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote: > > > caveats abound, naturally, but what should be taken for granted is > > that honoring "what they like" is not in contention with what we > > believe to be right and good. > > No, that should not be taken for granted. Survival is tantamount. > That's a root context for evaluating all other considerations. > > jb ok. stage one dichotomy. i took for granted that "right and good" included survival. i am, afterall, an animal first. --part1_145.28338cc.28ec5bad_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 1:02:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jbone@jump.net writes:


Grlygrl201@aol.com wrote:

> caveats abound, naturally, but what should be taken for granted is
> that honoring "what they like" is not in contention with what we
> believe to be right and good.

No, that should not be taken for granted.  Survival is tantamount.
That's a root context for evaluating all other considerations.

jb
ok.  stage one dichotomy.  i took for granted that "right and good" included survival.  i am, afterall, an animal first.

--part1_145.28338cc.28ec5bad_boundary-- From Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:10:52 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:10:52 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eugene Leitl Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Subject: RIAA Legal Analysis (fwd) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:20:56 -0500 (CDT) From: measl@mfn.org To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: RIAA Legal Analysis An excellent technical analysis from the RIAA legal dept. Any errors of transcription are likely my own - see the original at http://www.fuckedcompany.com/extras/riaa_memo.cfm for as long as it is there... My favorite part is the last paragraph, where they talk of getting FastTrack to roll over on MusicCity! ------------------------------------------------------------------ PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT We have distributed various legal and technical memoranda that describe the KaZaA network and the potential legal claims against the entities offering this peer-to-peer service. This memorandum seeks to consolidate our current learning into a single document. Accordingly, detailed below are: (a) a brief overview of the relevant entities and the KaZaA network architecture; (b) the facts supporting our legal claims; and (c) a going forward strategy recommendation. I. Overview of Entities and Architecture FastTrack is the Netherlands based software company that developed the software code library used to create the KaZaA peer-to-peer networks. KaZaA was the first application to use the FastTrack code. FastTrack later licensed its code to MusicCity (MusicCity dubbed its system Morpheus) and Grockster. The principals behind FastTrack are Niklas Zennstrom and Janis Friis- - Two young technology developers who are primarily interested in the development of their technology and who have privately funded their operation. MusicCity is being run by Steve Griffin, but with heavy influence by Timberline Venture Partners, the independently managed Northwest Affiliate of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Timberline owns 65% of MusicCity and is very involved in running the company. The FastTrack network designates (perhaps automatically) certain peers - more powerful computers with high-bandwidth connections - as "supernodes." [because of the systems encrypted communication, we are unable to determine how supernodes are designated]. Several hundred "ordinary" peers connect to any one supernode. A supernode also connects to other supernodes. [because of the systems encrypted communication, we are unable to determine how one supernode knows how to locate other supernodes]. Vidius found that when one of its machines was in supernode status, it was connected to approximately 25 other supernodes. The supernode functions in Napster-like fashion as a local search hub, building an index of the files being shared by each peer connected to it, and processing search requests on behalf of those peers. Supernode queries other supernodes to fulfill a search request, but does not query peers serviced by other supernodes (such a step is unnecessary because the supernodes index all files available among the peers they service). The effect of this architecture is to create a relatively small peer-to-peer network of supernodes, each of which in turn functions as a miniature central server for hundreds of other users. As in Napster and Gnutella, file transfers in the FastTrack system are purely peer-to-peer, and involve neither the central server nor any supernode. Significantly, the FastTrack system encrypts all communications (a) between a peer and the log-in server, (b) between a peer and its supernode, (c) between a supernode and the central servers, and (d) between supernodes [we do not know the nature of the encryption]. However, peer-to-peer communications associated with downloading a file are unencrypted. Presumably, the encryption scheme was created, and is controlled, by the developer of the application - FastTrack. By encrypting the communication, the developer has ensured that the network remains "closed" and accessible only through the KaZaA, Morpheus, or Grokster applications (and any future licensees of the FastTrack technology). KaZaA, MusicCity, and Grokster each operate a central log-in server. The addresses of these servers are hard-coded into the application. At log-in, the peer sends one packet of data to the server, and the server returns two packets. The transmissions presumably involve log-in information from the peer and acknowledgement and confirmation from the server. This function appears to be similar for each of the three entities. In addition, Vidius reports that, at least with the KaZaA application, there is a communication regularly every 12 hours between the log-in (.37) server and the user (whether in peer or supernode status) [we do not know the nature of these communications]. Notably, the log-in server is not essential to a peers use of the network. If the log-in server is not available, the application nevertheless attempts to connect to a supernode using the list contained in the registry (whether it is the preset list for a new user or the most recent update for a repeat user). After log-in, the peer then attempts to connect to a supernode, using a list of supernode addresses stored in the software application. That list is supplied by the application developer, and is identical across KaZaA, Morpheus, and Grokster. The list includes IP addresses at universities and other institutions such as the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The list of supernodes has changed with each new version of the application. In the newest version of the application, the list also includes an IP address at Disney, rnd11-200.rd.wdi.disney.com. The IP addresses listed in the registry do not all function as supernodes at any given time; in fact, most do not. After logging in, a peer works through the list in its registry until its finds a supernode it can connect to. When the peer connects to a supernode for the first time, it receives an updated list of supernodes, which overwrites the preset list in the registry. [we do not know how the suprnode obtains this updated list of supernodes to distribute]. The list of supernodes in the registry is then updated every time the peer connects to a supernode. Thus, a peer always has the most recent possible list of computers that have functioned as supernodes, thereby increasing the odds of a successful connection during the next session. After initially making contact with a supernode, a peer may be shunted around the network as the system attempts to match the peer with the most appropriate supernode. If the registry is somehow corrupted, the application causes the peer to contact another server controlled by KaZaA, supernode.kazaa.com (213.248.112.38). This address is also hard-coded into the application. This means that the KaZaA network maintains a dynamic list of active supernodes [we do not know how this happens]. Upon connecting to that server, the peer will receive a list of known supernodes. All three applications direct the user to the KaZaA (.38) server in this circumstance. KaZaA operates another server in addition to the log-in (.37) server and the (.38) server described above. That is alpha.kazaa.com (213.248.112.34), the address of which, as with the other two, is hard-coded into the application. The (.34) server communicates with supernodes [we do not know the nature of the communication]. During an interval when a Vidius machine was acting as a supernode, there were 12 different attempts by the (.34) server to connect to the supernode. Vidius reports that in a completed transaction the (.34) server sends approximately 1600 bytes of information to the supernode. In addition, as noted above, a supernode makes periodic connection with the KaZaA log-in (.37) server. Vidius hypothesizes that there is a loop between the (.34) server, the (.37) server, and the supernode, which is highly suggestive of some sort of control mechanism - the nature of which must remain unknown until the substance of the communications can be analyzed. Vidius found that "netsplits" or disconnections sometimes occur on the FastTrack network. The system contains some mechanism to resolve such disconections by redirecting peers away from a supernode that has become detached from the network and back to a supernode on the network. Supernodes that are split from the network also eventually reconnect to it, but that reconnection takes 10-15 minutes longer than the reconnection of peers. Vidius believes that this timing differential indicates some control of the reconnection process that is external to the client application. Among the supernodes on the new preset list is one at s1grokster.com, which resides at the same location as the Grokster log-in server. Those computer functions like an ordinary supernode, compiling indexes of available files and processing search requests. Vidius was able to connect to that supernode, and used it to find and download numerous movie and MP3 files. II. Elements of Claims and Proof 1. Contributory Infringement Liability for contributory infringement attaches to "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another . . . [L]iability exists if the defendant engages in personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement." A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1014 (9th Cir. 2001). Knowledge o FastTrack sought to obtain licensing from NVPI and was referred to individual members of the organization. o NVPI wrote to FastTrack and provided notice that its conduct was infringing and that it should obtain the necessary licensing. o RIAA wrote letter to MusicCity when it was an OpenNap system and placed MusicCity on notice of infringing conduct. The same principals contacted by the RIAA are still in place at MusicCity. o In discussion with General Counsel of Copyright.net, KaZaA CEO acknowledged exchange of copyrighted content and stated looking into filters, particularly for child porn. o Press has raised issue of exchange of copyrighted content with company principals. o Widespread presence of copyrighted materials on system. o Message Boards discuss available music, films, and software. MusicCity employees participate in message board discussions and CEO acknowledges MusicCity controls message boards. [should we provide notice by letters and when?] Material Contribution o FastTrack creates and licenses software primarily used for the reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works. o FastTrack created and controls encryption that ensures that the network remains closed and insulated from outside monitoring. o Provides a dynamic list of available supernodes where content can be exchanged (possibly through the .38 server). o Continually updates the list of available supernodes and communicates that information to users (likely through the .34 server). o FastTrack, MusicCity and Grockster maintain log-in servers. o Maintains the s1grokster.com server which acts as a supernode (and by definition maintains a file index). o Resolves netsplits and other system problems (likely through the .34 server). Vicarious Infringement o Vicarious liability arises when the defendant "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1022. Right and Ability to Supervise o KaZaA, MusicCity, and Grokster all expressly reserve the right to limit the number of files that users make available or access and to terminate users who infringe intellectual property rights or violate other laws. o MusicCity also reserves the right to remove or disable links to allegedly infringing material. o Network limits MP3 files to certain bitrate o MusicCity implemented a filter for child pornography. o Steve Griffin claims to have cooperated with police in limiting the exchange of child pornography. Financial Benefit o Generate advertising revenue based on user base. o Steve Griffin expressed to head of Rock the Vote that he cant stop infringements so he intends to make money from it. o Zennstrom acknowledged to the press that FastTrack is making money. o The services have a rapidly growing user base and according to CNETs download.com is the most popular software on the net. o MusicCity obtaining additional funding from Timberline Venture Partners. III. Recommendation We have solid claims against FastTrack, MusicCity, and Grockster of secondary liability for copyright infringement. The claims are not as strong as those against Napster, but they are also not so remote as to be wishful. Our claims would likely be strengthened by learning more about the designation of supernodes and the content of communications within the system. However, the encryption of this communication precludes further learning absent cooperation from one of these companies or court ordered discovery. In that regard, we recently learned that FastTrack is very interested in exploring alternatives to litigation and its principals are willing to sit down with the record companies to discuss ways of resolving any dispute. FastTrack is willing to sell the company and the technology, or enter into a licensing arrangement. FastTrack is also willing to implement filtering technologies to prevent infringements. We have also learned that MusicCity is looking for the litigation and would like for us to file suit. Thus, we recommend (1) filing claims against FastTrack, MusicCity, and Grockster, (2) immediately thereafter initiating discussions with FastTrack about resolving our claims in a way that will provide us with useful information and testimony against MusicCity, and if possible obtain FastTracks cooperation in shutting down or converting MusicCity and Grokster, and (4) continue forward with litigation against MusicCity, Grokster, and potentially Timberline Venture Partners. From Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:16:25 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 15:16:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eugene Leitl Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Subject: Amusing note from RIAA (fwd) -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBMTO: N48 04'14.8'' E11 36'41.2'' http://www.lrz.de/~ui22204 57F9CFD3: ED90 0433 EB74 E4A9 537F CFF5 86E7 629B 57F9 CFD3 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 07:08:07 -0500 (CDT) From: measl@mfn.org To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: Amusing note from RIAA from http://www.fuckedcompany.com/extras/riaa_email.cfm ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Rosen Sent: 9/25/01 Subject: Peer to Peer Services Dear all: It is time to get coordinated and aggressive with the new round of peer to peer services. The amount of music being downloaded is, as you know, reaching unprecedented levels. Since college started last week Morpheus traffic was up to 19 million downloads per day. AND THAT'S JUST MORPHEUS. With the imminent launch of legitimate subscription services we have to get our customers back. I know you want your new businesses to be successful. So do I. Given the overwhelming volume of these alternative services, RIAA can't handle all of the enforcement alone. If they are not controlled more effectively and consumers redirected to legitimate offerings, there won't be new businesses. That's obvious. You are all competitors, but you have common interests in enforcement. Help me help you. I'd like to have a meeting at the RIAA in October as soon as possible. If you agree to participate, I will have my assistant try and work with schedules to get a date that works. I want to keep the meeting small to start (we can expand participation to other companies later). We need to discuss: 1. Spoofing and/or interdiction methods for existing peer to peers - (perhaps by adding promotional messages about the launch of various new systems) 2. A PR campaign 3. We will share the latest legal strategies and RIAA's thinking on options Please plan on attending. I am cautious about sending alternates because we need people who have the ability to make decisions and commit to spending. Best regards, Hilary From deafbox@hotmail.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:38:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:38:55 -0500 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) Jeff Bone asks: >> For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? >> Why does anyone need a "homeland" in this day and >> age? Wayne Baisley writes: > A breathtaking transition from "people's interests are > supreme" to "people, who cares what they want", and > in just 24 hours! I musta missed some something. Since you missed it, I will endeavor to point out one of the larger themes that has been discussed in this thread. (1) Since before we were people, groups have fought over "homeland." Even many of our pongid cousins do this. (2) As far back as history records, groups have created a mythology to justify this, often involving some special relationship between the gods and the group, a mythopoetic explanation of how the group obtained or deserves their homeland, and an ontology that sets the group above all other groups. Prehistoric archaeology gives tantalizing hints of the same. If we can't label this primitive, then nothing deserves the label. (3) Throughout history, this primitive "want" has resulted in constant war. The practical reason is that homelands are limited, and a homeland that is any good, or even marginal, has many peoples who stake a claim to it. Moreover, a group that strategizes along these lines will fight to expand its homeland when its population grows. The inevitable result has been continual territorial warfare. This "want" has been at the root of the most inhumane wars, because the primitive mythology where each group posits that they are "chosen," "more human," "more advanced," etc. justifies the most horrendous acts. Added to this, there is a practical consequence of wars fought from this kind of ideology: unless you genocidally destroy the enemy, their children, practicing the same ideology, will be compelled to fight again for what they view as their homeland. In some of these mythologies, the need to commit genocide is turned into a command from God: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." [1 Samuel 15:3] (4) This primitive "want" is so strong, that as far as I can tell, history shows only two ways that different peoples can live together in piece. (a) Some group is so successful in its conquest that it establishes a nation or empire in which the conquered groups no longer fight each other. While not always ideal, it is what we typically imagine when we use the term "civilization." Greece, the empire, not Greece the squabbling set of city states. Britain, not the Picts, Welsh, Norse, and Saxons. (b) Modern democracies give rise to secular states where all ethnic and religious groups are given the same legal standing. This works so well, that it legitimately gives rise to the question: "Who needs a homeland?" American Jews are safer and freer than Israeli Jews, and given the dim prospects for peace in Israel, this ironic state seems likely to persist for the foreseeable future. (5) If squabbles between different peoples over a homeland are still fought in the 22nd century, they will be fought with smart, biological, and nanotech weapons, whose damage is very likely to spill over into the civilized areas of the earth. (6) Given the desire to secure civilization in the 22nd century, and the ability of modern secular states to provide a relatively safe polity for different ethnic and religious groups, yes, I will urge that these needs should take precedence over the primitive wants that lead to continual war of group against group. The western democracies should make it a long term goal to persuade, induce, bribe, intellectually pollute, browbeat, and sometimes even threaten more primitive states into dropping all legal prejudice with regard to ethnicity and religion. State racism and state religion have no place in the distant future. If we're to have a distant future. Russell From sdw@lig.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:24:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:24:06 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: Mesh-Based Content Routing using XML Very cool reference! Thanks! I'm sure I'll use the ideas therein. sdw Mr. FoRK wrote: > Sounds cool... but can you use it to chat? > > == > http://www.psrg.lcs.mit.edu/publications/Papers/xml-sosp01.html > > Mesh-Based Content Routing using XML > Alex C. Snoeren, Kenneth Conley, and David K. Gifford > > 18th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles, Banff, Canada, October > 2001 > > > We have developed a new approach for reliably multicasting time-critical > data to heterogeneous clients over mesh-based overlay networks. To > facilitate intelligent content pruning, data streams are comprised of a > sequence of XML packets and forwarded by application-level XML routers. XML > routers perform content-based routing of individual XML packets to other > routers or clients based upon queries that describe the information needs of > down-stream nodes. Our PC-based XML router prototype can route an 18 Mbit > per second XML stream. > > Our routers use a novel Diversity Control Protocol (DCP) for > router-to-router and router-to-client communication. DCP reassembles a > received stream of packets from one or more senders using the first copy of > a packet to arrive from any sender. When each node is connected to n > parents, the resulting network is resilient to (n-1) router or independent > link failures without repair. Associated mesh algorithms permit the system > to recover to (n-1) resilience after node and/or link failure. We have > deployed a distributed network of XML routers that streams real-time air > traffic control data. Experimental results show multiple senders improve > reliability and latency when compared to tree-based networks. > > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:32:20 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:32:20 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eugene Leitl Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de Subject: Mesh-Based Content Routing using XML On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Stephen D. Williams wrote: > Very cool reference! Thanks! I'm sure I'll use the ideas therein. > > http://www.psrg.lcs.mit.edu/publications/Papers/xml-sosp01.html > > We have developed a new approach for reliably multicasting time-critical ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > [...] Our PC-based XML router prototype can route an 18 Mbit per second XML stream. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That's a rather loose interpretation of time-critical. From sdw@lig.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:39:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:39:01 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel Mr. FoRK wrote: >>Primitive: >>Congo, Afghanistan (canabalism-derived culture, genocide, abuse of >>women, death sentences for everything) >> > Canabalism culture? In the Congo? I'm from the Congo... got any links to > back that up? > That comment was based on a mental note based on a newscast/newspaper at some point in the last 5 years talking about some tribe in, I believe, the Congo, or Zaire, or someplace. Part of the problem with finding anything on the subject is that when I search for Congo/Africa/Canabal all I get are people with 'Canabal' in their last names! What does that tell you? This link, found with 'canabalism congo' indicates I wasn't far off: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/cwis/ra/programs/godfrey/1-11-96.html "and the awful story was made known last year of how President Mitterand's son encouraged the providing of arms to the Hutu to have a genocide of the Anglophone Tutsis. This situation errupts again: Zaire which is most of the old Belgian Congo is on the border and the race types of course are not defined by pre-war colonial borders that the modern states in many cases retain. We are dealing with a people where canabalism was not unknown in the middle of the 19th century; where there was great poverty; where the slave trade had debauched the coastlands with alcohol and other Western evils. Also, it must not be surprising that the treatment of the native labourers by European firms anxious to get minerals and timber have all produced jealousies and hatreds because it suited the colonial power to accentuate tribal divisions. So this dreadful blood bath - it is a scandal to the world that no-one is preventing it; no-one is attempting to send relief because it is too big for everybody at the moment to cope with. In the evil backdrop of this whole scheme is, of course, the international armaments trade which enables these poor African countries to buy the tools of death." sdw -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From martyh@nmcourts.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:44:41 -0600 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 08:44:41 -0600 From: Marty Halvorson martyh@nmcourts.com Subject: The end of liberty At 10/1/01 07:23 PM, Jeff Bone wrote: >A >first-pass screen for this is to require multiple picture IDs; vital >information >and so forth can then be checked. There's usually identifying information >on the >card that can be checked against appearance, too, besides the fact that >there's a >picture. The chances of anybody being able to get several pieces of >authentic but >false identification are pretty slim --- unless they're well-funded and >well-connected. (Which AFAWK these guys were.) I disagree. It's quite easy to get several pieces of authentic identification. If you've ever lost your wallet or purse with everything in it, you'd understand. When mine was stolen, I went to the DMV with a copy of my birth certificate in hand and received a new drivers license. New credit cards were pretty easy also. A phone call to the credit card company and they sent the card to my existing address. Getting the certified copy of my birth certificate involved a letter to the Ramsey County Clerk. My birth certificate was returned. Replacing my social security card was just as easy, I went to the SS office, filled out a form, and they mailed my social security card to the address on the form. Thus, to obtain a fraudulent ID, had I so desired, could have been accomplished with nothing more than a letter to a clerk and filling out a form. From that, it's possible to obtain a drivers license. With a drivers license, it's very easy to obtain any other form of ID you desire. >We >need to do a better job, sure; and requiring multiple forms of ID + >training and >motivation (that latter's already taken care of by virtue of 911) for security >agents goes a long, long way. Biometrics would be better, sure, but the >question >is whether the incremental improvement over what's possible -w- normal ID >technology and a little diligence is worth the cost. My original question was about the need that you seemed to perceive for a national ID card. Today, in most states, the DMV operates as the source for ID cards acceptable for nearly everything. If we truly need to do a better job, is it necessary to change the default ID everyone carries (a state issued drivers license or ID card), to an ID issued by a national organization? And it that's true, should the national ID card contain biometric information? Another example of creating an identity from scratch happens thousands of times every day. My daughter recently obtained her first drivers license. Getting it was ridiculously simple. We sent to the DMV, she showed her birth certificate, told them her social security number and received her drivers license. Peace, Marty Halvorson New Mexico Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Court Judicial Information Division martyh@nmcourts.com (505) 476-6916 From Grlygrl201@aol.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:46:53 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:46:53 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) --part1_156.1e52268.28ec7edd_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 9:35:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, deafbox@hotmail.com writes: > (4) This primitive "want" is so strong, that as > far as I can tell, history shows only two ways > that different peoples can live together in > piece. (a) Some group is so successful in its > conquest that it establishes a nation or empire > in which the conquered groups no longer fight > each other. While not always ideal, it is what > we typically imagine when we use the term > "civilization." kind of like microsoft? i wonder if our need to territorialize brings on the nation-state mentality, and not the other way around. i mean, look at football games. we do this sort of thing for entertainment. seriously, if you break it down to smalller organizational territories - let's say office in-fighting - you see the same behavior: one person trying to claw his way up and over his colleagues. so, i posit, as long as the individual displays (and celebrates!) alpha-animal behavior, why wouldn't the collective? religions, cultures, whatever you call them, are just team colors. geege --part1_156.1e52268.28ec7edd_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 9:35:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, deafbox@hotmail.com writes:


