SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
http://www.sff.net/
Archive of: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by: webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:58:55
============================================================
Article 20238
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 26 Oct 2001 00:04:39 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.
To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20239
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:37:21 -0400
Subject: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001363
I think this was originally from the Wall Street Journal op-ed page.
My question: Do you see the potential for similar civil rights abuses in our
current situation?
And what do you think of this:
(referring to Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798-99, suspension of habeus
corpus in Civil War and internement of Japanese-Americans in WWII, among
other things)
"It is also worth noting that despite these previous and numerous extreme
measures, there was little long-term or corrosive effect on society after
the security threat had subsided. When the crisis ended, normalcy returned,
and so too did civil liberties, invariably stronger than before."
Did normalcy return? Are civil liberties stronger then ever?
WJaKe
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20240
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:40:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Logan's Run (was Starship Troopers -- The Movie)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb Houdek Rule wrote in message
> ("The Mattrix" had a reason to use the effects it
>did, none of the following movies to follow it have yet use it because
>it looks neat).
>
Can you unravel this sentence? What I would have thought was:
"following movies have used it _because_ it looks neat."
What did you mean?
WJaKe
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20241
From: Geo Rule
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 22:56:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 01:37:21 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
>
>Did normalcy return? Are civil liberties stronger then ever?
>
>WJaKe
>
A couple days ago there was a quite calm article in the local
paper (from national sources, however) of using TORTURE to get some of
these detainees the FBI picked up after 911 to talk.
The sources regretably concluded the American public wasn't quite
there yet, but maybe if there was another attack. In the meantime
they might have to settle for just using drugs.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20242
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:18:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Logan's Run (was Starship Troopers -- The Movie)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Can you unravel this sentence? What I would have thought was:
>"following movies have used it _because_ it looks neat."
What? You don't speak Random? Yes, I meant the other films used the
Mattrix-style spfx because it looks neat not because they have any
motivation in the film to do so.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20243
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:44:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bd8f630.0@news.sff.net>, William J. Keaton writes...
> http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001363
>
> I think this was originally from the Wall Street Journal op-ed page.
>
> My question: Do you see the potential for similar civil rights abuses in our
> current situation?
The Senate has just passed such a bill. Feingold described it as full of
provisions the Justice Department has wanted for a long time. In short,
it does not appear to be carefully crafted for the current emergency.
....
> "It is also worth noting that despite these previous and numerous extreme
> measures, there was little long-term or corrosive effect on society after
> the security threat had subsided. When the crisis ended, normalcy returned,
> and so too did civil liberties, invariably stronger than before."
>
> Did normalcy return? Are civil liberties stronger then ever?
Normalcy returned in the sense that the measures taken in response to the
specific wars (and threat of war) mentioned in that editorial are not an
issue today. But, then, those were wars with others states, which could
be decisively beaten. The "war of drugs" has provided a great weakening
of liberties, and, since it is a "war" that can never be won, the
weakening effects will continue indefinitely. The "war of terrorism" has
all the same potential.
The goal of capturing bin Laden has, in a few weeks, become transformed
into the goal of overthrowing the Taliban government. It is time now for
each U.S. citizen to clearly declare /for/ the liberties that defined
this country and /against/ our ill-conceived and incompetently carried-
out policy of foreign intervention, or /for/ the steady erosion of those
liberties in the name of using the U.S. government to secure benefits for
private interests and other governments throughout the world.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20244
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:08:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 10:44:31 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>The goal of capturing bin Laden has, in a few weeks, become transformed
>into the goal of overthrowing the Taliban government.
The stated goal from the beginning was the eradication of terrorists.
Within only a day or so, that objective was refined to terrorists
"with global reach" (which, nowadays, is just about all of them), and
"nations which harbor them" were declared to be legitimate targets.
The battle in Afghanistan is hardly a case of mission creep.
>It is time now for
>each U.S. citizen to clearly declare /for/ the liberties that defined
>this country and /against/ our ill-conceived and incompetently carried-
>out policy of foreign intervention, or /for/ the steady erosion of those
>liberties in the name of using the U.S. government to secure benefits for
>private interests and other governments throughout the world.
I hardly think there is yet a "steady erosion" of our liberties
directly attributable to this war. Certainly not to the level we
endured in WWII (rationing, censorship, enforced black outs and air
raid drills, the draft, etc) . But if protecting the NEXT 6000 from
being blown up by hijacked airliners (or infected thru the mail, or
whatever other grisly scenario you can think of) is securing "benefits
for private interests." you can sign me up.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20245
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:33:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bd97878.127809201@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> The stated goal from the beginning was the eradication of terrorists.
> Within only a day or so, that objective was refined to terrorists
> "with global reach" (which, nowadays, is just about all of them), and
> "nations which harbor them" were declared to be legitimate targets.
> The battle in Afghanistan is hardly a case of mission creep.
Targeting a nation that harbors terrorists is not the same thing as
having the overthrow of the government of that nation as a goal. Please
correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Powell's statement
that "the Taliban must go" is only a day or two old.
....
> I hardly think there is yet a "steady erosion" of our liberties
> directly attributable to this war.
The erosion has already begun where the executive branch has a free hand.
The legislative branch is slower to act, of course, but is now starting
to catch up. We will see if the judicial branch roles over during "war
time", as it has in the past.
> Certainly not to the level we
> endured in WWII (rationing, censorship, enforced black outs and air
> raid drills, the draft, etc) .
Correct. Your view is that we should take comfort where we can?
> But if protecting the NEXT 6000 from
> being blown up by hijacked airliners (or infected thru the mail, or
> whatever other grisly scenario you can think of) is securing "benefits
> for private interests." you can sign me up.
While you are signing things, be sure to read the fine print. The idea is
to protect them while protecting liberties as well.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20246
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 20:08:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hoping someone will jump in. These two-sided discussions aren't near
as interesting as when a slew of ideas get thrown around...
On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:33:48 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>Targeting a nation that harbors terrorists is not the same thing as
>having the overthrow of the government of that nation as a goal. Please
>correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Powell's statement
>that "the Taliban must go" is only a day or two old.
Mr Bush gave the Taliban specifically the ultimatim very early on that
they must hand over Bin Laden and crew, close the terrorist training
sites, and submit to inspection that they had complied. When they
refused (and there's a good argument that he purposely made the
ultimatim one they couldn't not refuse), he said there was no room for
negotiation. From that point on, I think there was obviously no way
the Taliban could remain in power.
I just hope the administration doesn't stop with the Taliban. Limited
warfare is a Cold War phenomenon.
....
>> I hardly think there is yet a "steady erosion" of our liberties
>> directly attributable to this war.
>
>The erosion has already begun where the executive branch has a free hand.
>The legislative branch is slower to act, of course, but is now starting
>to catch up. We will see if the judicial branch roles over during "war
>time", as it has in the past.
Don't know about the federal district courts, but I doubt we'll see
the current Supremes overrule this legislation. They might strike
down some small part of it, or postpone action as long as they feel
necessary and can get away with it..
>> Certainly not to the level we
>> endured in WWII (rationing, censorship, enforced black outs and air
>> raid drills, the draft, etc) .
>
>Correct. Your view is that we should take comfort where we can?
Comfort? My view is that, if we're at war, we need to be at war.
With a total commitment to winning from the entire nation. I would
have preferred a formal declaration, with a discernable end-point.
>> But if protecting the NEXT 6000 from
>> being blown up by hijacked airliners (or infected thru the mail, or
>> whatever other grisly scenario you can think of) is securing "benefits
>> for private interests." you can sign me up.
>
>While you are signing things, be sure to read the fine print. The idea is
>to protect them while protecting liberties as well.
And if there is a conflict, which has priority? Especially if they
are "small liberties" that are sacrificed? And if the sacrifice can
be only temporary?
My objection, in any case, is to your characterizing the lives lost as
"private interests."
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20247
From: Charles Graft"
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 17:11:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill--
I think the biggest difference in the scenario was that in the Clancy
book it was one somewhat deranged person operating alone and nearly on
impulse that carried off the tragedy.
I did not (and do not) claim that you deliberately mis-quoted in this
case and did not (do not) mean to imply you were. But I do feel that my
use of the term "mis-quoted" was proper.
<Big Charlie>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20248
From: Robert Slater"
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 23:51:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Universal Translator
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
As a partial polyglot (English, Spanish, some Russian) I'm afraid the 10
years is more reasonable though I'd love to be proven wrong. It may work
for very basic things such as directions or menus, but anything much more
complex forget it.
SIFI Rob
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:d12nst8purrh1l3m6qh94kjcrsllt4pjf4@4ax.com...
>
> It seems to me that given the state of technology in several
> related areas --PDAs, processor speed, storage, dynamic translation
> (like Babelfish), and speech recognition-- that we are realistically
> on the cusp of the portable Universal Translator (for human languages
> anyway!).
>
> If only one of the participants has the UT, then one person
> speaks into the PDA-like device (eventually it'll be standard
> capability of all general capability PDAs, but I would think the first
> ones will be dedicated UTs), hands it to the second person who listens
> to the translation, replies, and hands it back. If both people have
> UT's then they can stick an earphone in their ears and have
> practically real-time translation. . .
>
> So, how long until the first decent one shows up? 3 years wouldn't
> suprise me, but more than 10 would. . .
>
>
>
> Geo Rule
>
> www.civilwarstlouis.com
> ****
> Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
> the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
> Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
> the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20249
From: Geo Rule
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 14:26:42 -0800
Subject: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
For the second week in a row, the Sac Bee has an article on the
possibility of using torture to get the 911 suspects to talk. I'm not
sure if the purpose of these articles is trial balloon or warning.
The correspondent is Michael Doyle, Washington Correspondent for
the Sac Bee.
Some excerpts:
Wartime, though, can change civilization's rules. The question is, by
how much.
More than 150 people are now in U.S. custody following the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks. Officials believe four suspects, in particular, may
hold crucial information about the attacks on the Pentagon and World
Trade Center. And with mail-borne anthrax reaching New York,
Washington, DC, and Florida, obtaining information can become
literally a life-or-death matter.
The problem, investigators say, is silence. The solution, some think,
could be more rigorous interrogation. The dilemma, in part, becomes
whether newly aggressive tactics apply just to preventing future
attacks --the classic "ticking bomb" scenario-- or to solving past
crimes as well.
"We are known for humanitarian treatment, so basically we are stuck"
one unidentified FBI agent told the Washington Post. "But it could get
to that spot where we could go to pressure. . .where we won't have a
choice, and we are probably getting there."
This could mean anything from truth serum and direct pressure to
extradition of suspects to other, more brutal, countries for
questioning. It could also mean Americans must confront what they'll
allow to be done in the name of freedom.
"My own view is that anything that looks like torture to the American
people would not be permitted," said Harold Koh, a professor at the
Yale Law school and formerly assistant secretary of state for
democracy, human rights and labor. But, he also predicted, "the
compelling state interest would be invoked" to defend harsh action.
+++++
There's a good bit more, but that gives you the tone.
Having spent as much time researching Missouri in the Civil War
as I have, I'm reminded of the tension that existed then. Generally
it worked out to "Do what you have to do, but clean it up in the
report". A few who didn't quite get it and forgot to do the latter
got hung out to dry.
It seems to me that part of the tension here is that we are
still unwilling to treat this as *war* and are insisting on using the
civil process to try to deal with these people. They aren't suspected
felons, they are suspected spies and guerrillas of a foreign power
--the rules of war give you greater latitude in dealing with those.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20250
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:14:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bdb0afc.23651868@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
....
> I just hope the administration doesn't stop with the Taliban. Limited
> warfare is a Cold War phenomenon.
OK. Have you thought about how many governments you would you like to
see the U.S. government try to replace?
> My view is that, if we're at war, we need to be at war.
> With a total commitment to winning from the entire nation. I would
> have preferred a formal declaration, with a discernable end-point.
At last, something that we agree on!
....
> >While you are signing things, be sure to read the fine print. The idea is
> >to protect them while protecting liberties as well.
>
> And if there is a conflict, which has priority? Especially if they
> are "small liberties" that are sacrificed? And if the sacrifice can
> be only temporary?
>
> My objection, in any case, is to your characterizing the lives lost as
> "private interests."