(4) This primitive "want" is so strong, that as
far as I can tell, history shows only two ways
that different peoples can live together in
piece. (a) Some group is so successful in its
conquest that it establishes a nation or empire
in which the conquered groups no longer fight
each other. While not always ideal, it is what
we typically imagine when we use the term
"civilization."


kind of like microsoft?  

i wonder if our need to territorialize brings on the nation-state mentality, and not the other way around.  i mean, look at football games.  we do this sort of thing for entertainment.  seriously, if you break it down to smalller organizational territories - let's say office in-fighting - you see the same behavior: one person trying to claw his way up and over his colleagues.  so, i posit, as long as the individual displays (and celebrates!) alpha-animal behavior, why wouldn't the collective?  religions, cultures, whatever you call them, are just team colors.

geege --part1_156.1e52268.28ec7edd_boundary-- From robert.harley@inria.fr Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:48:24 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:48:24 +0200 (MET DST) From: Robert Harley robert.harley@inria.fr Subject: Congo SDW wrote: >Part of the problem with finding anything on the subject is that when I >search for Congo/Africa/Canabal all I get are people with 'Canabal' in >their last names! What does that tell you? That you should try "cannibal" instead? =:-) R .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ / \ \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From sdw@lig.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:51:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:51:08 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) Here here! Nice Summary Russell. Let's vote on this as the FoRK Foundation (committee, think tank, cabal, task force, standing committee on socio-politico-psycho-techno-issues, what have you) and present it to someone who can tweak the system somewhere! sdw Russell Turpin wrote: > Jeff Bone asks: > >>>For that matter, why do the Jews need a "homeland"? >>>Why does anyone need a "homeland" in this day and >>>age? >>> > > Wayne Baisley writes: > >>A breathtaking transition from "people's interests are >>supreme" to "people, who cares what they want", and >>in just 24 hours! I musta missed some something. >> > > Since you missed it, I will endeavor to point out one > of the larger themes that has been discussed in this > thread. > > (1) Since before we were people, groups have fought > over "homeland." Even many of our pongid cousins > do this. > > (2) As far back as history records, groups have > created a mythology to justify this, often involving > some special relationship between the gods and the > group, a mythopoetic explanation of how the group > obtained or deserves their homeland, and an > ontology that sets the group above all other > groups. Prehistoric archaeology gives tantalizing > hints of the same. If we can't label this primitive, > then nothing deserves the label. > > (3) Throughout history, this primitive "want" has > resulted in constant war. The practical reason is > that homelands are limited, and a homeland that > is any good, or even marginal, has many peoples > who stake a claim to it. Moreover, a group > that strategizes along these lines will fight to > expand its homeland when its population grows. > The inevitable result has been continual > territorial warfare. This "want" has been at the > root of the most inhumane wars, because the > primitive mythology where each group posits > that they are "chosen," "more human," "more > advanced," etc. justifies the most horrendous > acts. Added to this, there is a practical > consequence of wars fought from this kind > of ideology: unless you genocidally destroy > the enemy, their children, practicing the same > ideology, will be compelled to fight again for > what they view as their homeland. In some > of these mythologies, the need to commit > genocide is turned into a command from God: > "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy > all that they have; do not spare them, but kill > both man and woman, infant and suckling, > ox and sheep, camel and ass." [1 Samuel 15:3] > > (4) This primitive "want" is so strong, that as > far as I can tell, history shows only two ways > that different peoples can live together in > piece. (a) Some group is so successful in its > conquest that it establishes a nation or empire > in which the conquered groups no longer fight > each other. While not always ideal, it is what > we typically imagine when we use the term > "civilization." Greece, the empire, not Greece > the squabbling set of city states. Britain, not > the Picts, Welsh, Norse, and Saxons. > (b) Modern democracies give rise to secular > states where all ethnic and religious > groups are given the same legal standing. This > works so well, that it legitimately gives rise > to the question: "Who needs a homeland?" > American Jews are safer and freer than > Israeli Jews, and given the dim prospects for > peace in Israel, this ironic state seems likely > to persist for the foreseeable future. > > (5) If squabbles between different peoples > over a homeland are still fought in the 22nd > century, they will be fought with smart, > biological, and nanotech weapons, whose > damage is very likely to spill over into the > civilized areas of the earth. > > (6) Given the desire to secure civilization > in the 22nd century, and the ability of modern > secular states to provide a relatively safe > polity for different ethnic and religious groups, > yes, I will urge that these needs should take > precedence over the primitive wants that > lead to continual war of group against group. > The western democracies should make it a > long term goal to persuade, induce, bribe, > intellectually pollute, browbeat, and sometimes > even threaten more primitive states into > dropping all legal prejudice with regard to > ethnicity and religion. State racism and state > religion have no place in the distant future. If > we're to have a distant future. > > Russell > > > > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From ThosStew@aol.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:52:12 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:52:12 EDT From: ThosStew@aol.com ThosStew@aol.com Subject: Oink if you love Jesus >From a friend Tom For those who don't rememer the mutiny against the British at the Battle of Lucknow, the following "outside the box" tactical response could send a very strong message with a very low pricetag. Fly around ten C-130s filled with prime Arkansas razorbacks over Kandahar during noon prayers and push the hogs out at low altitude. Live pig bombs The top anti-US mullahs would be taken out. Unholy, filthy pigs flying from the sky, creating a sea of pig blood in the center of the mosque. Nobody takes credit. US denies. Chalk it up to a "rogue operation." Broadcast Porky Pig cartoons all across the world of Islam. Drop Porky Pig comics from the sky along with little pigs feet. All we want is Osama Bin Laden, right. The ripple effect would be a tidal wave of shock, creating a state of pan-Islamic paralysis from Casablanca to Jakarta. It is the moral equivalent of crashing a couple of planes into the WTC. And it is the last thing that would be expected from the stupid Americans. Phase II would be to deploy unmarked aircraft carrying payloads of bombs filled with pigs blood designed to vaporize before ground contact and have them hit all the dope poppy fields in Afghnistan, Pakistan, the Bekaa valley, Turkey and in Colombia. Nobody in those areas will ever go back to grow dope poppies in those areas once that happens. Another shock wave, and a major loss of income for international terrorists and even some members of our political class. Phase III would be to get our asses moving and have those fucking fuel cell cars ready in five years and when it comes time to do oil contracts, the US would simply say, sorry, we don't your oil. To destabilize a Jihad in progress, the most unconventional tactics are necessary. From Grlygrl201@aol.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:02:56 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:02:56 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel --part1_2b.1c2dcb12.28ec82a0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 10:40:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sdw@lig.net writes: > Part of the problem with finding anything on the subject is that when I > search for Congo/Africa/Canabal all I get are people with 'Canabal' in > their last names! What does that tell you? > > This link, found with 'canabalism congo' indicates I wasn't far off: try "cannibal." there are reports that Papua New Guinea is still practicing. http://home.pon.net/ekwynn/cannibal.htm --part1_2b.1c2dcb12.28ec82a0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 10:40:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sdw@lig.net writes:


Part of the problem with finding anything on the subject is that when I
search for Congo/Africa/Canabal all I get are people with 'Canabal' in
their last names!  What does that tell you?

This link, found with 'canabalism congo' indicates I wasn't far off:
try "cannibal."  there are reports that Papua New Guinea is still practicing.

http://home.pon.net/ekwynn/cannibal.htm --part1_2b.1c2dcb12.28ec82a0_boundary-- From sdw@lig.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:04:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:04:19 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: Congo You know, I even checked Dictionary.com and it didn't suggest an improvement... I guess my usually strong spelling doesn't extend to this subject. Still, misspelled words as names isn't unheard of. I wonder if there's a story behind it. In any case, here are some more links: http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/congo.html Sidney Langford Hinde (former captain of the Congo Free State Force):The Fall of the Congo Arabs, Methuen, 1897: 'Nearly all the tribes in the Congo Basin either are or have been cannibals; and among some of them the practice is on the increase. Races who until lately do not seem to have been cannibals, though situated in a country surrounded by cannibal races, have, from increased intercourse with their neighbours, learned to eat human flesh.' http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Hornet/irin817.html IRIN-CEA Update 817 [19991207] DRC: Army accused of summary executions The DRC human rights group ASADHO has expressed concern over summary executions and harassment by the Congolese army in villages near the town of Basankusu in Equateur province. In the report, issued before the rebel Mouvement de liberation du Congo (MLC) captured Basankusu from the army, ASADHO said the atrocities were committed in July and September in villages such as Pimu, Djombo and Kodoro after Congolese troops were repulsed by the MLC. On their retreat towards the Maringa river, the soldiers "killed in cold blood" people who tried to escape the onslaught, apparently seeking out the Ngombe people whom they accused of collaborating with the rebels. ASADHO also accused some MLC rebels of cannibalism. It cited witnesses who said a man and two children in Djombo had their throats slit by members of the MLC, who then ate them. Robert Harley wrote: > SDW wrote: > >>Part of the problem with finding anything on the subject is that when I >>search for Congo/Africa/Canabal all I get are people with 'Canabal' in >>their last names! What does that tell you? >> > > That you should try "cannibal" instead? =:-) > > R > .-. .-. > / \ .-. .-. / \ > / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ > / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ > / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ / \ > \ / `-' `-' \ / > `-' `-' > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From sdw@lig.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:07:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:07:31 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: Oink if you love Jesus Phase II's totally doable in any situation. sdw ThosStew@aol.com wrote: >>From a friend > > Tom > > > > For those who don't rememer the mutiny against the British > > at the Battle of Lucknow, the following "outside the box" > > tactical response could send a very strong message with a very > > low pricetag. > > > Fly around ten C-130s filled with prime Arkansas razorbacks > > over Kandahar during noon prayers and push the hogs out at low > > altitude. Live pig bombs The top anti-US mullahs would be > > taken out. Unholy, filthy pigs flying from the sky, creating a > > sea of pig blood in the center of the mosque. Nobody takes > > credit. US denies. Chalk it up to a "rogue operation." > > Broadcast Porky Pig cartoons all across the world of Islam. > > Drop Porky Pig comics from the sky along with little pigs > > feet. All we want is Osama Bin Laden, right. > > > The ripple effect would be a tidal wave of shock, creating a > > state of pan-Islamic paralysis from Casablanca to Jakarta. It > > is the moral equivalent of crashing a couple of planes into > > the WTC. And it is the last thing that would be expected from > > the stupid Americans. > > > Phase II would be to deploy unmarked aircraft carrying > > payloads of bombs filled with pigs blood designed to vaporize > > before ground contact and have them hit all the dope poppy > > fields in Afghnistan, Pakistan, the Bekaa valley, Turkey and > > in Colombia. Nobody in those areas will ever go back to grow > > dope poppies in those areas once that happens. Another shock > > wave, and a major loss of income for international terrorists > > and even some members of our political class. > > > Phase III would be to get our asses moving and have those > > fucking fuel cell cars ready in five years and when it comes > > time to do oil contracts, the US would simply say, sorry, we > > don't your oil. > > > To destabilize a Jihad in progress, the most unconventional > > tactics are necessary. > > > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From robert.harley@inria.fr Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:10:10 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 17:10:10 +0200 (MET DST) From: Robert Harley robert.harley@inria.fr Subject: Congo >I even checked Dictionary.com and it didn't suggest an improvement... The Merriam-Webster site (http://www.m-w.com/) is pretty good for this. You can look up "khanyboll", say, and it will make good suggestions. R .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ / \ \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From martyh@nmcourts.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:48:28 -0600 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 09:48:28 -0600 From: Marty Halvorson martyh@nmcourts.com Subject: What they like Carey wrote, "Could you honestly consience a country where rampant abuses were going on (the people were starving, denied rights and utterly destroyed by the ruling government -- probably numerous examples that my migrane brain isn't coming up with ) and we sat by with your mentality of 'we need to honor what they like'?" Afghanistan comes to mind. At least up until 911. Peace, Marty Halvorson New Mexico Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Court Judicial Information Division martyh@nmcourts.com (505) 476-6916 From johnhall@evergo.net Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:06:06 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:06:06 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: What they like Most communist nations. By and large we never sought to free their people, just to contain the disease. Nicaragua was an exception, due to strategic reasons and the fact they were vulnerable. > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On > Behalf Of Marty Halvorson > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 8:48 AM > To: carey > Cc: fork@xent.com > Subject: What they like > > > Carey wrote, "Could you honestly consience a country where > rampant abuses > were going on (the people were starving, denied rights and utterly > destroyed by the ruling government -- probably numerous > examples that my > migrane brain isn't coming up with ) and we sat by with your > mentality of > 'we need to honor what they like'?" > > Afghanistan comes to mind. At least up until 911. > > Peace, > > Marty Halvorson > New Mexico Supreme Court > Administrative Office of the Court > Judicial Information Division > martyh@nmcourts.com > (505) 476-6916 > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork From deafbox@hotmail.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:24:30 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:24:30 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: Oink if you love Jesus Someone wrote: >Phase II would be to deploy unmarked aircraft carrying >payloads of bombs filled with pigs blood designed to vaporize before ground >contact .. Hmm. Besides the possibility that Pakistan would still be a British colony had the British not insisted on packing their ammunition with pig fat, I would think the lessons from Stephen King stories would caution against such tactics. The last thing we need is hundreds of Muslim Sissy Spaceks wreaking their worst on us, using the paranormal powers born in a bath of pig's blood. (OK. So now you know why I so rarely attempt humor.) Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From johnhall@evergo.net Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:30:28 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:30:28 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On > Behalf Of Russell Turpin > (a) Some group is so successful in its > conquest that it establishes a nation or empire > in which the conquered groups no longer fight > each other. > (b) Modern democracies give rise to secular > states where all ethnic and religious > groups are given the same legal standing. The problem is that all examples of (b) are also in fact examples of (a), with an enormous amount of assimilation for the losers. Where the losers, or new immigrants that are not members of the winning group and do not sufficiently assimilate, and these groups then begin to challenge the previous winners demographically, a society may very well regress to internal combat between groups. Peace and coexistence takes two. War only one. Kosovo and Israel can happen here, too. Intentionally weakening the forces of assimilation as we have done for the last 35+ years is a really _bad_ idea. Attempts to construct 'Modern democracies' in cultures that are hostile to it have not had the effects you wish, and have been spectacularly unsuccessful. I can think of only one (Japan) and the things which made that work are probably unique. [Germany, in contrast, was a much easier job.] Even Ghandi made sure that India had an overwhelming Hindu majority. A second Holocaust in Germany in another 50-100 years is not out of the question. From johnhall@evergo.net Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:35:17 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:35:17 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C14BEE.B690B100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of Grlygrl201@aol.com i wonder if our need to territorialize brings on the nation-state mentality, and not the other way around. [JmH: ] The nation-state mentality dates (in the West) to the Monarchial Revolution 350 years ago. That itself was an improvement over the more localized tribalism that existed before. [Modern history, but then I'm not sure the Romans really had a nation-state mentality either. The Greeks certainly did not.] ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C14BEE.B690B100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of=20 Grlygrl201@aol.com

i wonder if our need to = territorialize brings=20 on the nation-state mentality, and not the other way=20 around.  
[JmH: ] 
 