But I never characterized those lives as "private interests". Those are
the very lives the U.S. government is supposed to protect. That is the
fundamental /public/ interest that the U.S. government is supposed to
serve - the protection of the lives of U.S. citizens. And the one that
it failed on, all the while focusing its attention on irrelevancies
around the world for over the last 50 years.
The basis of our disagreement here is, I think, largely factual. I
believe that a foreign policy of nonintervention best protects the lives
of U.S. citizens, and you do not. As to the the moral aspect, by
"private interests" I had in mind U.S. citizens who feel some attachment
to the state of Israel and U.S.-based corporations. I have no idea if
you think that the U.S. military should support the interests of, say,
U.S. oil companies, but I don't think I am going out on a limb when I
include you in the first group. My moral attachment to the state of
Israel is certainly less than yours.
However, the moral and the factual come to us intertwined in a variety of
ways. You might also think that U.S. government support of Israel is not
only the morally correct posture, but one that serves to safeguard U.S.
citizens as well. Do you?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20251
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 01:01:05 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 14:26:42 -0800, Geo Rule
<georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that part of the tension here is that we are
>still unwilling to treat this as *war* and are insisting on using the
>civil process to try to deal with these people. They aren't suspected
>felons, they are suspected spies and guerrillas of a foreign power
>--the rules of war give you greater latitude in dealing with those.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. And you know I DO consider us to be at
war.
The Law of Land Warfare specifically prohibits the use of torture. We
are signatory to a number of international treaties that likewise
prohibit its use, under any circumstances, I think the first one going
back to the time late 19th century. Prior to WWI, I'm pretty sure.
I wonder if this isn't a lot of silly speculation in the media, and
among people who want to get attention and look important on TV. I
just can't imagine that anyone in authority would seriously consider
torture. Certainly NO ONE in the military would.
"Truth serum" drugs are another issue. And there are all sorts of
interrogation "tricks" that can be legally used. But not torture.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20252
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:33:23 -0500
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bdca855.38360722@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
....
> The Law of Land Warfare specifically prohibits the use of torture.
Jai, from where does this body of law derive?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20253
From: Geo Rule
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:18:53 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 01:01:05 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 14:26:42 -0800, Geo Rule
><georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that part of the tension here is that we are
>>still unwilling to treat this as *war* and are insisting on using the
>>civil process to try to deal with these people. They aren't suspected
>>felons, they are suspected spies and guerrillas of a foreign power
>>--the rules of war give you greater latitude in dealing with those.
>
>Sorry, but I have to disagree. And you know I DO consider us to be at
>war.
>
>The Law of Land Warfare specifically prohibits the use of torture. We
>are signatory to a number of international treaties that likewise
>prohibit its use, under any circumstances, I think the first one going
>back to the time late 19th century. Prior to WWI, I'm pretty sure.
>
Yeah. Tho an even older rule of warfare says "what's good for the
goose is good for the gander" --William Buckley, anyone?
Still I was thinking more along the lines of summary
court-martials and dawn executions by military commission as a lever
to use. *Those* are still available for spies and guerillas, aren't
they?
I'm still unclear on where the Saudi's are on all of this
--recent press (see The Weekly Standard) suggests they aren't as
blameless as I had thot. Sending them "home" to be dealt with would
be an option if the Saudi's are reliable.
Been thinking that would be nice for Bin Laden in the unlikely
event we caught him alive. A world-wide live broadcast from the
stadium the Saudis use for their beheadings. . .I think Clancy did
that in one of his books.
Still, two articles in one week suggests to me that someone is
testing the waters to see how loud the squawk would be.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20254
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:09:12 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:33:23 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> The Law of Land Warfare specifically prohibits the use of torture.
>
>Jai, from where does this body of law derive?
According to the manual:
[http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm]
"The law of war is derived from two principal sources:
"a. Lawmaking Treaties (or Conventions), such as the Hague and Geneva
Conventions. [Specifically,, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907
and the Geneva Conventions of 1864, 1906, and 1929.]
"b. Custom. Although some of the law of war has not been incorporated
in any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party,
this body of unwritten or customary law is firmly established by the
custom of nations and well defined by recognized authorities on
international law.
"Lawmaking treaties may be compared with legislative enactments in the
national law of the United States and the customary law of war with
the unwritten Anglo-American common law. "
Some other key quotes, taken somewhat out of context, but not changing
the meaning, as far as I can tell:
"The law of war is binding not only upon States as such but also upon
individuals and, in particular, the members of their armed forces. "
"Under the Constitution of the United States, treaties constitute part
of the "supreme Law of the Land" (art. VI, clause 2). In consequence,
treaties relating to the law of war have a force equal to that of laws
enacted by the Congress. Their provisions must be observed by both
military and civilian personnel with the same strict regard for both
the letter and spirit of the law which is required with respect to the
Constitution and statutes enacted in pursuance thereof. "
"Even though individual States may not be parties to or otherwise
strictly bound by H. IV and GPW 1929, the former convention and the
general principles of the latter have been held to be declaratory of
the customary law of war, to which all States are subject. "
"The prohibitory effect of the law of war is not minimized by
'military necessity' which has been defined as that principle which
justifies those measures not forbidden by international law which are
indispensable for securing the complete submission of the enemy as
soon as possible. Military necessity has been generally rejected as a
defense for acts forbidden by the customary and conventional laws of
war inasmuch as the latter have been developed and framed with
consideration for the concept of military necessity. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20255
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:51:59 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:18:53 -0800, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
> Yeah. Tho an even older rule of warfare says "what's good for the
>goose is good for the gander" --William Buckley, anyone?
Well, no, actually, that's not really true. If we are a nation of
law, we have to obey our own laws, regardless of what the other guys
do. We didn't, as a rule, mistreat Japanese POWs, even tho we knew
how badly they treated ours. I can recall complaints that VietNam did
not observe the Geneva Convention, but I don't recall anyone (as in my
previous not, anyone "in authority") ever suggesting that we should
not.
> Still I was thinking more along the lines of summary
>court-martials and dawn executions by military commission as a lever
>to use. *Those* are still available for spies and guerillas, aren't
>they?
I'm really out of my league on this one. I think there are some
provisions for the declaration of martial law, which gives a military
commander the authority to "court martial" civilians, but I'm not up
on any of the details.
I also seem to remember that guerillas are not protected to the same
extent as uniformed military members, but again, I'm not sure to what
extent they may be treated differently. I'm pretty sure torture would
not be an option.
I have no clue on spies. I know that historically spies were treated
differently, but in recent years (as in, the last 100, give or take) I
think we've admitted that spying is a legitimate (whatever that means)
military function.
But from the discussion I've heard on torture (and there was a small
debate going on at the www.military.com message boards you might want
to check out), the whole idea is to use torture to find out, right
now, what the next planned attacks are. Dawn executions are not
likely to accomplish that, imho. These guys don't much mind the idea
of dying for their cause. And while I'll grant you that given time to
think about it, one or two might change his mind, they might actually
like the idea of public martyrdom on a US scaffold.
> I'm still unclear on where the Saudi's are on all of this
>--recent press (see The Weekly Standard) suggests they aren't as
>blameless as I had thot. Sending them "home" to be dealt with would
>be an option if the Saudi's are reliable.
>
> Been thinking that would be nice for Bin Laden in the unlikely
>event we caught him alive. A world-wide live broadcast from the
>stadium the Saudis use for their beheadings. . .I think Clancy did
>that in one of his books.
I think one of the "tricks" we've used in the past, legally, is to
threaten to turn a person over to another nation's military or police,
one that is not as "nice" about torture, public humiliation, and so
forth. Whether we actually ever do turn that person over is another
matter, but under extradition law, it might be a loop-hole that could
be exploited. Still, if we KNOW a country is going to use torture (as
opposed to just public execution), I think there is some justification
for the argument that handing that person over to the torturers would
violate the law.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how reliable the Saudis are right
now.
> Still, two articles in one week suggests to me that someone is
>testing the waters to see how loud the squawk would be.
Perhaps, but I tend to doubt it is being considered seriously. I
could be wrong, of course. The rules on handling prisoners is so
deeply ingrained into military officers, I can't even imagine that it
would even occur to a high-level commander, or that he would ever
entertain such a suggestion. I'm not sure that would be the case with
the FBI or CIA. Not saying it wouldn't either--I just don't know the
organizational culture as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20256
From: Anthony Alford"
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:43:08 -0500
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
No need to use torture. Just put them on an all-pork diet. :)
"Geo Rule" <georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote in message
news:0c0ptt0pb6i14pt3cu6bsook7bdls80rq6@4ax.com...
>
> For the second week in a row, the Sac Bee has an article on the
> possibility of using torture to get the 911 suspects to talk. I'm not
> sure if the purpose of these articles is trial balloon or warning.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20257
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:08:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 19:14:06 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <3bdb0afc.23651868@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
>writes...
>...
>> I just hope the administration doesn't stop with the Taliban. Limited
>> warfare is a Cold War phenomenon.
>
>OK. Have you thought about how many governments you would you like to
>see the U.S. government try to replace?
I think it's way too early to consider that question seriously. Did
anyone envision the Marshal Plan before we committed ourselves
completely to defeating Germany and Japan?
>But I never characterized those lives as "private interests". Those are
>the very lives the U.S. government is supposed to protect. That is the
>fundamental /public/ interest that the U.S. government is supposed to
>serve - the protection of the lives of U.S. citizens.
Ah, something else we can agree on. <g>
>And the one that
>it failed on, all the while focusing its attention on irrelevancies
>around the world for over the last 50 years.
You operate under the assumption that our foreign alliances are the
cause of the failure. I do not. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And I'm not even convinced the system "failed" all that badly. Well,
of course, it did "fail"--but you have no idea how many attacks have
been averted or mitigated over the years. How many were not attempted
at all because security made the risk of not succeeding too high. It
is unrealistic to think that, given their resources and dedication,
not to mention our open society, the terrorists would not eventually
succeed at something devastating.
You also do not seem to acknowledge the role that our allies have
played in the prevention of previous attacks, and that they play now
in preventing future ones.
My personal opinion is that, if our government has failed us, it has
been in not reacting boldly enough with terrorism in the past. Bin
Laden murdered our soldiers/airmen in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. he
attacked a US Navy ship at sea, he destroyed two embassies
(traditionally considered the sovereign soil of the parent nation).
We should have crushed him like a bug back then.
But I'll take it further. We should have taken a hard-line with
terrorists from the very beginning, probably starting when the PLO
attacked the Munich Olympics in '72, an international event of which
we were a part. It may go back even farther, but that's the earliest
I can think of off the top of my head. Instead we've tolerated
terrorists, tried to negotiate with them, even just ignored them.
We've practically invited them to try again and again, with more
devestating results each time, just to get our attention.
>The basis of our disagreement here is, I think, largely factual. I
>believe that a foreign policy of nonintervention best protects the lives
>of U.S. citizens, and you do not.
I suppose you're correct in where we most strongly disagree, but how
is that "factual"? There are, to my knowledge, no "facts" which prove
that nonintervention would protect US lives, or conversely, to prove
it would not. Heck, no one knows for a "fact" that our participation
in NATO deterred the Soviet Union from attacking post-WWII Europe, or
at least extending their influence there, but there is strong reason
to believe it was a factor.
>As to the the moral aspect, by
>"private interests" I had in mind U.S. citizens who feel some attachment
>to the state of Israel and U.S.-based corporations. I have no idea if
>you think that the U.S. military should support the interests of, say,
>U.S. oil companies, but I don't think I am going out on a limb when I
>include you in the first group. My moral attachment to the state of
>Israel is certainly less than yours.
>
>However, the moral and the factual come to us intertwined in a variety of
>ways. You might also think that U.S. government support of Israel is not
>only the morally correct posture, but one that serves to safeguard U.S.
>citizens as well. Do you?
Of course I do. It is not an a=b equation, but I believe it is
definitely in long-term US interests (by which I mean protecting US
lives AND freedoms) to support other democractic governments, to
support established alliances, to seek out new alliances with nations
with whom we share common interests, and to provided humanitarian
assistance where needed and within our capabilities. Not that any of
the four are absolute, in that we should do so in every case (altho #1
comes close). But I really do think it's absurd to think we can
retreat from the world stage. If anything, our interests across the
oceans can only become more, not less, significant in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20258
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 10:13:54 -0500
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bdd4f80.3942453@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:33:23 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> The Law of Land Warfare specifically prohibits the use of torture.