The = nation-state mentality=20 dates (in the West) to the Monarchial Revolution 350 years ago.  = That=20 itself was an improvement over the more localized tribalism that existed = before.  [Modern history, but then I'm not sure the Romans really = had a=20 nation-state mentality either.  The Greeks certainly did=20 not.]
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C14BEE.B690B100-- From deafbox@hotmail.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:45:30 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:45:30 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) John Hall writes: >The nation-state mentality dates (in the West) to the Monarchial Revolution >350 years ago. That itself was an improvement over the more localized >tribalism that existed before. [Modern history, but then I'm >not sure the Romans really had a nation-state mentality either. The Greeks >certainly did not.] The Greeks and the Romans are interesting cases. The Romans seemed much more pragmatic, and happily extended their vaunted citizenship to people of all races and religions, as long as they gave their due to Rome. Even their emporers could be German or African. But the central government wasn't just located at Rome. It *was* Rome. At least, until it was also Byzantium. This is an empire mentality, rather than a nation-state mentality. The Greeks seem, to my reading, much more ethnically conscious, always looking down their noses at any group that wasn't Hellenic, and with constant bickering between the different Hellenic groups. That said, they certainly came to understand the notion and benefits of confederation. The Delian League didn't last long, but while it did last, it brought a prosperity and to the Aegaean region, and maybe more of a metropolitan outlook. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From deafbox@hotmail.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:56:50 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:56:50 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) John Hall writes: >Attempts to construct 'Modern democracies' in cultures that are hostile to >it have not had the effects you wish, and have been spectacularly >unsuccessful. Yep. On the other hand, a large number of cultures have been seduced by western ways, until they are ripe for democracy. I'm not suggesting we can or should change any government tomorrow. I'm suggesting we should turn up the seduction, with the understanding that this is going to be a long process, with setbacks along the way. >Intentionally weakening the forces of assimilation as >we have done for the last 35+ years is a really _bad_ idea. I don't know to what you're referring. Can you expand? >A second Holocaust in Germany in another 50-100 years is not out of the >question. When it comes to what might happen, nothing is out of the question. But if you're betting as to where the next holocaust might occur, it seems to me that Israel now would be a more likely site than Germany. The first prerequisite of holocaust is absolutist ideology and language. History is full of ironies. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From justin@chapweske.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:41:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 12:41:58 -0500 From: Justin Chapweske justin@chapweske.com Subject: Mesh-Based Content Routing using XML This system could probably be further optimized by using Forward Error Correction (FEC) like we do in Swarmcast. The use of FEC would make it less likely to get duplicate messages from multiple sources. We have a solid Java FEC library available at http://onionnetworks.com/components.html -- Justin Chapweske, Onion Networks http://onionnetworks.com/ Mr. FoRK wrote: >Sounds cool... but can you use it to chat? > >== >http://www.psrg.lcs.mit.edu/publications/Papers/xml-sosp01.html > >Mesh-Based Content Routing using XML >Alex C. Snoeren, Kenneth Conley, and David K. Gifford > >18th ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles, Banff, Canada, October >2001 > > >We have developed a new approach for reliably multicasting time-critical >data to heterogeneous clients over mesh-based overlay networks. To >facilitate intelligent content pruning, data streams are comprised of a >sequence of XML packets and forwarded by application-level XML routers. XML >routers perform content-based routing of individual XML packets to other >routers or clients based upon queries that describe the information needs of >down-stream nodes. Our PC-based XML router prototype can route an 18 Mbit >per second XML stream. > >Our routers use a novel Diversity Control Protocol (DCP) for >router-to-router and router-to-client communication. DCP reassembles a >received stream of packets from one or more senders using the first copy of >a packet to arrive from any sender. When each node is connected to n >parents, the resulting network is resilient to (n-1) router or independent >link failures without repair. Associated mesh algorithms permit the system >to recover to (n-1) resilience after node and/or link failure. We have >deployed a distributed network of XML routers that streams real-time air >traffic control data. Experimental results show multiple senders improve >reliability and latency when compared to tree-based networks. > > > > >http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From paul@ActiveState.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:52:24 -0700 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:52:24 -0700 From: Paul Prescod paul@ActiveState.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) Russell Turpin wrote: > >... > > (3) Throughout history, this primitive "want" has > resulted in constant war. The practical reason is > that homelands are limited, and a homeland that > is any good, or even marginal, has many peoples > who stake a claim to it. You've forgotten to point out that groups that do not have their own homeland tend to be subject to anything from low-level discrimination through abuse all the way up to genocide. The "wish" for a homeland is absolutely understandable in that context. >... > (b) Modern democracies give rise to secular > states where all ethnic and religious > groups are given the same legal standing. This > works so well, that it legitimately gives rise > to the question: "Who needs a homeland?" > American Jews are safer and freer than > Israeli Jews, and given the dim prospects for > peace in Israel, this ironic state seems likely > to persist for the foreseeable future. American Jews are safer as long as the American public is on their side. On a Jew with a very constrained view of society would consider that the sort of safety they can depend upon in the long term. The Catholic Church also made periodic truces with them. >... > (6) Given the desire to secure civilization > in the 22nd century, and the ability of modern > secular states to provide a relatively safe > polity for different ethnic and religious groups, > yes, I will urge that these needs should take > precedence over the primitive wants that > lead to continual war of group against group. > The western democracies should make it a > long term goal to persuade, induce, bribe, > intellectually pollute, browbeat, and sometimes > even threaten more primitive states into > dropping all legal prejudice with regard to > ethnicity and religion. State racism and state > religion have no place in the distant future. If > we're to have a distant future. Racism and religion are not the central issues. That is culture. The Quebecois do not want to separate because they are Catholic. The Jews could remove all laws relating to ethnicity and race and merely erect barriers of language ("Hebrew is our official language") and law ("our laws are base on the European Judeo-Christian tradition, not the Arab tradition"). There is no doubt that the official western foreign policy is to discourage the dissolution of countries along cultural line. But there is also a realistic aspect that says that when two peoples cannot get along they are better off in separate countries than fighting to the death in the same one. Paul Prescod From johnhall@evergo.net Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:17:05 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:17:05 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On > Behalf Of Russell Turpin > > Yep. On the other hand, a large number of cultures have > been seduced by western ways, until they are ripe for > democracy. The RIF revolt is precisely *because* they view their people as being seduced by western ways. > >Intentionally weakening the forces of assimilation as > >we have done for the last 35+ years is a really _bad_ idea. > > I don't know to what you're referring. Can you expand? The 1965 (I think) modification to Americas immigration policies gave up on the idea of limiting demographic shift due to immigration. Now, a better policy might have been to let in those most likely to assimilate, not necessarily those who looked like people who had already immigrated. But that would have required judgements in a situation where people didn't feel comfortable judging. Absent that, the old policy was probably better. Finally, the moral relativism and multi-cultural pieties have reduced the social pressures to assimilate -- along with political movements dedicated to seperatism. > > >A second Holocaust in Germany in another 50-100 years is not > >out of the question. I'm referring to a time when Germany is more Middle Eastern than German. > But if you're betting as to where the next > holocaust might occur, it seems to me that Israel now would > be a more likely site than Germany. Yes. And the heart of our disagreement is that we both accuse the other of advocating policies that will bring that day closer. Or, another way to look at it is this. You have a vision that you believe might avoid it altogether. I think it is probably unavoidable, and I'd rather pick a side -- the side that shares most of the values of Western Civilization. From deafbox@hotmail.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:21:17 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:21:17 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) Paul Prescod writes: >American Jews are safer as long as the American public is on their side. On >a Jew with a very constrained view of society would consider that the sort >of safety they can depend upon in the long term. .. As opposed to relying on the security of Israel ?!? You can argue for Israel from fait accompli. Or you can argue for it as Jewish homeland. But it hasn't had a history long enough -- nor successful enough -- to argue for it as a way of guaranteeing the security of Jews, vis-a-vis the western democracies. >There is no doubt that the official western foreign policy is to discourage >the dissolution of countries along cultural line. But there is also a >realistic aspect that says that when two peoples cannot get along they are >better off in separate countries than fighting to the >death in the same one. Absolutely. I completely support the creation of two, three, or four states, when there is inadequate cultural unity to sustain one in success. But without some kind of ethnic cleansing, geographic divisions never exactly partition the various cultures. And the western democracies should push EACH of the states involved to institute legal systems that respect the minorities that remain within them. This is not an argument that requires either-or. Perhaps the best chance lies with BOTH a Palestine separate from Israel, and western democracies pushing the two governments to give adequate legal protection to the different ethnic and religious minorities that remain in the national bounds of each. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From johnhall@evergo.net Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:27:22 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:27:22 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) > Behalf Of Paul Prescod > > American Jews are safer as long as the American public is on > their side. On a Jew with a very constrained view of society > would consider that the sort of safety they can depend upon > in the long term. The Catholic Church also made periodic > truces with them. The American public only came to support them after the absolute shock of the Holocaust, along with Israeli victory in '67. I admit to being bewildered by anti-Semitism, except that which is explicitly based on religious war. It is the persistence of that bias where it doesn't look like religion is the primary motivating force that I don't understand. And I can also be stunned by how quickly it can return with a vengence. ======================= There is one explanation I read. The Jews, not being welcome much of anywhere, often specialized as trade middle men. (They are not the only ethnic group that has specialized this way, groups from India and Lebanon have done it as well). Few people understand, at a low raw level, the value of middle men traders. Too often the termendous value they add is seen as cheating or crooked. Maybe that is where an explanation can be found. From fork@ianbell.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:40:02 -0700 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:40:02 -0700 From: Ian Andrew Bell fork@ianbell.com Subject: the end of tribalism On 10/2/01 2:48 PM, "Damien Morton" wrote: > How to fight tribalism 101: > > Make the patient comfortable: a little bit of sugar helps the medicine > go down I say we infuse Prozac into the global water supply... Works well for Beverly Hills! -Ian. From garym@canada.com 03 Oct 2001 14:44:09 -0400 Date: 03 Oct 2001 14:44:09 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: [rec.music.folk] Hey, Listen Taliban... (Day-o) [ couldn't resist, sorry ] From: brittles@aol.comUNSPAM (Brittles) Newsgroups: rec.music.folk Date: 03 Oct 2001 14:31:24 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Hey, Listen Taliban... (Day-o) Probably not appropriate, and I don't really agree with the sentiments - but it was too obvious. It just popped out - I couldn't help myself. Not intended as flame bait. - I simply consider it satirical. Ed Britt The BinLadin Bomb Song (Day-o) Hey, listen Taliban - tell me where's Bin Ladin? Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Hey, listen Taliban, tell me where's Bin Ladin? Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Day - ohh-ohh - day-ay-ay-o Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. We work all night for the bombing run, Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Track Bin Ladin 'til the morning come, Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Day - ohh-ohh - day-ay-ay-o Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Drop six foot, seven foot, eight foot bomb, Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Six foot, seven foot, eight foot bomb, Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Day - oh-oh - day-ay-ay-o Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. Please Remove *UNSPAM* from my address, to e-mail me. From robertsteward@australia.edu Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:03:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:03:29 -0400 From: Robert Steward robertsteward@australia.edu Subject: Oink if you love Jesus ThosStew@aol.com writes: >over Kandahar during noon prayers and push the hogs out at low >altitude. Live pig bombs The top anti-US mullahs would be >taken out. Unholy, filthy pigs flying from the sky, creating a >sea of pig blood in the center of the mosque. I personally find this post sick, disgusting and inappropriate. I guess one must consider the source of such posts. Robert Steward Swinburn University of Technology Victori http://australia.edu From johnhall@evergo.net Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:25:50 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 12:25:50 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On > Behalf Of Russell Turpin > As opposed to relying on the security of Israel ?!? > > You can argue for Israel from fait accompli. Or you can > argue for it as Jewish homeland. But it hasn't had a > history long enough -- nor successful enough -- to argue > for it as a way of guaranteeing the security of Jews, > vis-a-vis the western democracies. Weimar Germany was a western democracy. Anti-Semitism in the US was often intense. Henry Ford paid to have "The Protocols" published here, and the KKK targeted Jews, literally and figuratively. Anti-Semitism appears to be strongly rooted in the African American community, or at least in its self-appointed leaders. It is my impression that outside the US things are generally worse (though maybe not in Canada). I don't think the safety provided by western democracies has existed for much longer than the state of Israel. At least in Israel, the Jewish population knows that their government will be on their side no matter what happens. I don't think I can say that of any other place on earth including the US. From moneynow22@hanimail.com Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:09:38 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 02:09:38 From: moneynow22@hanimail.com moneynow22@hanimail.com Subject: L@@k->Be SECURE in Your Financial Future Would you like to be secure in your financial future? Have enough money to retire how you want to and when you want to? Or even have the ability to send your children to the colleges of your choice, without regard to cost? THE PROPER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT MAY BE THE ANSWER! For additional information reply visit http://www.rookhosting.net/opportunity You now have the opportunity to purchase real estate in one of the most progressive markets nationwide! ***Fully rented*** ***In place Management*** ***Priced $58,000 below construction cost*** **Enjoy a comfortable retirement** **Save on taxes** **Provide for your, or your children's future** For additional information reply visit http://www.rookhosting.net/opportunity To be removed from our mailing list please visit http://www.rookhosting.net/opportunity/remove.html From sdw@lig.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:56:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:56:41 -0400 From: Stephen D. Williams sdw@lig.net Subject: Oink if you love Jesus Robert Steward wrote: > ThosStew@aol.com writes: > >>over Kandahar during noon prayers and push the hogs out at low >>altitude. Live pig bombs The top anti-US mullahs would be >>taken out. Unholy, filthy pigs flying from the sky, creating a >>sea of pig blood in the center of the mosque. > > I personally find this post sick, disgusting and inappropriate. > I guess one must consider the source of such posts. And have a sense of humor. > > Robert Steward > Swinburn University of Technology Swin(e)burn ??? You have to wonder. > Victori > http://australia.edu > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > sdw -- sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000 From MrkJHarris@aol.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:08:42 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:08:42 EDT From: MrkJHarris@aol.com MrkJHarris@aol.com Subject: Hijacking just heard on BBC TV news update that it has been reported a plane in India has been hijacked. Little known about the incident. Don't know if it is true, but the BBC is reported it. From narahari@hotmail.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:16:19 -0600 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:16:19 -0600 From: sateesh narahari narahari@hotmail.com Subject: Hijacking news.bbc.co.uk says a plane from Bombay to New Delhi. oh my...Bombay is the maket capital of India, and if I am right, Taj Mahal is not that far from New Delhi. thank god, it just landed in New Delhi. ( Cnn.com ) Sateesh ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:08 PM Subject: Hijacking > just heard on BBC TV news update that it has been reported a plane in India > has been hijacked. Little known about the incident. Don't know if it is > true, but the BBC is reported it. > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > From beberg@mithral.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:16:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:16:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Adam L. Beberg beberg@mithral.com Subject: Americas Growing Wage-Rent Disparity "...The national median housing wage, based on each countys housing wage for a two bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent weighted by Census 2000 population figures, is $13.87 an hour, more than twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour. This means that on average, there must be more than two full-time minimum wage workers in a household in order for the household to afford a two bedroom housing unit at the Fair Market Rent..." http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/index.htm The data looks right on for places I have lived... Basicly, the one income family is dead, and the 2 income family is an endangered species. The data all laid out like this really shows why all the teachers and doctors are fleeing the bay area... but keep in mind most of the data is from before the economy really started down, and well before the attack... so there has been a serious downshift in earnings, but no real decline in rents. The most interesting is this one... http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/table5.htm the "up and coming" places have their average sate-wide rents "jumping and soaring". Some serious non-linear effects. No wonder people hate geeks so much, this spells it out preaty clearly - geeks move in, everyone else has to move out. - Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg http://www.iit.edu/~beberg/ beberg@mithral.com From mike@DataChannel.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:17:57 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 13:17:57 -0700 From: Mike Dierken mike@DataChannel.com Subject: NYTimes: email from Israel This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14C48.7DA3FD20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > We are dealing with a people where canabalism was not > unknown in the middle of the 19th century. Probably incorrect & typical 1800's sensationalism. And if you want know what 'kind of people' you are dealing with, do some research on what King Leopold & crew did. http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/brfobcon.htm Interesting tie-in - Arabs & 'introducing orderly government'... "After winning the approval of the world by suppressing Arab slave-raiders, [King Leopold] the royal philanthropist set to work to introduce orderly government into his dominions." Of course, things turned out a little differently... http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/leopold.html mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen D. Williams [mailto:sdw@lig.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:39 AM > To: Mr. FoRK > Cc: fork@xent.com > Subject: Re: NYTimes: email from Israel > > > > > Mr. FoRK wrote: > > >>Primitive: > >>Congo, Afghanistan (canabalism-derived culture, genocide, abuse of > >>women, death sentences for everything) > >> > > Canabalism culture? In the Congo? I'm from the Congo... got > any links to > > back that up? > > > > > That comment was based on a mental note based on a > newscast/newspaper at > some point in the last 5 years talking about some tribe in, I > believe, > the Congo, or Zaire, or someplace. > > Part of the problem with finding anything on the subject is > that when I > search for Congo/Africa/Canabal all I get are people with > 'Canabal' in > their last names! What does that tell you? > > This link, found with 'canabalism congo' indicates I wasn't far off: > > http://www.newcastle.edu.au/cwis/ra/programs/godfrey/1-11-96.html > > > "and the awful story was made known last year of how President > Mitterand's son encouraged the providing of arms to the Hutu > to have a > genocide of the Anglophone Tutsis. This situation errupts again: > > Zaire which is most of the old Belgian Congo is on the border and the > race types of course are not defined by pre-war colonial borders that > the modern states in many cases retain. We are dealing with a people > where canabalism was not unknown in the middle of the 19th century; > > where there was great poverty; where the slave trade had > debauched the > coastlands with alcohol and other Western evils. Also, it must not be > surprising that the treatment of the native labourers by > European firms > anxious to get minerals and timber have all produced jealousies and > hatreds because it suited the colonial power to accentuate > tribal divisions. > > So this dreadful blood bath - it is a scandal to the world > that no-one > is preventing it; no-one is attempting to send relief because > it is too > big for everybody at the moment to cope with. In the evil backdrop of > this whole scheme is, of course, the international armaments > trade which > enables these poor African countries to buy the tools of death." > > > sdw > -- > sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st > Stephen D. Williams > 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax > Dec2000 > > > > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C14C48.7DA3FD20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: NYTimes: email from Israel

> We are dealing with a people where canabalism = was not
> unknown in the middle of the 19th = century.
Probably incorrect & typical 1800's = sensationalism.