> >
> >Jai, from where does this body of law derive?
>
> According to the manual:
> [http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm]
Thanks much for the link and the quotes!
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20259
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:10:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bdd5f23.7946134@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
....
> You operate under the assumption that our foreign alliances are the
> cause of the failure. I do not. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I would like to, but I'm not sure that I will be successful. ;-) The
U.S. government has intervened in the Middle East without regard to the
threat that terrorism poses to U.S. citizens. I don't know if it was
arrogance or ignorance. Long before 9/11, I said that U.S. citizens
would be safer if the President slept in a simple wood-frame building.
Suicide bombers have been commonplace for some time.
Technology makes it ever more possible for a small number of people to
engage in mass and well-publicized destruction. If you are going to have
foreign alliances, you need to take enormous precautions to protect the
average citizen, especially when you have made government leadership
relatively hard to hit.
> It
> is unrealistic to think that, given their resources and dedication,
> not to mention our open society, the terrorists would not eventually
> succeed at something devastating.
The question is why attack? Switzerland is also an open society. What
is it, in particular, about the U.S. that makes it a target of
Islamic terrorism?
> You also do not seem to acknowledge the role that our allies have
> played in the prevention of previous attacks, and that they play now
> in preventing future ones.
The current use of their AWACS? That strikes me as window dressing. Or
the arrest of terrorists by foreign governments? That strikes me as
something that it is in any government's interest to do, regardless of
alliances.
> My personal opinion is that, if our government has failed us, it has
> been in not reacting boldly enough with terrorism in the past. Bin
> Laden murdered our soldiers/airmen in Saudi Arabia and Somalia. he
> attacked a US Navy ship at sea, he destroyed two embassies
> (traditionally considered the sovereign soil of the parent nation).
> We should have crushed him like a bug back then.
We were too busy rewarding the Taliban for helping us in the old "war",
the one on drugs. It is comforting to imagine that the U.S. military has
the material resources and intelligence to stomp on every terrorist bug
throughout the world before it reproduces, especially if you also think
that the U.S. government should be meddling in affairs all over the
world. But it is not realistic - in my personal opinion, of course.
....
> >The basis of our disagreement here is, I think, largely factual. I
> >believe that a foreign policy of nonintervention best protects the lives
> >of U.S. citizens, and you do not.
>
> I suppose you're correct in where we most strongly disagree, but how
> is that "factual"?
I was merely bowing momentarily to the common view that there is a strong
"factual versus moral" distinction. If you do not share it, no matter.
> There are, to my knowledge, no "facts" which prove
> that nonintervention would protect US lives, or conversely, to prove
> it would not.
"Prove" is a rather strong word, best left to mathematics and logic. The
issue is one of confidence of belief. If the U.S. military were not in
Saudi Arabia, if the U.S. government had not fought a war to protect oil
interests in Kuwait, if the U.S. government did not support Israel, etc.,
in short, if it had a non-interventionist policy in the Middle East, why
would the U.S. be the target of Islamic terrorists? How many bombs has
the IRA set off in the U.S.?
....
> >However, the moral and the factual come to us intertwined in a variety of
> >ways. You might also think that U.S. government support of Israel is not
> >only the morally correct posture, but one that serves to safeguard U.S.
> >citizens as well. Do you?
>
> Of course I do. It is not an a=b equation, but I believe it is
> definitely in long-term US interests (by which I mean protecting US
> lives AND freedoms) to support other democractic governments,
On the scale of interventionist mistakes, I rate this one as minor. But
the fact is that the U.S. government has supported, and supports, many
non-democratic governments. Once you start to intervene, clever folks on
the State Department can find all sorts of reasons.
> to
> support established alliances,
Easier the fewer you have to begin with.
> to seek out new alliances with nations
> with whom we share common interests,
I think our common interest is trade. I ask what you think below.
> and to provided humanitarian
> assistance where needed and within our capabilities.
Private groups of U.S. citizens have always played a strong role in this.
> Not that any of
> the four are absolute, in that we should do so in every case (altho #1
> comes close). But I really do think it's absurd to think we can
> retreat from the world stage. If anything, our interests across the
> oceans can only become more, not less, significant in the future.
What exactly our "our" interests across the oceans? You have mentioned
supporting democracies and humanitarian aid. (I leave out alliances,
since they are not interests in themselves.) Neither of these is
absolute in your view, but the first has special weight. Do you think
that we should support democracies in territorial disputes? And why must
humanitarian aid be a function of government?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20260
From: Geo Rule
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 18:17:10 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:51:59 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>I have no clue on spies. I know that historically spies were treated
>differently, but in recent years (as in, the last 100, give or take) I
>think we've admitted that spying is a legitimate (whatever that means)
>military function.
>
You mean Henry Halleck's treatise isn't the latest? Hmm. One of
these days I'll have to read about this century.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20261
From: Charles Graft"
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:53:52 -0600
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:8a3sttc7529ddce8morg2ms9oqcslpc3gj@4ax.com...
> You mean Henry Halleck's treatise isn't the latest? Hmm. One of
> these days I'll have to read about this century.
>
>
> Geo Rule
Geo--
You probably won't like reading about this century. (TFIC)
--
<<Big Charlie>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20262
From: Charles Graft"
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:03:03 -0600
Subject: Senate
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All--
I received this in E-mail the other day and cannot vouch for the
acuracy thereof. But it would not surprise me. I thought I would throw it
open for discussion.
<Big Charlie>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Gold Star Mothers
Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women whose sons were
killed in military combat during service in the United States armed
forces.
Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to
Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected
representatives. According to NewsMax.com there was only one politician
in DC who refused to meet with these ladies.
Can you guess which politician that might be? Was it New York Senator
Charles Schumer? Nope, he met with them. Try again. Do you know anyone
serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but contempt for our
military? Do you happen to know the name of any politician in Washington
who's husband once wrote of his loathing of the military?
Now you're getting warm! You got it! None other than the Queen herself,
Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold
Star Mothers. Now --- please don't tell me you're surprised. This woman
wants to be president of the United States --- and there is a huge
percentage of the voters who are anxious to help her achieve that.
Sincerely,
Cdr Hamilton McWhorter USN(ret)
Please forward this to as many people as you can. We don't want this
woman to even think of running for President..
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20263
From: dee"
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:29:56 -0600
Subject: Re: Senate
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3bde270f.0@news.sff.net...
> I received this in E-mail the other day and cannot vouch for the
> acuracy thereof. But it would not surprise me. I thought I would throw
it
> open for discussion.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Gold Star Mothers
<snip>
BC--
According to Snopes http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/goldstar.htm
this is a misrepresentation of what happened on 2/27/01:
"The American Gold Star Mothers, Inc., deeply regret the
misunderstanding about Senator Hillary Clinton. The two mothers who visited
Washington did not have an appointment with the Senator and she was not in
her office on that day.
"We would appreciate it if the e-mails and negative comments about
Senator Clinton would cease.
"Georgianna Carter-Krell
"National President"
I don't know if anyone else has found evidence that the report is
accurate.
Now, I'm no supporter of Ms. Clinton, and it is beyond me why NYers
voted for a senator who had no roots in their State, but that is their
business. Nevertheless, one would like to get the facts straight. I am
glad that you are checking this out, instead of e-mailing it
indiscriminately. (A red flag is the "Please forward this to as many people
as you can." In my experience, the odds are low that any e-mail with this
sort of tag is accurate.)
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20264
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:08:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> Hoping someone will jump in. These two-sided discussions aren't near
> as interesting as when a slew of ideas get thrown around...
Oh, what the hay! "One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three,
one thousand four, check canopy ... " sez a relative newbie.
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 12:33:48 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Targeting a nation that harbors terrorists is not the same thing as
> >having the overthrow of the government of that nation as a goal. Please
> >correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Powell's statement
> >that "the Taliban must go" is only a day or two old.
I'm not sure I understand what Gordon is saying here; but if I do, it's a
specious distinction. Is there some goal of 'targeting' in a war other than
the overthrowal of the government you've targeted if it fails to surrender
and accede to the demands placed on it? What are the likelihoods of surrender
occurring, particularly when the 'government' is the totalitarian organ the
Taliban clearly appears to be, when it now clearly supports everything the
terrorist bin Laden has done -- except to those determined to be apologists
for it, and when it cannot be seen as conceding anything to the Great Satan
without uttering hypocracy? And what is the benefit of allowing such a
'government' to have any room whatever to accede; we don't recognize it as
the lawful government of Afghanistan? If we entered into a Treaty with it,
we'd confer de facto recognition. Why do that? It could then claim a victory
in spirit over the Grand Satan just as Sadam did ten years ago, e.g., "we've
forced the infidels to recognize that we are the lawful government of the
Afghanistan people ... now we'll continue the war at a time and place of our
choosing." Tune in ten years from now ... it being that time they've bought,
terrorists detonate ten suitcase atomic bombs up and down the east coast
including one between New Jersey and Delaware. Among the casualties are ....
I can only conclude by advancing this argument, Gordon wants, if there has to
be a war, which he doesn't want at all, a replay of the war the elder Bush
conducted against Sadam Hussein? "A Bridge Too Short"? An opportunity pissed
away.
> Mr Bush gave the Taliban specifically the ultimatim very early on that
> they must hand over Bin Laden and crew, close the terrorist training
> sites, and submit to inspection that they had complied. When they
> refused (and there's a good argument that he purposely made the
> ultimatim one they couldn't not refuse),
So what? Isn't that a good thing? There's a good argument that U.S. Grant
conditioned his terms so that the ultimatum was one the Confederated States
of America couldn't accept so long as it was capable of maintaining its
armies in the field as a force and Jefferson Davis, et al., in its 'capital'
as a government. "Unconditional surrender" is what he demanded. In other
words, Grant told them, as he was ordered to do by Lincoln, 'We do not and we
will not ever recognize your legality. Forget it. You're not going your own
way by means of any treaty of peace or surrender that recognizes your right
to continue to exist as an independent nation dissolving this Union. All of
you from Jefferson Davis on down are traitors, rebels, and outlaws against
lawful authority; and when we get done grinding you down to dust, we'll hang
the ones who remain standing if we choose to do so -- or maybe we'll pardon
you, depending on how we feel.' Unconditional terms are what you accord to
illegal governments. The Taliban 'government' is one we do not recognize;
accordingly, it has no status ... and all it gets 'offered' are
non-negotiable terms. It either acquiesses to treatment as an irregular force
not recognized as among the nations of the world -- a government of "pirates"
with every man's hand against it, or it gets erradicated.
> he said there was no room for
> negotiation. From that point on, I think there was obviously no way
> the Taliban could remain in power.
Precisely I hope what Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell and
the rest of his minders intended when they told "Dub-yah" to announce those
terms.
> I just hope the administration doesn't stop with the Taliban. Limited
> warfare is a Cold War phenomenon.
I agree. So far as I am concern, they can land our armies at Haifa and
proceed East and South and take over and occupy the entire Muddled East, and
keep troops of occupation over there for fifty years, just as was done in
Germany, until democratic governments acceptible to our definition of those
terms are elected in every damned one of those tolitarian states and securely
in power. If that means World War II mobilization, and World War III against
all the governments of the area, so be it. I want a formal Declaration of War
against Afghanistan and its de facto government and each and every ally of
those people that pops up his idiot head. "For us, or against us ... " is the
appropriate standard. That isn't equivocal at all. "For" means 100 % support,
nothing less. Maintaining neutral status doesn't mean anything less than
totally neutral. One dollar, one bullet, one volunteer to the Taliban forces,
and we come and occupy you too. Breach your treaties, your committments, be
content to play both ends against the middle, and the result is a Declaration
of War against you, and removal of your government. We can use your wealth to
pay for the war. Screw you. If you'd acted other than as a tolitarian
government we wouldn't have this problem of dealing with your own home-ground
terrorists who are striking against us to ultimately defeat you. You may be
the enemy of my enemy, but you're the problem. "Take him out and shoot him,"
said Star.
> ...
> >> I hardly think there is yet a "steady erosion" of our liberties
> >> directly attributable to this war.
> >
> >The erosion has already begun where the executive branch has a free hand.
> >The legislative branch is slower to act, of course, but is now starting
> >to catch up. We will see if the judicial branch roles over during "war
> >time", as it has in the past.