And if you want know what 'kind of people' you are = dealing with, do some research on what King Leopold & crew did. =
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/brfobcon.htm

Interesting tie-in - Arabs & 'introducing orderly = government'...
"After winning the approval of the world by = suppressing Arab slave-raiders, [King Leopold] the royal philanthropist = set to work to introduce orderly government into his dominions." = Of course, things turned out a little differently...

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/specials/leopold= .html


mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen D. Williams [mailto:sdw@lig.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 7:39 = AM
> To: Mr. FoRK
> Cc: fork@xent.com
> Subject: Re: NYTimes: email from Israel
>
>
>
>
> Mr. FoRK wrote:
>
> >>Primitive:
> >>Congo, Afghanistan  = (canabalism-derived culture, genocide, abuse of
> >>women, death sentences for = everything)
> >>
> > Canabalism culture? In the Congo? I'm from = the Congo... got
> any links to
> > back that up?
> >
>
>
> That comment was based on a mental note based = on a
> newscast/newspaper at
> some point in the last 5 years talking about = some tribe in, I
> believe,
> the Congo, or Zaire, or someplace.
>
> Part of the problem with finding anything on = the subject is
> that when I
> search for Congo/Africa/Canabal all I get are = people with
> 'Canabal' in
> their last names!  What does that tell = you?
>
> This link, found with 'canabalism congo' = indicates I wasn't far off:
>
> http://www.newcastle.edu.au/cwis/ra/programs/godfrey/1= -11-96.html
>
>
> "and the awful story was made known last = year of how President
> Mitterand's son encouraged the providing of = arms to the Hutu
> to have a
> genocide of the Anglophone Tutsis. This = situation errupts again:
>
> Zaire which is most of the old Belgian Congo is = on the border and the
> race types of course are not defined by pre-war = colonial borders that
> the modern states in many cases retain. We are = dealing with a people
> where canabalism was not unknown in the middle = of the 19th century;
>
> where there was great poverty; where the slave = trade had
> debauched the
> coastlands with alcohol and other Western = evils. Also, it must not be
> surprising that the treatment of the native = labourers by
> European firms
> anxious to get minerals and timber have all = produced jealousies and
> hatreds because it suited the colonial power to = accentuate
> tribal divisions.
>
> So this dreadful blood bath - it is a scandal = to the world
> that no-one
> is preventing it; no-one is attempting to send = relief because
> it is too
> big for everybody at the moment to cope with. = In the evil backdrop of
> this whole scheme is, of course, the = international armaments
> trade which
> enables these poor African countries to buy the = tools of death."
>
>
> sdw
> --
> sdw@lig.net  http://sdw.st
> Stephen D. Williams
> 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 = 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax
> Dec2000
>
>
>
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C14C48.7DA3FD20-- From johnhall@evergo.net Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:15:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:15:29 -0700 From: John Hall johnhall@evergo.net Subject: Americas Growing Wage-Rent Disparity For Seattle, they list $16.25 to be able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment working 40 hrs a week. But a key determinant is that affordable is defined as only using 30% of your income for housing. 30% is affordable, it is the max level banks look for when you are trying to buy a house. But more is possible, just not pleasant. Taking that up to 50%, you need two people earning $4.88/hr each. The real whammy is if you need a car to get to work. Cars are expensive. Bottom lines: 1. Try real hard to be worth more. 2. Finish HS. 3. Get and stay married. 4. If hard pressed, look into Nursing Homes. Cleaning bed pans is disgusting, which is why they are always hiring nurse aides and they almost always pay better than minimum. 5. Work more than 40hrs per week. > -----Original Message----- > From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On > Behalf Of Adam L. Beberg > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:17 PM > To: fork@xent.com > Subject: Americas Growing Wage-Rent Disparity > > > "...The national median housing wage, based on each countys > housing wage for a two bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent > weighted by Census 2000 population figures, is $13.87 an > hour, more than twice the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per > hour. This means that on average, there must be more than two > full-time minimum wage workers in a household in order for > the household to afford a two bedroom housing unit at the > Fair Market Rent..." > http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/index.htm From jbone@jump.net Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:34:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:34:32 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Paul Prescod wrote: > > Nor did I say we have such ability. We do have (civilized) tools at our disposal, for > > instance complete economic and social isolation. > > On principle alone. Regardless of the practical consequences. Nobody suggested "regardless." These things have to be considered carefully. > > "Culture" is even more abstract and vague than "ethnicity" or "religion." > > Life is full of vague abstractions. Especially when you are discussing > sociology and geopolitics. I'm sorry to force you to discuss things you > are uncomfortable with. Oh, GMAFB. The purpose of pointing out that it's vague is to point out that it doesn't really add much to the conversation without further explication. jb From Grlygrl201@aol.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:15:54 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 18:15:54 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: Americas Growing Wage-Rent Disparity --part1_110.64f534e.28ece81a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit recommended reading: "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. Millions of Americans work full-time, year-round, for poverty-level wages. In 1998, Barbara Ehrenreich decided to join them. She was inspired in part by the rhetoric surrounding welfare reform, which promised that a job -- any job -- could be the ticket to a better life. But how does anyone survive, let alone prosper, on six to seven dollars an hour? To find out, Ehrenreich left her home, took the cheapest lodgings she could find, and accepted whatever jobs she was offered as a woefully inexperienced homemaker returning to the workforce. So began a grueling, hair raising, and darkly funny odyssey through the underside of working America. Moving from Florida to Maine to Minnesota, Ehrenreich worked as a waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk. Very quickly, she discovered that no job is truly "unskilled," that even the lowliest occupations require exhausting mental and muscular effort. She also learned that one job is not enough; you need at least two if you intend to live indoors. Nickel and Dimed reveals low-wage America in all its tenacity, anxiety, and surprising generosity -- a land of Big Boxes, fast food, and a thousand desperate stratagems for survival. Read it for the smoldering clarity of Ehrenreich's perspective and for a rare view of how "prosperity" looks from the bottom. You will never see anything -- from a motel bathroom to a restaurant meal -- quite the same way again. "I was absolutely knocked out by Barbara Ehrenreich's remarkable odyssey. She has accomplished what no contemporary writer has even attempted -- to be that 'nobody' who barely subsists on her essential labors. Nickel and Dimed is a stiff punch in the nose to those righteous apostles of 'welfare reform.' Not only is it must reading but it's mesmeric. You can't put the damn thing down. Bravo!" --Studs Terkel "Entering the world of service work, Barbara Ehrenreich folded clothes at Wal-Mart, waitressed, washed dishes in a nursing home, and scrubbed floors on her hands and knees. Her account of those experiences is unforgettable -- heart-wrenching, infuriating, funny, smart, and empowering. Few readers will be untouched by the shameful realities that underlie America's economy. Vintage Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed will surely take its place among the classics of underground reportage." --Juliet Schor" With this book Barbara Ehrenreich takes her place among such giants of investigative journalism as George Orwell and Jack London. Ehrenreich's courage and empathy bring us face-to-face with the fate of millions of American workers today." --Frances Fox Piven" Drunk on dot-coms and day trading, America has gone blind to the downside of its great prosperity. In Nickel and Dimed, Ehrenreich expertly peels away the layers of self-denial, self-interest, and self-protection that separate the rich from the poor, the served from the servers, the housed from the homeless. This brave and frank book is ultimately a challenge to create a less divided society." --Naomi Klein" A brilliant on-the-job report from the dark side of the boom. No one since H. L. Mencken has assailed the smug rhetoric of prosperity with such scalpel-like precision and ferocious wit." --Mike Davis"Millions of Americans suffer daily trying to make ends meet. Barbara Ehrenreich's book forces people to acknowledge the average worker's struggle, and promises to be extremely influential." --Lynn Woolsey, member of congress" One of the great American social critics has written an unforgettable memoir of what it was like to work in some of America's least attractive jobs. No one who reads this book will be able to resist its power to make them see the world in a new way." --Mitchell Duneier Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of Blood Rites; The Worst Years of Our Lives (a New York Times bestseller); Fear o Falling, which was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award; and eight other books. A frequent contributor to Time, Harper's Magazine, The New Republic, The Nation, and The New York Times Magazine, she lives near Key West, Florida. http://www.henryholt.com/2001s-hh/nickelanddimed.htm In a message dated 10/3/01 4:18:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, beberg@mithral.com writes: > > "...The national median housing wage, based on each countys housing wage for > a two bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent weighted by Census 2000 > population figures, is $13.87 an hour, more than twice the federal minimum > wage of $5.15 per hour. This means that on average, there must be more than > two full-time minimum wage workers in a household in order for the household > to afford a two bedroom housing unit at the Fair Market Rent..." > > http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/index.htm > > The data looks right on for places I have lived... Basicly, the one income > family is dead, and the 2 income family is an endangered species. The data > all laid out like this really shows why all the teachers and doctors are > fleeing the bay area... but keep in mind most of the data is from before the > economy really started down, and well before the attack... so there has > been a serious downshift in earnings, but no real decline in rents. > > The most interesting is this one... http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/table5.htm > the "up and coming" places have their average sate-wide rents "jumping and > soaring". Some serious non-linear effects. No wonder people hate geeks so > much, this spells it out preaty clearly - geeks move in, everyone else has > to move out. > > - Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg > --part1_110.64f534e.28ece81a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit recommended reading:  "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich.

Millions of Americans work full-time, year-round, for poverty-level wages. In 1998, Barbara Ehrenreich decided to join them. She was inspired in part by the rhetoric surrounding welfare reform, which promised that a job -- any job -- could be the ticket to a better life. But how does anyone survive, let alone prosper, on six to seven dollars an hour? To find out, Ehrenreich left her home, took the cheapest lodgings she could find, and accepted whatever jobs she was offered as a woefully inexperienced homemaker returning to the workforce. So began a grueling, hair raising, and darkly funny odyssey through the underside of working America.

Moving from Florida to Maine to Minnesota, Ehrenreich worked as a waitress, a hotel maid, a cleaning woman, a nursing home aide, and a Wal-Mart sales clerk. Very quickly, she discovered that no job is truly "unskilled," that even the lowliest occupations require exhausting mental and muscular effort. She also learned that one job is not enough; you need at least two if you intend to live indoors.

Nickel and Dimed reveals low-wage America in all its tenacity, anxiety, and surprising generosity -- a land of Big Boxes, fast food, and a thousand desperate stratagems for survival. Read it for the smoldering clarity of Ehrenreich's perspective and for a rare view of how "prosperity" looks from the bottom. You will never see anything -- from a motel bathroom to a restaurant meal -- quite the same way again.

"I was absolutely knocked out by Barbara Ehrenreich's remarkable odyssey. She has accomplished what no contemporary writer has even attempted -- to be that 'nobody' who barely subsists on her essential labors. Nickel and Dimed is a stiff punch in the nose to those righteous apostles of 'welfare reform.' Not only is it must reading but it's mesmeric. You can't put the damn thing down. Bravo!" --Studs Terkel

"Entering the world of service work, Barbara Ehrenreich folded clothes at Wal-Mart, waitressed, washed dishes in a nursing home, and scrubbed floors on her hands and knees. Her account of those experiences is unforgettable -- heart-wrenching, infuriating, funny, smart, and empowering. Few readers will be untouched by the shameful realities that underlie America's economy. Vintage Ehrenreich, Nickel and Dimed will surely take its place among the classics of underground reportage." --Juliet Schor"

With this book Barbara Ehrenreich takes her place among such giants of investigative journalism as George Orwell and Jack London. Ehrenreich's courage and empathy bring us face-to-face with the fate of millions of American workers today." --Frances Fox Piven"

Drunk on dot-coms and day trading, America has gone blind to the downside of its great prosperity. In Nickel and Dimed, Ehrenreich expertly peels away the layers of self-denial, self-interest, and self-protection that separate the rich from the poor, the served from the servers, the housed from the homeless. This brave and frank book is ultimately a challenge to create a less divided society." --Naomi Klein"

A brilliant on-the-job report from the dark side of the boom. No one since H. L. Mencken has assailed the smug rhetoric of prosperity with such scalpel-like precision and ferocious wit." --Mike Davis"Millions of Americans suffer daily trying to make ends meet. Barbara Ehrenreich's book forces people to acknowledge the average worker's struggle, and promises to be extremely influential." --Lynn Woolsey, member of congress"

One of the great American social critics has written an unforgettable memoir of what it was like to work in some of America's least attractive jobs. No one who reads this book will be able to resist its power to make them see the world in a new way." --Mitchell Duneier

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of Blood Rites; The Worst Years of Our Lives (a New York Times bestseller); Fear o Falling, which was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award; and eight other books. A frequent contributor to Time, Harper's Magazine, The New Republic, The Nation, and The New York Times Magazine, she lives near Key West, Florida.

http://www.henryholt.com/2001s-hh/nickelanddimed.htm



In a message dated 10/3/01 4:18:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, beberg@mithral.com writes:

"...The national median housing wage, based on each countys housing wage for
a two bedroom unit at the Fair Market Rent weighted by Census 2000
population figures, is $13.87 an hour, more than twice the federal minimum
wage of $5.15 per hour. This means that on average, there must be more than
two full-time minimum wage workers in a household in order for the household
to afford a two bedroom housing unit at the Fair Market Rent..."

http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/index.htm

The data looks right on for places I have lived... Basicly, the one income
family is dead, and the 2 income family is an endangered species. The data
all laid out like this really shows why all the teachers and doctors are
fleeing the bay area... but keep in mind most of the data is from before the
economy really started down, and well before the attack... so there has
been a serious downshift in earnings, but no real decline in rents.

The most interesting is this one... http://www.nlihc.org/oor2001/table5.htm
the "up and coming" places have their average sate-wide rents "jumping and
soaring". Some serious non-linear effects. No wonder people hate geeks so
much, this spells it out preaty clearly - geeks move in, everyone else has
to move out.

- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg














--part1_110.64f534e.28ece81a_boundary-- From inkforall@mail.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:44:47 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:44:47 From: Paul inkforall@mail.com Subject: Don't buy any more refill kits! They are messy and they take up a lot of your time. Now you can save money as well as help the environment. You can now purchase remanufactured cartridges and save.For a free price list send an email with price list in subject, along with your name and type of printer you have. Thanks Paul e-mail inkforall@mail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This mail has been sent in accordance with the pending anti-spam law unsolicited electronic mail. Act of 2000 (H.R. 3113) Should you wish to be removed from this mailing list please send an e-mail with remove in the subject line to:inkforall@mail.coml?Subject=Remove Thank You - From deafbox@hotmail.com Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:30:05 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:30:05 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) John Hall writes: >Weimar Germany was a western democracy. Not really. It was more one of the examples where the western democracies tried to impose democracy on a culture that wasn't yet ready to support that form of government. The western democracies of the time, instead of doing what was required to maintain such government, created conditions that made its survival almost impossible. See Keynes, "Economic Consequences of the Peace." >I don't think the safety provided by western democracies has existed for >much longer than the state of Israel. At least in Israel, the Jewish >population knows that their government will be on their side no matter what >happens. .. But the problem isn't just how to make Jews safe. It's how to make ALL peoples safe. And we already know what kind of world we get when the answer to that question is: let them each fight for a homeland, and when they get it, let them rule it as if they are the only people there that matter. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From Grlygrl201@aol.com Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:14:42 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:14:42 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: [rec.music.folk] Hey, Listen Taliban... (Day-o) --part1_14a.1fb3b18.28ed2012_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I want my royalties!!!! In a message dated 10/3/01 2:55:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, garym@canada.com writes: > Not intended as flame bait. - I simply consider it satirical. > > Ed Britt > > > The BinLadin Bomb Song (Day-o) > > Hey, listen Taliban - tell me where's Bin Ladin? > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > Hey, listen Taliban, tell me where's Bin Ladin? > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > > Day - ohh-ohh - day-ay-ay-o > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > > We work all night for the bombing run, > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > Track Bin Ladin 'til the morning come, > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > > Day - ohh-ohh - day-ay-ay-o > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > > Drop six foot, seven foot, eight foot bomb, > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > Six foot, seven foot, eight foot bomb, > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > > Day - oh-oh - day-ay-ay-o > Daylight come, an' we bomb his home. > > --part1_14a.1fb3b18.28ed2012_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I want my royalties!!!!

In a message dated 10/3/01 2:55:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, garym@canada.com writes:


Not intended as flame bait. - I simply consider it satirical.  

Ed Britt


The BinLadin Bomb Song    (Day-o)

Hey, listen Taliban - tell me where's Bin Ladin?
  Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.
Hey, listen Taliban, tell me where's Bin Ladin?
  Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.

Day - ohh-ohh - day-ay-ay-o
  Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.

We work all night for the bombing run,
  Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.
Track Bin Ladin 'til the morning come,
  Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.

Day - ohh-ohh - day-ay-ay-o
  Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.

Drop six foot, seven foot, eight foot bomb,
   Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.
Six foot, seven foot, eight foot bomb,
    Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.

Day - oh-oh - day-ay-ay-o
  Daylight come, an' we bomb his home.



--part1_14a.1fb3b18.28ed2012_boundary-- From jean@upfrontsystems.co.za Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:07:12 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:07:12 +0200 From: Jean Jordaan jean@upfrontsystems.co.za Subject: Arundhati Roy on September 11 Most of these points have been made on this list. Arundhati is very critical of the US, but not I think unfairly so. -----Original Message----- Arundhati Roy Guardian Saturday September 29, 2001 In the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, an American newscaster said: "Good and evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee." Then he broke down and wept. Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know, because they don't appear much on TV. Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "international coalition against terror", mobilised its army, its air force, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle. The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place. What we're witnessing here is the spectacle of the world's most powerful country reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to fight a new kind of war. Suddenly, when it comes to defending itself, America's streamlined warships, cruise missiles and F-16 jets look like obsolete, lumbering things. As deterrence, its arsenal of nuclear bombs is no longer worth its weight in scrap. Box-cutters, penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with which the wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn't show up in baggage checks. Who is America fighting? On September 20, the FBI said that it had doubts about the identities of some of the hijackers. On the same day President George Bush said, "We know exactly who these people are and which governments are supporting them." It sounds as though the president knows something that the FBI and the American public don't. In his September 20 address to the US Congress, President Bush called the enemies of America "enemies of freedom". "Americans are asking, 'Why do they hate us?' " he said. "They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." People are being asked to make two leaps of faith here. First, to assume that The Enemy is who the US government says it is, even though it has no substantial evidence to support that claim. And second, to assume that The Enemy's motives are what the US government says they are, and there's nothing to support that either. For strategic, military and economic reasons, it is vital for the US government to persuade its public that their commitment to freedom and democracy and the American Way of Life is under attack. In the current atmosphere of grief, outrage and anger, it's an easy notion to peddle. However, if that were true, it's reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America's economic and military dominance - the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon - were chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why not the Statue of Liberty? Could it be that the stygian anger that led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government's record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite things - to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)? It must be hard for ordinary Americans, so recently bereaved, to look up at the world with their eyes full of tears and encounter what might appear to them to be indifference. It isn't indifference. It's just augury. An absence of surprise. The tired wisdom of knowing that what goes around eventually comes around. American people ought to know that it is not them but their government's policies that are so hated. They can't possibly doubt that they themselves, their extraordinary musicians, their writers, their actors, their spectacular sportsmen and their cinema, are universally welcomed. All of us have been moved by the courage and grace shown by firefighters, rescue workers and ordinary office staff in the days since the attacks. America's grief at what happened has been immense and immensely public. It would be grotesque to expect it to calibrate or modulate its anguish. However, it will be a pity if, instead of using this as an opportunity to try to understand why September 11 happened, Americans use it as an opportunity to usurp the whole world's sorrow to mourn and avenge only their own. Because then it falls to the rest of us to ask the hard questions and say the harsh things. And for our pains, for our bad timing, we will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced. The world will probably never know what motivated those particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular American buildings. They were not glory boys. They left no suicide notes, no political messages; no organisation has claimed credit for the attacks. All we know is that their belief in what they were doing outstripped the natural human instinct for survival, or any desire to be remembered. It's almost as though they could not scale down the enormity of their rage to anything smaller than their deeds. And what they did has blown a hole in the world as we knew it. In the absence of information, politicians, political commentators and writers (like myself) will invest the act with their own politics, with their own interpretations. This speculation, this analysis of the political climate in which the attacks took place, can only be a good thing. But war is looming large. Whatever remains to be said must be said quickly. Before America places itself at the helm of the "international coalition against terror", before it invites (and coerces) countries to actively participate in its almost godlike mission - called Operation Infinite Justice until it was pointed out that this could be seen as an insult to Muslims, who believe that only Allah can mete out infinite justice, and was renamed Operation Enduring Freedom- it would help if some small clarifications are made. For example, Infinite Justice/Enduring Freedom for whom? Is this America's war against terror in America or against terror in general? What exactly is being avenged here? Is it the tragic loss of almost 7,000 lives, the gutting of five million square feet of office space in Manhattan, the destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the loss of several hundreds of thousands of jobs, the bankruptcy of some airline companies and the dip in the New York Stock Exchange? Or is it more than that? In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". Albright never lost her job for saying this. She continued to travel the world representing the views and aspirations of the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions against Iraq remain in place. Children continue to die. So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between civilisation and savagery, between the "massacre of innocent people" or, if you like, "a clash of civilisations" and "collateral damage". The sophistry and fastidious algebra of infinite justice. How many dead Iraqis will it take to make the world a better place? How many dead Afghans for every dead American? How many dead women and children for every dead man? How many dead mojahedin for each dead investment banker? As we watch mesmerised, Operation Enduring Freedom unfolds on TV monitors across the world. A coalition of the world's superpowers is closing in on Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most ravaged, war-torn countries in the world, whose ruling Taliban government is sheltering Osama bin Laden, the man being held responsible for the September 11 attacks. The only thing in Afghanistan that could possibly count as collateral value is its citizenry. (Among them, half a million maimed orphans.There are accounts of hobbling stampedes that occur when artificial limbs are airdropped into remote, inaccessible villages.) Afghanistan's economy is in a shambles. In fact, the problem for an invading army is that Afghanistan has no conventional coordinates or signposts to plot on a military map - no big cities, no highways, no industrial complexes, no water treatment plants. Farms have been turned into mass graves. The countryside is littered with land mines - 10 million is the most recent estimate. The American army would first have to clear the mines and build roads in order to take its soldiers in. Fearing an attack from America, one million citizens have fled from their homes and arrived at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The UN estimates that there are eight million Afghan citizens who need emergency aid. As supplies run out - food and aid agencies have been asked to leave - the BBC reports that one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent times has begun to unfold. Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they're waiting to be killed. In America there has been rough talk of "bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age". Someone please break the news that Afghanistan is already there. And if it's any consolation, America played no small part in helping it on its way. The American people may be a little fuzzy about where exactly Afghanistan is (we hear reports that there's a run on maps of the country), but the US government and Afghanistan are old friends. In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) launched the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA. Their purpose was to harness the energy of Afghan resistance to the Soviets and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jihad, which would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the communist regime and eventually destabilise it. When it began, it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned out to be much more than that. Over the years, through the ISI, the CIA funded and recruited almost 100,000 radical mojahedin from 40 Islamic countries as soldiers for America's proxy war. The rank and file of the mojahedin were unaware that their jihad was actually being fought on behalf of Uncle Sam. (The irony is that America was equally unaware that it was financing a future war against itself.) In 1989, after being bloodied by 10 years of relentless conflict, the Russians withdrew, leaving behind a civilisation reduced to rubble. Civil war in Afghanistan raged on. The jihad spread to Chechnya, Kosovo and eventually to Kashmir. The CIA continued to pour in money and military equipment, but the overheads had become immense, and more money was needed. The mojahedin ordered farmers to plant opium as a "revolutionary tax". The ISI set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland had become the biggest producer of heroin in the world, and the single biggest source of the heroin on American streets. The annual profits, said to be between $100bn and $200bn, were ploughed back into training and arming militants. In 1995, the Taliban - then a marginal sect of dangerous, hardline fundamentalists - fought its way to power in Afghanistan. It was funded by the ISI, that old cohort of the CIA, and supported by many political parties in Pakistan. The Taliban unleashed a regime of terror. Its first victims were its own people, particularly women. It closed down girls' schools, dismissed women from government jobs, and enforced sharia laws under which women deemed to be "immoral" are stoned to death, and widows guilty of being adulterous are buried alive. Given the Taliban government's human rights track record, it seems unlikely that it will in any way be intimidated or swerved from its purpose by the prospect of war, or the threat to the lives of its civilians. After all that has happened, can there be anything more ironic than Russia and America joining hands to re-destroy Afghanistan? The question is, can you destroy destruction? Dropping more bombs on Afghanistan will only shuffle the rubble, scramble some old graves and disturb the dead. The desolate landscape of Afghanistan was the burial ground of Soviet communism and the springboard of a unipolar world dominated by America. It made the space for neocapitalism and corporate globalisation, again dominated by America. And now Afghanistan is poised to become the graveyard for the unlikely soldiers who fought and won this war for America. And what of America's trusted ally? Pakistan too has suffered enormously. The US government has not been shy of supporting military dictators who have blocked the idea of democracy from taking root in the country. Before the CIA arrived, there was a small rural market for opium in Pakistan. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of heroin addicts grew from zero to one-and-a-half million. Even before September 11, there were three million Afghan refugees living in tented camps along the border. Pakistan's economy is crumbling. Sectarian violence, globalisation's structural adjustment programmes and drug lords are tearing the country to pieces. Set up to fight the Soviets, the terrorist training centres and madrasahs, sown like dragon's teeth across the country, produced fundamentalists with tremendous popular appeal within Pakistan itself. The Taliban, which the Pakistan government has sup ported, funded and propped up for years, has material and strategic alliances with Pakistan's own political parties. Now the US government is asking (asking?) Pakistan to garotte the pet it has hand-reared in its backyard for so many years. President Musharraf, having pledged his support to the US, could well find he has something resembling civil war on his hands. India, thanks in part to its geography, and in part to the vision of its former leaders, has so far been fortunate enough to be left out of this Great Game. Had it been drawn in, it's more than likely that our democracy, such as it is, would not have survived. Today, as some of us watch in horror, the Indian government is furiously gyrating its hips, begging the US to set up its base in India rather than Pakistan. Having had this ringside view of Pakistan's sordid fate, it isn't just odd, it's unthinkable, that India should want to do this. Any third world country with a fragile economy and a complex social base should know by now that to invite a superpower such as America in (whether it says it's staying or just passing through) would be like inviting a brick to drop through your windscreen. Operation Enduring Freedom is ostensibly being fought to uphold the American Way of Life. It'll probably end up undermining it completely. It will spawn more anger and more terror across the world. For ordinary people in America, it will mean lives lived in a climate of sickening uncertainty: will my child be safe in school? Will there be nerve gas in the subway? A bomb in the cinema hall? Will my love come home tonight? There have been warnings about the possibility of biological warfare - smallpox, bubonic plague, anthrax - the deadly payload of innocuous crop-duster aircraft. Being picked off a few at a time may end up being worse than being annihilated all at once by a nuclear bomb. The US government, and no doubt governments all over the world, will use the climate of war as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, deny free speech, lay off workers, harass ethnic and religious minorities, cut back on public spending and divert huge amounts of money to the defence industry. To what purpose? President Bush can no more "rid the world of evil-doers" than he can stock it with saints. It's absurd for the US government to even toy with the notion that it can stamp out terrorism with more violence and oppression. Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. Terrorism has no country. It's transnational, as global an enterprise as Coke or Pepsi or Nike. At the first sign of trouble, terrorists can pull up stakes and move their "factories" from country to country in search of a better deal. Just like the multi-nationals. Terrorism as a phenomenon may never go away. But if it is to be contained, the first step is for America to at least acknowledge that it shares the planet with other nations, with other human beings who, even if they are not on TV, have loves and griefs and stories and songs and sorrows and, for heaven's sake, rights. Instead, when Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was asked what he would call a victory in America's new war, he said that if he could convince the world that Americans must be allowed to continue with their way of life, he would consider it a victory. The September 11 attacks were a monstrous calling card from a world gone horribly wrong. The message may have been written by Bin Laden (who knows?) and delivered by his couriers, but it could well have been signed by the ghosts of the victims of America's old wars. The millions killed in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, the 17,500 killed when Israel - backed by the US - invaded Lebanon in 1982, the 200,000 Iraqis killed in Operation Desert Storm, the thousands of Palestinians who have died fighting Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And the millions who died, in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, at the hands of all the terrorists, dictators and genocidists whom the American government supported, trained, bankrolled and supplied with arms. And this is far from being a comprehensive list. For a country involved in so much warfare and conflict, the American people have been extremely fortunate. The strikes on September 11 were only the second on American soil in over a century. The first was Pearl Harbour. The reprisal for this took a long route, but ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This time the world waits with bated breath for the horrors to come. Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, America would have had to invent him. But, in a way, America did invent him. He was among the jihadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the CIA commenced its operations there. Bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI. In the course of a fortnight he has been promoted from suspect to prime suspect and then, despite the lack of any real evidence, straight up the charts to being "wanted dead or alive". From all accounts, it will be impossible to produce evidence (of the sort that would stand scrutiny in a court of law) to link Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. So far, it appears that the most incriminating piece of evidence against him is the fact that he has not condemned them. From what is known about the location of Bin Laden and the living conditions in which he operates, it's entirely possible that he did not personally plan and carry out the attacks - that he is the inspirational figure, "the CEO of the holding company". The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is "non-negotiable". (While talks are on for the extradition of CEOs - can India put in a side request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the US? He was the chairman of Union Carbide, responsible for the Bhopal gas leak that killed 16,000 people in 1984. We have collated the necessary evidence. It's all in the files. Could we have him, please?) But who is Osama bin Laden really? Let me rephrase that. What is Osama bin Laden? He's America's family secret. He is the American president's dark doppelgänger. The savage twin of all that purports to be beautiful and civilised. He has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by America's foreign policy: its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of "full-spectrum dominance", its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts. Its marauding multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think. Now that the family secret has been spilled, the twins are blurring into one another and gradually becoming interchangeable. Their guns, bombs, money and drugs have been going around in the loop for a while. (The Stinger missiles that will greet US helicopters were supplied by the CIA. The heroin used by America's drug addicts comes from Afghanistan. The Bush administration recently gave Afghanistan a $43m subsidy for a "war on drugs"....) Now Bush and Bin Laden have even begun to borrow each other's rhetoric. Each refers to the other as "the head of the snake". Both invoke God and use the loose millenarian currency of good and evil as their terms of reference. Both are engaged in unequivocal political crimes. Both are dangerously armed - one with the nuclear arsenal of the obscenely powerful, the other with the incandescent, destructive power of the utterly hopeless. The fireball and the ice pick. The bludgeon and the axe. The important thing to keep in mind is that neither is an acceptable alternative to the other. President Bush's ultimatum to the people of the world - "If you're not with us, you're against us" - is a piece of presumptuous arrogance. It's not a choice that people want to, need to, or should have to make. © Arundhati Roy 2001 From Grlygrl201@aol.com Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:10:21 EDT Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 06:10:21 EDT From: Grlygrl201@aol.com Grlygrl201@aol.com Subject: "Who needs a homeland?" (was: How can this be justified?) --part1_4d.124298dc.28ed8f8d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 12:36:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, johnhall@evergo.net writes: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of >> Grlygrl201@aol.com >> >> >> i wonder if our need to territorialize brings on the nation-state >> mentality, and not the other way around. >> [JmH: ] >> >> > The nation-state mentality dates (in the West) to the Monarchial Revolution > 350 years ago. That itself was an improvement over the more localized > tribalism that existed before. [Modern history, but then I'm not sure the > Romans really had a nation-state mentality either. The Greeks certainly > did not.] > Change nation-state to tribal. There was a very good program last night (discovery or tlc, the nerd channels to which i am glued) on the occult roots of naziism. Blood was everything to them - seemed more tribal than I had previously held. --part1_4d.124298dc.28ed8f8d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/3/01 12:36:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, johnhall@evergo.net writes:



-----Original Message-----
From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of Grlygrl201@aol.com


i wonder if our need to territorialize brings on the nation-state mentality, and not the other way around.  
[JmH: ]


The nation-state mentality dates (in the West) to the Monarchial Revolution 350 years ago.  That itself was an improvement over the more localized tribalism that existed before.  [Modern history, but then I'm not sure the Romans really had a nation-state mentality either.  The Greeks certainly did not.]