>
> Don't know about the federal district courts, but I doubt we'll see
> the current Supremes overrule this legislation. They might strike
> down some small part of it, or postpone action as long as they feel
> necessary and can get away with it..
What else is new? Is this really as important as Gordon would have it during
a war? I'm sorry, but if it's easier to tape your phone, or Gordon's phone,
during war than during peace, that's reasonable, considering the threat; and
it's too bad if he or you want to insist on the latest wrinkle of freedom. If
you're engaged in wittingly giving comfort or support to the enemy, then, I'd
rather we hang you quickly before you do any further damage. Maybe your
appeals after conviction will keep you alive long enough for the Courts to
resume their semi-solicitude. If it's unwitting and we find out by a phone
tap that wouldn't stand up in peacetime, good, too. Your "rights," or
Gordon's "rights" don't mean a damned thing to me if my son or daughter is
going to be killed because of something you do which is protected as a result
of legal nicety. It's up to you to prove you're stupid rather than a traitor.
Simple fact is: you have less rights under our compact during war. Lincoln
dissolved habeas corpus during the civil war for good reason. The Supremes
didn't like it. Fortunately, they didn't have enough marshals to oppose the
regular or volunteer army. Neither did the South's guerillas. They got told,
in effect that if they violated the terms of AG Order 100, they be shot by
the military and, when appropriate and the tactical commander was the judge
of that, they'd not even get a drumhead courts-martial, they'd be shot
summarily. As a consequence a lot less people, innocent people that is, got
killed by guerrilla warfare and treason in the areas in which habeas corpus
was dissolved. And not a few spies and traitors swung.
This recent legislation is no where near that; and Gordon need not bother to
talk to me about slippery slopes. We'd had slippery slope arguments in the
past; and after the war had ended we've removed from the government the power
to do what they did during wartime. Linclon ordered an end to his own
dissolution of habeas corpus. This isn't a case of the gubmit trying to tell
some libertarian capitalist in peacetime he can't run a road through a
national park to his strip mine or site of slash cutting of the forest; and,
even assuming I'd buy those arguments in peacetime, there's no way I'd accept
that kind of nonsense in a war case if the consequence of accepting it
substantially impacted upon the actual security of this nation's armed
forces, defense production plants, or its people. I really don't think you'd
make that argument, Jai, but if you do, my response is the same as my
response to Gordon: Your nation is at war. Its sons and daughters are in
harm's way. You don't like it: leave, find somewhere more suitable to your
"independent" temperment; and don't expect a Jimmie Carter to pardon your
conduct and give you your citizenship back when this one's over; or, of
course, you can shut up and wait until after the war is over and whine about
it, infiltrate the colleges and try to inculcate the next generations with
your views. It won't be sedition then. There won't be a clear and present
threat.
> >> Certainly not to the level we
> >> endured in WWII (rationing, censorship, enforced black outs and air
> >> raid drills, the draft, etc) .
> >
> >Correct. Your view is that we should take comfort where we can?
>
> Comfort? My view is that, if we're at war, we need to be at war.
> With a total commitment to winning from the entire nation. I would
> have preferred a formal declaration, with a discernable end-point.
Your view is why I don't think you'd seriously advance any of the above
arguments. Concerning your view of the necessity for a formal Declaration of
War, I too prefer one. In fact, when the 60-day limit specified by the War
Powers Act runs out, in November, a couple of weeks, I expect Congress to
consider the President's Report which he damned well better have given it,
and make a formal Declaration. Or else people are going to start demanding
impeachment.
We need a formal declaration here. The 'police actions' and 'resolutions'
since the end of World War II are illegal without such a report and
declaration; and this is not, contrary to arguments that may be advanced,
anything other than an attack on the United States. Our response is not
required by our commitments to the United Nations, or to any other treaty.
Our response is for ourselves. The United Nations can like our response or
lump it. That attack directly against us requires a Declaration of War in my
view to remedy. I don't want a 'different kind of war' declared by the
President and ended at his pleasure under terms he alone decides, as he can
do with the 'war on drugs' or 'war on poverty' or 'war on [any other trivia]'
you care to name. I want what the Constitution specifies: A Declaration of
War by Congress that can be ended only by a lawful and Constitutional Treaty
that the Senate is required to ratify.
I don't trust a single Executive with his eyes on getting reelected,
rewarding his friends and punishing his politial foes, to decide when to
conduct war and when to end it in these circumstances. Too many of them think
you can fool all of the people some of the time, etc.
> >> But if protecting the NEXT 6000 from
> >> being blown up by hijacked airliners (or infected thru the mail, or
> >> whatever other grisly scenario you can think of) is securing "benefits
> >> for private interests." you can sign me up.
> >
> >While you are signing things, be sure to read the fine print. The idea is
> >to protect them while protecting liberties as well.
Great idea. We'll keep them intact, Jai, while Gordon goes out and defends
us. What, you're staying home, Gordon? You're content merely to disentangle
all foreign contacts except trade. Build a chinese wall on the east and west
coasts? Fine, then since we disagree with the bury our heads in the sand
defense you espouse we'll do it our way. You can always emigrate elsewhere.
Or accept the conditions we think appropriate during wartime. If you speak in
opposition, be careful. There are sedition laws that withstand Constitutional
scrutiny. Maybe you'll turn out to be correct; but if you don't mind, I'll
accept at least the conditions my parents during World War II were willing to
put up with. I don't think they were wrong; I know damend well the condtions
didn't remain in place after the war, and I also note the civil liberties
they had before the war were far less than we have today.
> And if there is a conflict, which has priority? Especially if they
> are "small liberties" that are sacrificed? And if the sacrifice can
> be only temporary?
>
> My objection, in any case, is to your characterizing the lives lost as
> "private interests."