Change nation-state to tribal.  There was a very good program last night (discovery or tlc, the nerd channels to which i am glued) on the occult roots of naziism.  Blood was everything to them - seemed more tribal than I had previously held. --part1_4d.124298dc.28ed8f8d_boundary-- From MyCasinoBuilder.com Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 03:14:36 -0700 (PDT) From: MyCasinoBuilder.com MyCasinoBuilder.com Subject: revolutionary casino software OWN YOUR VERY OWN CASINO AND SPORTSBOOK! - NO PROGRAMMING skills necessary! - OPEN for business 24 hours per day - NO INVESTMENT required! - CUSTOM BRANDED website design! - Offer over 20 extremely popular and exciting games including: Blackjack Bacarrat Craps Roulette Pai Gow Slots ...and much more "...Internet Gambling is by far the fastest growing and most profitable business on the Internet today!" according to Steve Wynn, CEO of Mirage Resorts. With our state-of-the-art, easy to use software, you can now build your own Internet gambling website instantly and start capitalizing on a multi-bullion dollar industry which is still in its relative infancy. Unlike conventional dot com businesses, online gambling is a fast-growing, cash-rich business. Just imagine if you captured a fraction of 1% of the bets placed online. As the number of internet users increases exponentially, so will the amounts wagered online. The time to establish an online presence is now, before the next big surge in internet growth. You will receive 50% of all net winnings - the highest commission payout in the online gambling industry! You can expect to earn $3,000 - 5,000 plus a week! Best of all, this is 100% LEGAL. Don't believe it? Check out the web site http://www.MyCasinoBuilder.com for more details. ####################################################################### We strongly oppose the use of SPAM email and do not want anyone who does not wish to receive our mailings to receive them. As a result, we have retained the services of an independent 3rd party to administer our list management and remove list (www.removeyou.com). This is not SPAM. If you do not wish to receive further mailings, please click below and enter your email at the bottom of the page. You may then rest-assured that you will never receive another email from us again. http//www.removeyou.com The 21st Century Solution. I.D. # 032950 ####################################################################### From vwatvwat@yahoo.com Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:12:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 08:12:19 -0400 From: V Bassett vwatvwat@yahoo.com Subject: "The Letter" As seen on national TV! This will make BIG money for you=2E=2E=2EFAST!! Several months ago, I made a conscious decision not to delete what I figured was just another "junk" e-mail=2E That decision has changed my life=2E Here you have the very same opportunity in front of you=2E If you take just five minutes to read through the following program you won't regret it=2E See for yourself! If you do this - all involved WILL PROFIT!! Dear Friends & Future Millionaires: AS SEEN ON NATIONAL TV: Make over half a million dollars every 4 to 5 months from your home for an investment of only $25 U=2ES=2E Dollars expense ONE TIME!=2E THANKS TO THE COMPUTER AGE AND THE INTERNET ! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= BE A MILLIONAIRE LIKE OTHERS WITHIN A YEAR!!! Before you say ''Bull'', please read the following=2E This is the letter you have been hearing about on the news lately=2E Due to the popularity of this letter on the Internet, a national weekly news program recently devoted an entire show to the investigation of this program described below, to see if it really can make people money=2E The show also investigated whether or not the program was legal=2E Their findings proved once and for all that there are ''absolutely NO Laws prohibiting the participation in the program and if people can follow the simple instructions, they are bound to make some mega bucks with only $25 out of pocket cost''=2E DUE TO THE RECENT INCREASE OF POPULARITY & RESPECT THIS PROGRAM HAS ATTAINED, IT IS CURRENTLY WORKING BETTER THAN EVER! This is what one had to say:=20 ''Thanks to this profitable opportunity=2E I was approached many times before but each time I passed on it=2E I am so glad finally joined just to see what one could expect in return for the minimal effort and money required=2E To my astonishment, I received total $610,470=2E00 in 21 weeks, with money still coming in=2E" Pam Hedland, Fort Lee, New Jersey=2E =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D PRINT THIS NOW FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= If you would like to make at least $500,000 every 4 to 5 months easily and comfortably, please read the following=2E=2E=2ETHEN READ IT AGAIN and AGAIN!!! FOLLOW THE SIMPLE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW AND YOUR FINANCIAL DREAMS WILL COME TRUE, GUARANTEED! INSTRUCTIONS: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3DOrder all 5 reports shown on the list below =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= For each report, send $5 CASH, THE NAME & NUMBER OF THE REPORT YOU ARE ORDERING and YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS to the person whose name appears ON THAT LIST next to the report=2E MAKE SURE YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS ON YOUR ENVELOPE TOP LEFT CORNER in case of any mail problems=2E When you place your order, make sure you order each of the 5 reports=2E You will need all 5 reports so that you can save them on your computer and resell them=2E=20 YOUR TOTAL COST $5 X5=3D$25=2E00=2E=20 Within a few days you will receive, via e-mail, each of the 5 reports from these 5 different individuals=2E Save them on your computer so they will be accessible for you to send to the 1,000's of people who will order them from you=2E Also make a floppy of these reports and keep it on your desk in case something happens to your computer=2E=20 IMPORTANT - DO NOTalter the names of the people who are listed next to each report, or their sequence on the list,=20 in any way other than what is instructed below in steps '' 1 through 6 '' or you will lose out on a majority of your profits=2E Once you understand the way this works, you will also see how it does not work if you change it=2E Remember, this method has been tested, and if you alter it, it will NOT work!!! People have tried to put their friends/relatives names on all five thinking they could get all the money=2E But it does not work this way=2E Believe us, we all have tried to be greedy and then nothing happened=2E So DO NOT try to change anything other than what is instructed=2E Because if you do, it will not work for you=2E Remember, honesty reaps the reward!!! 1=2E=2E=2E=2E After you have ordered all 5 reports, take this advertisement and REMOVE the name & address of the person in REPORT # 5=2E This person has made it through the cycle and is no doubt counting their fortune=2E 2=2E=2E=2E=2E Move the name & address in REPORT # 4 down TO REPORT # 5=2E 3=2E=2E=2E=2E Move the name & address in REPORT # 3 down TO REPORT # 4=2E 4=2E=2E=2E=2E Move the name & address in REPORT # 2 down TO REPORT # 3=2E 5=2E=2E=2E=2E Move the name & address in REPORT # 1 down TO REPORT # 2=2E 6=2E=2E=2E=2E Insert YOUR name & address in the REPORT # 1 Position=2E PLEASE MAKE SURE you copy every name & address ACCURATELY! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D **** Take this entire letter, with the modified list of names, and save it on your computer=2E DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES=2E Save this on a disk as well just in case if you loose any data=2E To assist you with marketing your business on the internet, the 5 reports you purchase will provide you with invaluable marketing information which includes how to send bulk e-mails legally, where to find thousands of free classified ads and much more=2E There are 2 Primary methods to get this venture going: METHOD # 1: BY SENDING BULK E-MAIL LEGALLY =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Let's say that you decide to start small, just to see how it goes, and we will assume You and those involved send out only 5,000 e-mails each=2E Let's also assume that the mailing receives only a 0=2E2% response (the response could be much better but lets just say it is only 0=2E2%=2E Also many people will send out hundreds of thousands of e-mails instead of only 5,000 each)=2E Continuing with this example, you send out only 5,000 e-mails=2E With a 0=2E2% response, that is only 10 orders for report # 1=2E Those 10 people responded by sending out 5,000 e-mail each for a total of 50,000=2E Out of those 50,000 e-mails only 0=2E2% responded with orders=2E That's 100 people responded and ordered Report # 2=2E Those 100 people mail out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 500,000 e-mails=2E The 0=2E2% response to that is 1000 orders for Report # 3=2E Those 1000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 5 million e-mails sent out=2E The 0=2E2% response to that is 10,000 orders for Report # 4=2E Those 10,000 people send out 5,000 e-mails each for a total of 50,000,000 (50 million) e-mails=2E The 0=2E2% response to that is 100,000 orders for Report # 5=2E THAT'S 100,000 ORDERS TIMES $5 EACH=3D$500,000=2E00 (half a million)=2E Your total income in this example is: 1=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E $50 + 2=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E $500 + 3=2E=2E= =2E=2E=2E $5,000 + 4=2E=2E=2E=2E $50,000 + 5=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E $500,000 =2E=2E=2E=2E=2E= =2E=2E=2E Grand Total=3D$555,550=2E00!=20 NUMBERS DO NOT LIE=2E GET A PENCIL & PAPER AND FIGURE OUT THE WORST POSSIBLE RESPONSE AND NO MATTER HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, YOU WILL STILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D REMEMBER FRIEND, THIS IS ASSUMING ONLY 10 PEOPLE ORDERING OUT OF 5,000 YOU MAILED TO=2E Dare to think for a moment what would happen if everyone or half or even one 4th of those people mailed 100,000e-mails each or more? There are over 150 million people on the Internet worldwide and counting=2E Believe me, many people will do just that, and more! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D METHOD # 2 : BY PLACING FREE ADS ON THE INTERNET =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Advertising on the net is very very inexpensive and there are hundreds of FREE places to advertise=2E Placing a lot of free ads on the Internet will easily get a larger response=2E We strongly suggest you start with Method # 1 and add METHOD # 2 as you go along=2E For every $5 you receive, all you must do is e-mail them the Report they ordered=2E That's it=2E Always provide same day service on all orders=2E This will guarantee that the e-mail they send out, with your name and address on it, will be prompt because they can not advertise until they receive the report=2E =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D AVAILABLE REPORTS =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ORDER EACH REPORT BY ITS NUMBER & NAME ONLY=2E Notes: Always send $5 cash (U=2ES=2E CURRENCY) for each Report=2E Checks NOT accepted=2E Make sure the cash is concealed by wrapping it in at least 2 sheets of paper=2E On one of those sheets of paper, Write the NUMBER & the NAME of the Report you are ordering, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS and your name and postal address=2E PLACE YOUR ORDER FOR THESE REPORTS NOW : =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D REPORT #1: "How to Send Out 0ne Million e-mails for Free" Order Report # 1 from: V=2E B=2E 15568 Timberhill Dr Flint, TX 75762 USA _______________________________________________ REPORT # 2: "The Insider's Guide to Advertising for Free on the Net" Order Report #2 from: JSH220 P=2EO=2E Box 1024 Lawrenceville, GA 30046-1024 USA __________________________________________________________ REPORT # 3: "The Insider's Guide to Sending Bulk e-mail on the Net" Order Report # 3 from: M=2EA=2E P=2EO=2E Box 8332 Tahoe City, CA=2E 96145 USA __________________________________________________________ REPORT # 4: "Secret to Multilevel Marketing on the Net" Order Report # 4 from : N=2E H=2E Merrill 147 Crescent St=2E Shrewsbury,MA 01545-2860 USA ____________________________________________________________ REPORT # 5: "How to Become a Millionaire Utilizing MLM & the Net" Order Report # 5 from: C=2E Henry 16211 N=2E 21st Street Phoenix, Arizona 85022 USA ___________________________________________________________ $$$$$$$$$ YOUR SUCCESS GUIDELINES $$$$$$$$$$$ Follow these guidelines to guarantee your success: =3D=3D=3D If you do not receive at least 10 orders for Report #1 within 2 weeks, continue sending e-mails until you do=2E =3D=3D=3D After you have received 10 orders, 2 to 3 weeks after that you should receive 100 orders or more for REPORT # 2=2E If you did not, continue advertising or sending e-mails until you do=2E =3D=3D=3D Once you have received 100 or more orders for Report # 2, YOU CAN RELAX, because the system is already working for you, and the cash will continue to roll in! THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER: Every time your name is moved down on the list, you are placed in front of a Different report=2E You can KEEP TRACK of your PROGRESS by watching which report people are ordering from you=2E IF YOU WANT TO GENERATE MORE INCOME SEND ANOTHER BATCH OF E-MAILS=20 AND START THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN=2E=20 There is NO LIMIT to the income you can generate from this business!!! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D FOLLOWING IS A NOTE FROM THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS PROGRAM: You have just received information that can give you financial freedom for the rest of your life, with NO RISK and JUST A LITTLE BIT OF EFFORT=2E You can make more money in the next few weeks and months than you have ever imagined=2E Follow the program EXACTLY AS INSTRUCTED=2E Do Not change it in any way=2E It works exceedingly well as it is now=2E Remember to e-mail a copy of this exciting report after you have put your name and address in Report #1 and moved others to #2 through # 5 as instructed above=2E One of the people you send this to may send out 100,000 or more e-mails and your name will be on every one of them=2E Remember though, the more you send out the more potential customers you will reach=2E So, my friend, I have given you the ideas, information, materials and opportunity to become financially independent=2E IT IS UP TO YOU NOW! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D MORE TESTIMONIALS =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D "My name is Mitchell=2E My wife, Jody and I live in Chicago=2E I am an accountant with a major U=2ES=2E Corporation and I make pretty good money=2E When I received this program I grumbled to Jody about receiving ''junk mail=2E'' I made fun of the whole thing, spouting my knowledge of the population and percentages involved=2E I ''knew'' it wouldn't work=2E Jody totally ignored my supposed intelligence and a few days later she jumped in with both feet=2E I made merciless fun of her, and was ready to lay the old ''I told you so" on her when the thing didn't work=2E Well, the laugh was on me! Within 3 weeks she had received 50 responses=2E Within the next 45 days she had received a total of $147,200=2E00 =2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E all cash! I was= shocked=2E I have joined Jody in her "hobby=2E" Mitchell Wolf, Chicago, Illinois =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D "Not being the gambling type, it took me several weeks to make up my mind to participate in this plan=2E But conservative that I am, I decided that the initial investment was so little that there was just no way that I wouldn't get enough orders to at least get my money back=2E" "I was surprised when I found my medium sized post office box crammed with orders=2E I made $319,210=2E00 in the first 12 weeks=2E The nice thing about this deal is that it does not matter where people live=2E There simply isn't a better investment with a faster return and so big=2E" Dan Sondstrom, Alberta, Canada =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ''I had received this program before=2E I deleted it, but later I wondered if I should have given it a try=2E Of course, I had no idea who to contact to get another copy, so I had to wait until I was e-mailed again by someone else=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E11 months passed then it luckily came again=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E=2E I did not delete this one! I made more than $490,000 on my first try and all the money came within 22 weeks=2E" Susan De Suza, New York, N=2EY=2E =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ''It really is a great opportunity to make relatively easy money with little cost to you=2E I followed the simple instructions carefully and within 10 days the money started to come in=2E My first month I made $20,560=2E00 and by the end of third month my total cash count was $362,840=2E00=2E Life is beautiful, Thanx to the internet=2E" Fred Dellaca, Westport, New Zealand =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ORDER YOUR REPORTS TODAY AND GET STARTED ON 'YOUR' ROAD TO FINANCIAL FREEDOM! =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D If you have any questions of the legality of this program, contact the Office of Associate Director for Marketing Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Washington, D=2EC =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Don't be skeptical - this works=2E Thanks, V=2E B=2E V Bassett=20 Check this out! I'm doing it=2E Might as well! Get paid cash every time you receive email! Sign up FREE at: http://www=2EMintMail=2Ecom/?m=3D806789 From rah@shipwright.com Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:23:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 09:23:35 -0400 From: R. A. Hettinga rah@shipwright.com Subject: Only a Crazy Person Picks a Fight With Someone Who's Nuts Apparently, the original "We're more nuts than you" rant, from which the one we saw here and elsewhere was plagiarized. Thanks to Phil Agre's Red Rock Eater list. Cheers, RAH ----- http://www.writtenbyme.com/content/63250 Only a Crazy Person Picks a Fight With Someone Who's Nuts by file13, 15th September 2001. Freedom's a crazy idea, and we're proud of it. A note to the terrorists behind the hijackings and WTC/Pentagon. (A rant in the style of Dennis Miller) To those extremists that perpetrated this crime against our nation, I have a warning for you. There are those of us who look at your actions as irrational, twisted, and completely inhuman. By all measures, what you have done can only be seen as insane. I have news for you. We're more fucking nuts than you, and it should scare you shitless. You may think that when you die for your cause, you go to Paradise with 72 virgins, can leave reservations for 70 members of your family, all your sins are forgiven, and you sit at the side of Allah. Big deal. We had 39 guys who rented a Beverly Hills mansion, cut off their nuts, built a web site, and proceeded to poison themselves to death to hitch a ride with aliens out on the Hale-Bopp comet. You shoot guns into the sky to celebrate victories over enemies, and people are killed by the bullets raining down on them. We not only do this for New Year's Eve in some cities, but we burn houses down, tear up streets, loot and sack our stores, and beat our selves senseless when our sports teams win championships. Sports teams! Where you won't consume alcohol, we consume it in mass quantities. And then we drive, fly, bike, and even ski while drunk. When something bad happens, we blame the guy who sold us the alcohol more than the person who drank it and fucked up. We, as a nation, consume mountains of Prozac, Zoloft, and other prescriptions to drag our minds and bodies back from the brink of destruction time and time again. We also consume more recreational drugs than any other nation on earth, and we do the most crazy shit when we take the stuff. We've got this one guy who wakes up in the wrong houses, flips out constantly, and instead of cleaning him up we yell that we want to see more of him on FOX Prime Time. We fund the efforts to destroy and stop the traffic of these substances across our borders, and yet at the same time we as a nation keep demanding more. We eat whole pizzas with a single diet Coke and think we're eating healthy. Taking a single pill from GNC that can cause heart attacks, psychosis, strokes, and even death just so we can metabolize that pizza faster makes it even healthier. And then, despite countless numbers of starving people throughout the world that could have used the food besides us, we go to the bathroom and puke it all up just to stay thin. We made a sequel to Police Academy 5. We collect mountains and mountains of evidence against O.J. Simpson, a man who committed a double stabbing murder, and we won't use a lick of it because a cop was making a screenplay about a racist cop, and we let him go free. On the other hand, we lose mountains and mountains of evidence against Timothy McVeigh and still go ahead and kill the guy anyway. (Okay, so we still had enough evidence to kill him. My bad.) We manage to send guys with cameras out to interview you in your secret hideouts, and yet our armed forces can't figure out where to fly the missiles just yet. We gave an award for singing to two guys who never even sang. We turn the lights off in some of the largest cities in our most popular state because the electric companies can't pay for electricity and don't have any power plants of their own anymore. We think that a simple button on a web site that says "Do not click if you're under 21" will do anything but cause a person under 21 to click on it. We take a large chunk of the island on which those buildings you destroyed sat and pretend that it isn't a part of our country after all, let people fly in to our airports that we want to kill, drive them in limousines to speak against us on this "pretend territory" land, let them drive back to our airport, and let them fly them back home without a scratch. We sell hot dogs in packages of ten and the buns in packages of eight. We can't even decide if pitchers should have to bat for themselves or not. All those baseball fields we've gotŠ none of them are even remotely the same size. We think Elvis is still alive. We put our money into dot-com businesses that have no imaginable source of revenue whatsoever, and then scream when their stock values plummet to zero in the frenzy of sudden realization. We lay off thousands upon thousands of workers because it is good for the bottom line and stockholders, when it's the bosses who are the real stockholders with options for even more stock. We gave millions of dollars to a guy that told us that God was going to kill him if he didn't raise enough money. When he didn't get enough money, he didn't die. So we gave him more money in celebration of the fact that God didn't make him die. We've managed to keep the formulas for Coca-Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken secret for decades, we encrypt the most banal communications on our Information Superhighway, and yet we given away our most important nuclear secrets to the Chinese and Russians at the drop of a hat. We, in the aftermath of your own heinous acts, are calling hoax bomb scares against ourselves and watching people run and flee in terror, and we are posting ludicrous names and false information to survivor web sites. We shot John Lennon six times and didn't even aim for Yoko Ono. We tell our elected officials that cigarettes don't cause cancer, violence on television doesn't cause imprinting behaviors of violence in children, radiation-spewing handheld devices don't cause brain cancer, and that the same airport security you walked through like tissue paper was completely safe and secure. We put Braille on drive-up automatic teller machines. We make a big fuss over recycling our bottles, cans, paper, and glass into Happy Meal toys that wind up in the landfills, anyway. All we've done is changed the shape of our trash to fuck our environment. In the face of economic hardship, we give ourselves each a $300 check despite knowing that we're going to have to cash it for far, far more in the next budget year. This is the same government that shut itself down for no apparent reason than a few pieces of paper didn't get signed by a guy who got elected by playing the saxophone on national television. We have a rousing success of a play on Broadway about a play off-Broadway about Hitler that's supposed to bomb, but it succeeds, so it's a failure. Oh, and it was written by a Jew who often played Hitler in movies. We are even so nuts and ruthless enough as a nation to start insanely tearing at those of ourselves that even remotely resemble you in such rancorous, deplorable, and angry ways that will make you wonder if Allah has enough glue to piece enough of you back together for a flesh paperweight in Paradise. Hell, we're so nuts we even taught you how to fly the planes. If you believe the analysis by Jane's (link provided below), we even gathered you up, gave you weapons, organized you, trained you, and then watched as your violence spread across the underbelly of the Soviet Union. And yet, with all this on the A-1 Psycho balance sheet, you still think you're more nuts than us that this won't result in your complete and utter annihilation? One way or another, your way of life will be over, period. You'd think with all this, there'd be more of us in asylums and treatment centers, but the truth is in the past decade or so we've been kicking the extremely insane people out of those places and turning them away when they seek long-term treatment. Instead, the vast majority of us still roam the streets, free to be nuts in all new ways if we want to be. Freedom's kind of a crazy, kooky, nutty thing when you look really close at it and all the bizarre and loony things that can result from it, but it's better than any other ideas anybody else has come up with. It's been that way since 1776, and built to last no matter how insanely we try to screw it up on a daily basis. We may not know where you are now, but when we do I guarantee you that the majority of our high school children will still have no idea where on the globe where you are or where you will end up being buried. But we will send them anyway, and we will allow those of them that went into the armed services because they didn't manage to get into college *still* rain down Hell and fire on your worthless hides. It will all come down on you, because we're nuts enough to give all four of our branches of military services extremely powerful and deadly aircraft even though only one of them is actually called the Air Force. Picking a fight with the most insane nation on Earth with the hope that your message and influence will spread throughout the world, well, that's just downright stupid. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' From robert.harley@inria.fr Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:21:41 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:21:41 +0200 (MET DST) From: Robert Harley robert.harley@inria.fr Subject: In other news - IBM POWER4 Spec scores Check this out! Forget about Alphas, Pentium 4s and so on... the announced figures for the Power4 shows that it eats them alive! Here are the contenders, sorted by "robmarks" i.e, my personal way of keeping track by looking at the average of the best reliable SPEC int and fp scores: int fp (int+fp)/2 Power4 1300 808 1169 988 Alpha 1001 621 756 688 Pentium 4 2000 656 714 685 PA-8700 750 604 581 592 Itanium 800 379 703 541 R14000 500 427 463 445 Sparc III 900 466 410 438 OK, so these chips will probably never be available in boxes that mere mortals can buy. But impressive nonetheless. R .-. .-. / \ .-. .-. / \ / \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ / \ \ / `-' `-' \ / `-' `-' From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:17:24 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 10:17:24 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: It just gets better and better... According to Fox News (I know, I know --- flipping past, saw this on the ticker) the WHO is tracking an outbreak of Congo-Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. With 75 individuals infected and 8 deaths so far this is the largest known outbreak of CCHF in history. ---- In other news, a Sibir Airlines Tu-154 with 77 people aboard went down over the Black Sea en route from Tel Aviv to Siberia earlier today. Ukrainian officials say "woops, my bad" --- claim it may have been shot down accidentally during military exercises. Russian Prime Minister Vladminir Putin tells EU Justice ministers it "may have been an act of terrorism." But Russian bureaucrats from the Transport Ministry and domestic security service say an Armenian An-24 flying nearby reported seeing an explosion on board. Israel has shut down all flights out of Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv until further notice as a safety precaution. CNN has the story: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/10/04/russia.plane.crash/index.html ---- Smoking by the gas pumps, jb From garym@canada.com 04 Oct 2001 11:54:07 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 2001 11:54:07 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: It just gets better and better... oh, now I'm really scared ... except for the small detail that it is also found across many borders from Turkey to the Ukraine, and it's been there for 30 years. http://www.itg.be/ebola/ebola-51.htm Internet to the rescue of sanity once again ;) maybe, just maybe, if we didn't insist on cramming millions of people into desolate and unserviced refugee camps along these borders, do you think their improved hygiene might reduce the incidents of such infections? Just a thought. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso) From paul@ActiveState.com Thu, 04 Oct 2001 08:59:43 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 08:59:43 -0700 From: Paul Prescod paul@ActiveState.com Subject: How can this be justified? Jeff Bone wrote: > > Paul Prescod wrote: > > > > Nor did I say we have such ability. We do have (civilized) tools at our disposal, for > > > instance complete economic and social isolation. > > > > On principle alone. Regardless of the practical consequences. > > Nobody suggested "regardless." These things have to be considered carefully. My impression was that your philosophy is that we should always act based on a few legal principles. Any argument that action should be moderated by the complex features of the real world is mere "sentimentality". Paul Prescod From garym@canada.com 04 Oct 2001 12:09:52 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 2001 12:09:52 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: Anti-sssca mailing list now active >From: Steve Litt >Subject: [linux-hack] Anti-sssca mailing list now active Hi all, The anti-sssca mailing list is now active. Our first order of business is to gather material for an anti-sssca song lampooning the corrupt greed of the companies pushing this forward, and the abject stupidity of any legislators voting for it. Any material not making it into the song will doubtlessly be quoted on websites all over the place. You can sign up for the list at http://www.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/sssca. If you have posting rights on any Linux mailing list, please repost this to that list. SSSCA has the potential to prevent you from using GNU/Linux, free software and Open Source. Be part of the solution! Thanks Steve Litt Webmaster, Troubleshooters.Com http://www.troubleshooters.com slitt@troubleshooters.com From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:34:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:34:21 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: It just gets better and better... Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > oh, now I'm really scared ... except for the small detail that it is > also found across many borders from Turkey to the Ukraine, and it's > been there for 30 years. > > http://www.itg.be/ebola/ebola-51.htm > > Internet to the rescue of sanity once again ;) Jesus H., Gary, I'm just sharing the info. Did it sound all, like, shaky and scared or something? That whole post was kinda in the spirit of "well, what next?" jb From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:35:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:35:40 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: How can this be justified? Paul Prescod wrote: > Jeff Bone wrote: > > > > Paul Prescod wrote: > > > > > > Nor did I say we have such ability. We do have (civilized) tools at our disposal, for > > > > instance complete economic and social isolation. > > > > > > On principle alone. Regardless of the practical consequences. > > > > Nobody suggested "regardless." These things have to be considered carefully. > > My impression was that your philosophy is that we should always act > based on a few legal principles. Any argument that action should be > moderated by the complex features of the real world is mere > "sentimentality". Aren't the bugs in this statement of yours glaringly obvious to you? jb From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:37:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:37:01 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: It just gets better and better... Jeff Bone wrote: > Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > > > oh, now I'm really scared ... except for the small detail that it is > > also found across many borders from Turkey to the Ukraine, and it's > > been there for 30 years. > > > > http://www.itg.be/ebola/ebola-51.htm > > > > Internet to the rescue of sanity once again ;) > > Jesus H., Gary, I'm just sharing the info. Did it sound all, like, shaky > and scared or something? That whole post was kinda in the spirit of "well, > what next?" > > jb Or: some people, when aroused, will take pot shots at anything. Even shadows. ;-) jb From garym@canada.com 04 Oct 2001 13:06:27 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 2001 13:06:27 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: It just gets better and better... >>>>> "J" == Jeff Bone writes: J> Or: some people, when aroused, will take pot shots at anything. J> Even shadows. Do I assume correctly that you're referring to people working for Fox? :) This is actually an important issue. Before all of this happened, I had seen a documentary on how network news were going to greater and greater risks in their coverage of hurricanes, spending huge resources to have their journalist in greater danger than their competitors, solely to improve their ratings. Extreme Journalism for the Extreme Sports generation, Survivor takes Big Brother to the heart of darkness. It will be interesting to watch the same dynamic at work in Afghanistan. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso) From garym@canada.com 04 Oct 2001 13:01:50 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 2001 13:01:50 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: It just gets better and better... >>>>> "J" == Jeff Bone writes: >> oh, now I'm really scared ... except for the small detail that >> it is also found across many borders from Turkey to the >> Ukraine, and it's been there for 30 years. >> >> http://www.itg.be/ebola/ebola-51.htm >> >> Internet to the rescue of sanity once again ;) J> Jesus H., Gary, I'm just sharing the info. Did it sound all, J> like, shaky and scared or something? That whole post was kinda J> in the spirit of "well, what next?" Sorry, Jeff, I didn't mean to imply that you were frightened, only that this Fox report _may_ be a non-issue and therefore not worthy of any Subject line of "It just gets better" or any exclamation of "well what's next?" --- if the report had been of US soldiers in some Pakistani air base having an epidemic of ebola-51, that's different. I also wanted to point out how, with just one scan of Google, Internet is the antidote to the fear-mongering of network news. Just as I would ask Google about any posting about Nigerian money-laundering or Grade 5'ers wanting to plot geographic distribution of their chain letter, it is important, before we forward /any/ rumour, to at least do this much to check it out. "No one tells a lie with such grace as they who believe it". It's also worthy to remember the suffering being caused by refugee camps; fatalities due to preventable causes in such internment camps for innocents show every indication of once more eclipsing the sum total military casualties on both sides. Yes, we are sending them food and medicine, but I notice there's no comparison of the relief budget vs, say, the cost of the fuel consumed daily by the US armada. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso) From narahari@hotmail.com Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:15:25 -0600 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:15:25 -0600 From: sateesh narahari narahari@hotmail.com Subject: It just gets better and better... --- if the report had been of US soldiers in some > Pakistani air base having an epidemic of ebola-51, that's different. > Is a US soldier life any more important than a poor peasant in afghanistan?. sorry, I don't think so and I hope you are not indicating it. Any human catastrophe needs reporting and is concerning. From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:17:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:17:27 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: It just gets better and better... Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: "Gary Lawrence." Does that make you, um, Gary Larry? ;-) (I'm entitled to tease about names, look at my own familial... :-/ ;-) > Sorry, Jeff, I didn't mean to imply that you were frightened, only > that this Fox report _may_ be a non-issue and therefore not worthy of > any Subject line of "It just gets better" or any exclamation of "well > what's next?" --- if the report had been of US soldiers in some > Pakistani air base having an epidemic of ebola-51, that's different. Well, haemmorhagic fevers in general are a concern to anybody going into an area where they exist. Is this newsworthy? Maybe if you've got a brother or cousin or friend who's about to either be shipped over there for military purposes or who is an aid worker... you (or they) might want to know the etiology, distribution, epidemiology, symptoms, etc. IMO it's newsworthy because a lot of folks don't associate HFs with non-African locales. Is it fearworthy? I doubt it. IMO, the world is what it is, fear is pretty useless. (For that matter, the news is what it is, and getting shook up about the news isn't very productive either.) Greed is a much more constructive emotion. ;-) Go Wallstreet! :-) > I also wanted to point out how, with just one scan of Google, Internet > is the antidote to the fear-mongering of network news. I had to google in order to spell hemmorhagic^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H haemorrhagic correctly. ;-) There are several good resources on CCFN. jb From garym@canada.com 04 Oct 2001 13:41:07 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 2001 13:41:07 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: It just gets better and better... >>>>> "s" == sateesh narahari writes: >> --- if the report had been of US soldiers in some >> Pakistani air base having an epidemic of ebola-51, that's >> different. >> s> Is a US soldier life any more important than a poor peasant in s> afghanistan?. sorry, I don't think so and I hope you are not s> indicating it. Not at all, but in this context, was Fox reporting about a few deaths from a 50-year-old disease or was the implication that ebola-51 might have been intentionally deployed as a weapon? You're very right in pointing out that Jeff's post made no mention of any rumours of intent behind that news, and I've also re-read Jeff's post in a different voice and can now see that by "what's next?" he means "how low are the media willing to go to inflate/fabricate a story?" s> Any human catastrophe needs reporting and is concerning. It's a matter of scale and scope. The recent equal number of deaths due to gasoline sniffing among the native children along the Labrador coast was indeed tragic, but I did not expect the story to be covered on the Bombay evening news unless it had some direct consequence for the citizens of Bombay (it does, but that's waxing metaphysical). It made national Canadian news, of course, and prompted direct action by the federal and provincial governments that would have both continued to overlook the 'problem' had the media ignored it. Now, suppose a Canadian pop star was outrageously popular in India, and if that pop star advocated sniffing gasoline to the children of India, /then/ yes, I would consider those local Labrador deaths likely to make the Bombay evening news. Similarly, if this ebola-51 news item was in fact a call to once and for all eradicate the deadly disease, even if it hides up along the deep recesses of the Kabul river, then yes, it should make Fox. It's not that we don't care, it's just that the newscast is only 30 minutes long. Just reading off the names of every North American homeless person who will die of exposure this winter would fill all 5 months of news casts. What then do we do for the schoolboy who was beaten to death for being Muslim? -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso) From deafbox@hotmail.com Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:52:58 +0000 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 17:52:58 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: Death secondary to martial act (was: It just gets better and better ..) Gary Murphy writes: >It's also worthy to remember the suffering being caused by refugee camps; >fatalities due to preventable causes in such internment camps for innocents >show every indication of once more eclipsing the sum >total military casualties on both sides. Yep. And historically, that's not unusual. Until this century, wars always killed more by the disease, famine, and secondary effects, than by direct action. And it is common that civilians suffer more such casualties than soldiers. Even for soldiers, disease has been the major killer. In WW I, more soldiers died from disease than from weapons. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From garym@canada.com 04 Oct 2001 13:53:49 -0400 Date: 04 Oct 2001 13:53:49 -0400 From: Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com Subject: It just gets better and better... >>>>> "J" == Jeff Bone writes: J> "Gary Lawrence." Does that make you, um, Gary Larry? ;-) Not to my knowledge; normally it's just Murph, and often Jesus :) but both are not likely to be productive in a web search. J> Well, haemmorhagic fevers in general are a concern to anybody J> going into an area where they exist. Is this newsworthy? Again, you didn't really say the context of that news story, so if that was the context, then ok, I'll grant you that. Did they mention other deadly diseases/parasites in that area? Which actually reminds me: Didn't we spend a long time innoculating troups before Desert Storm? Why is there no innoculation step this time? Probably just military routine that got overlooked as non-news. J> ... IMO it's newsworthy because a lot of folks don't associate J> HFs with non-African locales. Can't say as I really thought about it. According to that paper I cited, it's been out of Africa for nearly 50 years, which would seem long enough for the word to get out. Historically, microbiology has always been mankind's greatest foe. J> I had to google in order to spell J> hemmorhagic^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H haemorrhagic correctly. ;-) See? Sanity salve /and/ good for writing skills too! Internet rules. I'll bet there's a cure for psoriasis there too. (oh, there is indeed and its a doozie: http://www.psoriasis-remission.com/ ;) -- Gary Lawrence Murphy TeleDynamics Communications Inc Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso) From deafbox@hotmail.com Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:01:11 +0000 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 18:01:11 +0000 From: Russell Turpin deafbox@hotmail.com Subject: Hemorrhagic fevers outside Africa Jeff Bone writes: >A lot of folks don't associate HFs with non-African locales. The CDC continues to list south Texas as an area where the risk of dengue is growing. Dengue doesn't usually turn into a hemorrhagic fever. But sometimes it does. Russell _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:55:25 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:55:25 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: The Game of Life was Re: How can this be justified? Paul Prescod wrote: > My impression was that your philosophy is that we should always act > based on a few legal principles. Any argument that action should be > moderated by the complex features of the real world is mere > "sentimentality". So Paul, it's clear that you either haven't processed or have incorrectly processed something(s) in the course of our interactions. Because I feel sorry for ya --- I mean, clearly you're really taxing your lobes on this stuff ;-) --- here's the walk through: * I don't have a "philosophy" at all. What I've got is a mess of opinions and hypotheses. (As do most of us, if we're honest with ourselves.) I'm working to make that mess of opinions and hypotheses as sensible / rational / internally and instantaneously consistent / general / minimal as possible, but it's a process. They're all subject to (and subjected to) constant revision in the face of new information and argument. The eventual result at some point might be termed a philosophy, but let's not jump the gun. * I don't know what "legal principles" are, they sound rather dangerous to me. In general, I think that basing decisions on pragmatic rather than principled considerations results in better decisions to act. * I believe the law should be based on a few, internally consistent and consistently applied axioms. The set of arbitrary assumptions on which the law is based should be minimal. This isn't an idealistic consideration, rather it's a reaction to the observed practical effects of a system which is otherwise. See below for more on why I believe this. * The world *is* a complex place. I have never and will never argue otherwise. But Step 1 on the Twelve Step Program to Rationality (don't ask me what the other 11 are, I'm not sure I know yet ;-) is recognizing that human beings have a tendency to make things even more complicated than necessary, with often undesirable results. There are a number of reasons for this, including evolutionary psychology, neurophysiology, memetic epidemiology, etc. * Avoiding complexity in law does not imply ignoring the complexity of life itself and the world / context it occurs in. The law is (or rather, poorly emulates) an axiomatic system. As with any axiomatic system, you can have either "completeness" or consistency, but not both. A "complete" law --- by which I mean one which models all the possible complexity of life --- is a practical impossibility. Given that, I would opt for a consistent law. And complexity in this regard, measured by bulk, is the enemy of consistency. This implies that a simpler law stands a better chance of consistency than one which is more complex. Other factors which tip the odds towards more consistent and more optimal law include maximal generality and minimal arbitrariness (conservation of assumptions.) * Sentimentality is only one of many cognitive defects which impair our ability to act rationally. By sentimentality, I mean letting emotions such as guilt, belief in obligations which carry no mutual exchange of value, anger, and so on cloud a decision making process, resulting in an outcome which is less desirable than some other available alternative. * You say that my position is "Any argument that action should be moderated by the complex features of the real world is mere 'sentimentality'." This isn't quite right. That depends on the argument itself, the context, and which "complex features of the real world" you're trying to invoke to muddy the picture. Depending on those things, sentimentality might be involved, or perhaps some other cognitive defect or impractical consideration is involved. My hypotheses in this regard is simply that humans obviously have a tendency to overcomplicate things, and avoiding this whenever possible results in more optimal outcomes. * The game of life is a fabric of pairwise deals between N players. Each deal is decision (pair of moves) between two parties which together select some outcome / goal state from among several alternatives. Such decisions not only effect the two parties involved but also, potentially, other individuals, groups, or even the whole instantaneous game state. The game can be viewed as a series of subgames, each of which is either a positive-sum game or a zero/negative sum game; strategies for the game can focus on achieving Pareto optimality as a dynamic equilibrium state or total domination as an instantaneous state. The former is almost always preferred, because even when you win at the latter the resulting state is transient. (Look at Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, I'm hugely pro-capitalist, pro-competition, and pro-free market, but I think that we often forget that the goal of a corporation isn't maximal instantaneous value creation for shareholders, it's maximal *continuous* value appreciation. Given that, it's possible to compete *too effectively.* Put another way: if you're the king of the hill, everybody's out to knock you down.) Looking at the whole thing through the lenses of game theory (albeit rather loosely) leads to the conclusion that life and its subgames don't have to be zero-sum, but if some party chooses zero-sum then the correct response is to maximize the likelihood of a desirable outcome for yourself. Hope this helps dispel some of that cognitive fog, ;-) jb From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:59:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:59:00 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: It just gets better and better... Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > Again, you didn't really say the context of that news story, so if > that was the context, then ok, I'll grant you that. Did they mention > other deadly diseases/parasites in that area? Nope, it was just scrolling by on the ticker. It'll take 'em a while to gen up the shitstorm. ;-) > Which actually reminds me: Didn't we spend a long time innoculating > troups before Desert Storm? Yup, with Anthrax vaccine among other things. And in the opinion of a Gulf War vet buddy of mine, that's what caused the whole "Gulf War Syndrome." But he's certainly no virologist / microbiologist, so take that with a grain of salt, two aspirin, and don't lose sleep over it. ;-) > Can't say as I really thought about it. According to that paper I > cited, it's been out of Africa for nearly 50 years, which would seem > long enough for the word to get out. One would think. But many don't. ;-) jb From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:25:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:25:12 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: You know what I *really* wish? Something's been jingling around in the back of my head for a while... the discussion today -w- Gary over "newsworthiness" and Gordon's recent post about his obsession with his own persistent "presence" on the Web / in Google has me thinking... (a) One man's bits are another man's noise (b) Context is *always* good (c) Better tools for dealing with unstructured (language-based) data are needed (d) Structure considered harmful in many contexts (e) Possible criticism of "semantic Web" current thinking (c, d, and e aren't really relevant to the following, just included as they're loosely related...) I'm toying with the following idea: why shouldn't *all* e-mail be publically archived for posterity? I say store it all, let the posthumans sort it out. Our own ability to decide bits from noise is highly questionable, why shouldn't we provide as much context as possible for the downstreamers? (Note to the Future: I'm doing my best in that regard, at least with respect to this list. I sure hope you Y3K cyberarchaeologists appreciate it, and reward appropriately. I have simple post-resurrection needs: developer / builder access to your shared information space and a small number of top-of-the-line metamorphic android sex slaves. ;-) jb From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:34:32 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 13:34:32 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: What's the difference between a VC and someone who wins the lottery? One thinks they are skilled, the other knows they are lucky. (from Rudy this morning, props where props are due... not expressing an opinion, just sharing a funny yolk ;-) :-) jb From gbolcer@endeavors.com Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:24:39 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:24:39 -0700 From: Gregory Alan Bolcer gbolcer@endeavors.com Subject: Oink if you love Jesus If you like that one, you'll love this one: http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/oct97/0902.html Greg p.s. Was the post for enforcing FoRK taste up for a vote again? I thought I was the sole arbiter. http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-October/005014.html> > ThosStew@aol.com writes: > >over Kandahar during noon prayers and push the hogs out at low > >altitude. Live pig bombs The top anti-US mullahs would be > >taken out. Unholy, filthy pigs flying from the sky, creating a > >sea of pig blood in the center of the mosque. > > > > I personally find this post sick, disgusting and inappropriate. > I guess one must consider the source of such posts. > > Robert Steward > Swinburn University of Technology > Victori > http://australia.edu From jbone@jump.net Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:32:01 -0500 Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:32:01 -0500 From: Jeff Bone jbone@jump.net Subject: Chock Full O' Bits was: Saladin, Crusaders, Caliphate, bin Laden (cross) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------70B39A2953EA4E75D9F7E917 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Just sharing the love, y'all. From Jerry Michalski's list, lots of good bits here... jb --------------70B39A2953EA4E75D9F7E917 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from mail21.jump.net (mail21.jump.net [206.196.91.21]) by blanco.clickfeed.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f94JUnl02002 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:30:49 -0500 Received: from n9.groups.yahoo.com (n9.groups.yahoo.com [216.115.96.59]) by mail21.jump.net (8.11.6/) with SMTP id f94JUm228846 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 14:30:49 -0500 (CDT) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-1059576-891-1002223847-jbone=jump.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.55] by n9.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Oct 2001 19:30:47 -0000 X-Sender: kaminski@istori.com X-Apparently-To: jerrys-retreat@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 4 Oct 2001 19:30:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 60849 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2001 19:30:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Oct 2001 19:30:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO femail31.sdc1.sfba.home.com) (24.254.60.21) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Oct 2001 19:30:40 -0000 Received: from g.istori.com ([24.12.12.71]) by femail31.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20011004193038.TNWK28498.femail31.sdc1.sfba.home.com@g.istori.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:30:38 -0700 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011004121322.02822e00@mail.istori.com> X-Sender: kaminski@mail.istori.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 To: jerrys-retreat@yahoogroups.com From: Peter Kaminski MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list jerrys-retreat@yahoogroups.com; contact jerrys-retreat-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list jerrys-retreat@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:29:14 -0700 Reply-To: jerrys-retreat@yahoogroups.com Subject: [jerrys-retreat] Saladin, Crusaders, Caliphate, bin Laden Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Follow-up from a discussion from dinner last night. Thanks again, Jen, Jerry and attendees! The message below may be forwarded as you wish. I've gathered together excerpts from various articles giving some background for bin Laden's jihad. They cover briefly Saladin, parts of the Crusades, the glory of the Caliphate, and at the end, an article explaining the declaration of jihad itself. I apologize for the overall length, but I've already left out as much as I felt I could. I recommend reading each of the linked articles in its entirety for a more complete picture. I also cannot vouch for historical accuracy; please seek independent verification as you see fit. The general picture is reasonably clear, though. Bin Laden's declaration of war, issued in 1998 and as explained by Professor Bernard Lewis, is very clear. The US has shown itself to be in a war against God, the Prophet, and Muslims, in Arabia, Iraq, and Jerusalem. The war must be fought until "the Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the Haram Mosque [in Mecca] are freed from their grip and until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam, incapable of threatening any Muslim." Lewis concludes, "To most Americans, the declaration is a travesty, a gross distortion of the nature and purpose of the American presence in Arabia. They should also know that for many -- perhaps most -- Muslims, the declaration is an equally grotesque travesty of the nature of Islam and even of its doctrine of jihad. [...] At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders." So, again, the war is being brought by Islamic extremists, not by Islam in general. This article is posted on the web at: http://www.istori.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SaladinCrusadersBinLaden You may add comments or other information to this or other pages on the site by clicking the "Edit text of this page" link at the bottom of the page; scroll to the end of the text box, add a line with four dashes, and then type or paste your material. Please email me if you need help. PeterKaminski, 2001-10-04 ---- http://www.templemount.org/allah.html The Crusader occupation was relatively short-lived. The Muslim leader Saladin (Salah al-Din) proclaimed a jihad, or holy war, to retake the land of Palestine. After ninety years of Crusader control, Jerusalem surrendered to Saladin's army on October 2, 1187. In contrast to the brutality of the Crusaders, Saladin treated the defeated Crusaders with kindness and mercy. ---- http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4267441,00.html George Bush, who referred initially to the war on terrorism as a "crusade", would do well to learn from the actions of the Arab warrior, Saladin, rather than the Christian crusaders. In 1099, when the Christian crusaders took Jerusalem, they slaughtered every Muslim and Jew - men, women and children - beginning in the afternoon and carrying on through the night. One of the crusaders wrote about walking knee-high through corpses in the city's narrow streets. When Saladin took Jerusalem in 1187 he spared everyone and the next day allowed followers of each religion to worship at their holy places within the city. ---- http://slate.msn.com/Assessment/01-09-13/Assessment.asp Bin Laden is the most notorious advocate of a potent strain of militant Islam that has been gaining popularity in the Muslim world for 30 years. It is simultaneously theological and cultural. Its fundamental tenet is that the Muslim world is being poisoned and desecrated by infidels. These infidels include both outsiders such as the United States and Israel, and governments of Muslim states -- such as Egypt and Jordan -- that have committed apostasy. The infidels must be driven out of the Muslim world by a jihad, and strict Islamic rule must be established everywhere that Muslims live. These extreme "Islamists," as Bin Laden biographer Yossef Bodansky dubs them, hope to re-establish the Caliphate, the golden age of Muslim domination that followed the death of Muhammad. They regard the Taliban's Afghanistan as a model for such Islamic rule. This Islamist militancy has ancient roots -- Saladin's expulsion of the crusaders in the 12th century is one starting point -- but it was galvanized in the 1970s by several events. The growing influence of secular Western capitalism in the Muslim world, the military triumphs of Israel, and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan horrified Islamic traditionalists. The Afghanistan invasion was the culminating moment: It persuaded Bin Laden and thousands of others of the need for Islamic holy war. ---- http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010924/opinion/24john.htm But that does not mean we are in a battle against Islam. The vast majority of Muslims want no part of terrorism, and many Muslim states are as nervous about extremism as we are. The problem is a religious subculture that cannot cope with openness, change, rules, democracy, secularism, and tolerance -- and that wishes to destroy those who can. For some in this culture, the Crusades have never ended. For others, like bin Laden, the dream is to restore the caliphate, the glorious age of Muslim domination that flourished after the death of Mohammed. ---- 'Crusade' Reference Reinforces Fears War on Terrorism Is Against Muslims The Wall Street Journal, September 21, 2001 [Laith Shubeilat asks,] "The question is, do you want to market the cowboy image, 'dead or alive,' or the principles of Washington and Hamilton?" "In the crusades," he continues, "they said it was for Christ, when it was in reality for trade, or for Venice. Today, [American] people would not fight if you told them it was for Texaco. But people will fight for an idea." In the Mideast, that idea, increasingly, seems to be Islam, whose history and teachings speak of a bygone glory that many Muslims long to recreate, scholars say. The cry of Muslim ideologues -- "Islam is the answer!" -- is now a common refrain on bumper stickers in some Arab states. "When you emasculate a people for 200 years and consistently deny them a say in their own history -- most recently in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq -- they will target your own sacred symbols," says Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University in New York. In hitting back, Mr. Dabashi warns, the U.S. had better be sure it doesn't give its extremist enemies more fodder with which to spread hatred. "What's needed is a public, civic debate on U.S. policies in the region," he contends, adding: "It's the height of arrogance and hubris to assume that if the oil flows and the market is open, everything in the region is OK. It isn't." ---- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011001-175979-2,00.html The question many Arabs ask the U.S. and the West in general, says Professor Jean Leca of the Institute of Political Science in Paris, is, "Why are you leaning so heavily on us when we already had a civilization while you were still living in caves?" The brutality of Christendom's efforts to conquer the Holy Land from the Muslims in the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries is not forgotten in the Middle East (making President Bush's early use of the word crusade to describe America's antiterror effort an unfortunate choice). An even greater sore is the sense that, in the centuries since, so much dignity has been lost, and to an inferior people. In Islamic belief, Muhammad is God's last prophet; he built upon the revelations of Moses and Jesus to propound a superior, perfect faith. But the world that faith created was broken apart: after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the colonial powers of France and Britain carved the Middle East into arbitrarily drawn mandates and states governed by handpicked local leaders. "Many Arabs and Muslims feel they had 10 centuries of great cultural achievement that ended with European colonialism," says John Esposito, director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. "Now they feel impotent. The West, they feel, looks at them as backward and is only interested in their oil. Their sense of self-worth and identity is wounded." [...] Egyptian writer Abd al-Salam Faraj wrote their manifesto, a pamphlet called The Neglected Duty, in which he argued that holy war was necessary to defend not just Muslims but Muslim dignity. Faraj, like many other Muslim radicals, singled out those parts of the Koran and the Hadith, the collected sayings and deeds attributed to Muhammad, that seemed to support his argument. Bin Laden has come to fulfill the Neglected Duty. He talks a lot about dignity. Of the terrorists who killed 24 U.S. servicemen and two Indians in attacks in 1995 and 1996 in Saudi Arabia, he once said, "They have raised the nation's head high and washed away a great part of the shame that has enveloped us." Bin Laden fancies himself a modern-day Saladin, the Muslim commander who liberated Jerusalem from the Crusaders. "I envision Saladin coming out of the clouds," bin Laden says in a videotape released earlier this year to his supporters. "Our history is being rewritten." http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011001-175979-3,00.html On the other hand, it is the triumphalist religious convictions of bin Laden that make him and his followers so dangerous. "This is not violence in the service of some practical program," says Steven Simon, a former member of the National Security Council who is writing a book on religiously inspired terrorism. "It is killing infidels in the service of Allah. To a secular person, it's crazy. How can that be an end in itself? The facts speak for themselves: there is one objective here, to kill an enormous number of people and humiliate the Satanic power. There is no claim of responsibility because there is only one audience, and that is God." ---- http://www.foreignaffairs.org/Search/document_briefings.asp?i=19981101facomment1428.xml On February 23, 1998, Al-Quds al-Arabi, an Arabic newspaper published in London, printed the full text of a "Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders." According to the paper, the statement was faxed to them under the signatures of Usama bin Ladin, the Saudi financier blamed by the United States for masterminding the August bombings of its embassies in East Africa, and the leaders of militant Islamist groups in Egypt, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. The statement -- a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose -- reveals a version of history that most Westerners will find unfamiliar. Bin Ladin's grievances are not quite what many would expect. The declaration begins with an exordium quoting the more militant passages in the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, then continues: "Since God laid down the Arabian peninsula, created its desert, and surrounded it with its seas, no calamity has ever befallen it like these Crusader hosts that have spread in it like locusts, crowding its soil, eating its fruits, and destroying its verdure; and this at a time when the nations contend against the Muslims like diners jostling around a bowl of food." The statement goes on to talk of the need to understand the situation and act to rectify it. The facts, it says, are known to everyone and fall under three main headings: "First -- For more than seven years the United States is occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people, threatening its neighbors, and using its bases in the peninsula as a spearhead to fight against the neighboring Islamic peoples. Though some in the past have disputed the true nature of this occupation, the people of Arabia in their entirety have now recognized it. There is no better proof of this than the continuing American aggression against the Iraqi people, launched from Arabia despite its rulers, who all oppose the use of their territories for this purpose but are subjugated. Second -- Despite the immense destruction inflicted on the Iraqi people at the hands of the Crusader-Jewish alliance and in spite of the appalling number of dead, exceeding a million, the Americans nevertheless, in spite of all this, are trying once more to repeat this dreadful slaughter. It seems that the long blockade following after a fierce war, the dismemberment and the destruction are not enough for them. So they come again today to destroy what remains of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors. Third -- While the purposes of the Americans in these wars are religious and economic, they also serve the petty state of the Jews, to divert attention from their occupation of Jerusalem and their killing of Muslims in it. There is no better proof of all this than their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest of the neighboring Arab states, and their attempt to dismember all the states of the region, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Sudan, into petty states, whose division and weakness would ensure the survival of Israel and the continuation of the calamitous Crusader occupation of the lands of Arabia." http://www.foreignaffairs.org/Search/document_briefings.asp?i=19981101facomment1428.xml&nb=10 These crimes, the statement declares, amount to "a clear declaration of war by the Americans against God, his Prophet, and the Muslims." In such a situation, the declaration says, the ulema -- authorities on theology and Islamic law, or sharia -- throughout the centuries unanimously ruled that when enemies attack the Muslim lands, jihad becomes every Muslim's personal duty. In the technical language of the ulema, religious duties may be collective, to be discharged by the community as a whole, or personal, incumbent on every individual Muslim. In an offensive war, the religious duty of jihad is collective and may be discharged by volunteers and professionals. When the Muslim community is defending itself, however, jihad becomes an individual obligation. After quoting various Muslim authorities, the signatories then proceed to the final and most important part of their declaration, the fatwa, or ruling. It holds that "To kill Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able, in any country where this is possible, until the Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the Haram Mosque [in Mecca] are freed from their grip and until their armies, shattered and broken-winged, depart from all the lands of Islam, incapable of threatening any Muslim." After citing some further relevant Quranic verses, the document continues: "By God's leave, we call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward to obey God's command to kill the Americans and plunder their possessions wherever he finds them and whenever he can. Likewise we call on the Muslim ulema and leaders and youth and soldiers to launch attacks against the armies of the American devils and against those who are allied with them from among the helpers of Satan." The declaration and fatwa conclude with a series of further quotations from Muslim scripture. Bin Ladin's view of the Gulf War as American aggression against Iraq may seem a little odd, but it is widely -- though by no means universally -- accepted in the Islamic world. For holy warriors of any faith, the faithful are always right and the infidels always wrong, whoever the protagonists and whatever the circumstances of their encounter. The three areas of grievance listed in the declaration -- Arabia, Iraq, and Jerusalem -- will be familiar to observers of the Middle Eastern scene. What may be less familiar is the sequence and emphasis. For Muslims, as we in the West sometimes tend to forget but those familiar with Islamic history and literature know, the holy land par excellence is Arabia -- Mecca, where the Prophet was born; Medina, where he established the first Muslim state; and the Hijaz, whose people were the first to rally to the new faith and become its standard-bearers. Muhammad lived and died in Arabia, as did the Rashidun caliphs, his immediate successors at the head of the Islamic community. Thereafter, except for a brief interlude in Syria, the center of the Islamic world and the scene of its major achievements was Iraq, the seat of the caliphate for half a millennium. For Muslims, no piece of land once added to the realm of Islam can ever be finally renounced, but none compares in significance with Arabia and Iraq. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/Search/document_briefings.asp?i=19981101facomment1428.xml&nb=20 The great counter-Crusade that ultimately drove the Crusaders into the sea did not begin until almost a century later. Its immediate cause was the activities of a freebooting Crusader leader, Reynald of Chatillon, who held the fortress of Kerak, in southern Jordan, between 1176 and 1187 and used it to launch a series of raids against Muslim caravans and commerce in the adjoining regions, including the Hijaz. Historians of the Crusades are probably right in saying that Reynald's mo