I agree with all these points. But my agreement on 'points' obscures one
thing. This isn't an ivory tower debate. I'm not going to be 'reasonable' to
continue comity and good will. We're sending our sons and daughters into
harm's way because of an attack on *us.* Not on the Greeks in 1946, not on
Rhee's government in Korea in 1951, not on Diem's government in South Vietnam
in 1958 or 1964, take your pick, not on some oil-rich sheiks in Kawait, not
on one group or another of Jugoslavs who since the Fourteenth Century cannot
live without trying to kill each other, not on poverty ridden folk in Africa,
and not on *anyone* *else* *but* *us*. There's one response to that
acceptible to me. It's full unconditional surrender war against those who
perpetrated the acts and all those in concert with them, before and
afterwards, allied with them, before and afterwards, and all whom afford them
shelter or give them them the least iota of aid or support, including anyone
in our own Country, citizens or not.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20265
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:41:56 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>No need to use torture. Just put them on an all-pork diet. :)
<snarf> I did wonder how many of those food packs we're dropping
contained Spam.
Any talk of torture seems to be ignoring the basic uselessness of it
as a practice--you can't trust info gained that way.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20266
From: Geo Rule
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 05:30:23 -0800
Subject: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Well, so far so good. My DUN crashing problem is gone (cable
modem doesn't use DUN to connect) too.
The new GUI is nice, tho it did take me awhile to find where they
were hiding Device Manager.
Regularly getting T1+ speeds with the cable modem on large
downloads. Very cool.
Still doing the HPNA & ICS networking at the moment --Win XP
handled that with no problem. Let it install ACPI and that is working
okay too.
Off to a much better start than I had with Win2K a few months
ago (bailed out of that one after about 1 1/2 weeks). We'll see if it
holds up.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20267
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:26:19 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Double hooray. A new voice (and welcome!), and one even more hawkish
than I am. <g>
Seriously, David, I may not agree with your every point, but I
appreciate your general attitude. We need Americans to have a fire in
the belly for the prosecution of this war. We may not all agree on
the fine details, but we should be damn mad about what's been done and
is being done to us.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 21:08:51 -0800, "David M. Silver"
<ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote:
>> (and there's a good argument that he purposely made the
>> ultimatim one they couldn't not refuse),
>
>So what? Isn't that a good thing?
I didn't say it wasn't. I rather liked the ultimatim given. I was
just trying to point out that the conditions were set from the
beginning, not added on later.
>> >> Certainly not to the level we
>> >> endured in WWII (rationing, censorship, enforced black outs and air
>> >> raid drills, the draft, etc) .
>> >
>> >Correct. Your view is that we should take comfort where we can?
>>
>> Comfort? My view is that, if we're at war, we need to be at war.
>> With a total commitment to winning from the entire nation. I would
>> have preferred a formal declaration, with a discernable end-point.
>
>Your view is why I don't think you'd seriously advance any of the above
>arguments.
I don't think I understand what your saying here. Was "your view"
directed at me? Which arguments? I thought I was quite clear that I
see a necessity for restricted freedom "for the duration," as they
used to say in WWII. I don't think I'd go so far as outlawing any
dissent, but I definitely do not think the law signed a couple of days
ago (the Patriot Act, right?) goes too far. We should be more
concerned with the war effort than the idea that our "rights" are
being stepped on.
What I would not be happy with is a "War on Drugs" scenario where the
rights are taken away for no clear purpose, with no definition of
victory, no re-establishment of those rights in sight, and no
particular concern on the part of the American people one way or the
other. My only concern over the Patriot Act is that it may play out
the same way, in the long run.
Maybe the abridgement of individual rights and priviledge is precisely
what's necessary for people to take this war seriously. If that the
case, the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough.
I know I'm concerned, and have been for many years, that the
employment of a non-drafted military may distance the armed forces
from the people too far, so that the latter do not feel particularly
affected by what happens to the former.
>Concerning your view of the necessity for a formal Declaration of
>War, I too prefer one. In fact, when the 60-day limit specified by the War
>Powers Act runs out, in November, a couple of weeks, I expect Congress to
>consider the President's Report which he damned well better have given it,
>and make a formal Declaration. Or else people are going to start demanding
>impeachment.
I hadn't considered that a formal declaration of war might come up
again. I wrote my Congressman two days after the attack of Sept 11th,
asking him to vote for such a declaration, if the president asked for
one. Got a nice letter back too, fwiw. Maybe it's time to write
again.
Altho I don't think anyone's likely to demand impeachment over it.
And while I support a formal declaration of war, I'm not sure one is
required, legally, Afterall, Bin Laden has declared war on US, just
as certainly as Hitler did in 1941. He did that back in '96, I think,
and I wish we'd listened to him then. To my mind, he spoke not only
for himself and Al Qaeda, but for all the organizations that are in
league together. That he is not the ruler of a "nation" in the
traditional sense makes no difference at all. Altho it seems to me
that any nation which supports him might as well have made the same
declaration.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20268
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:17:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:10:35 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>Long before 9/11, I said that U.S. citizens
>would be safer if the President slept in a simple wood-frame building.
>Suicide bombers have been commonplace for some time.
>
>Technology makes it ever more possible for a small number of people to
>engage in mass and well-publicized destruction. If you are going to have
>foreign alliances, you need to take enormous precautions to protect the
>average citizen, especially when you have made government leadership
>relatively hard to hit.
Do you seriously think that special precautions should not be taken to
protect the President and other bodies of government, command &
control, logistics, administration? Do you really think the President
doesn't care how many "civilians" are killed as long as he is safe?
What an absurd idea.
Even in the height of the Cold War, there were special provisions for
the President to escape an attack on DC, and to command the response
from a safe location. How long do you think American soverignty would
last, and the freedom that goes with it, if the government could be
effectively decapitated?
You seem to suffer from the dillusion that wars are only fought by the
military. Better take a look at history. Civilians die too.
>> It
>> is unrealistic to think that, given their resources and dedication,
>> not to mention our open society, the terrorists would not eventually
>> succeed at something devastating.
>
>The question is why attack? Switzerland is also an open society.
And if Germany had taken over Europe in WWII, there would be no "open
society" in Switzerland today. Isolationism will only place the
future of the US in the hands of other nations, just as Switzerland's
was. And is..
> What
>is it, in particular, about the U.S. that makes it a target of
>Islamic terrorism?
To the extent that the fundamentalists are rational, which is not
much, here are a handful of reasons: We are powerful. We are
wealthy, We are infidels. Our secular culture is invading theirs, by
way of TV, movies, music, the internet, the world market. Their women
are beginning to expect to be treated like human beings (and
personally, I think this reason has more to do with their hatred than
most people are willing to admit).
>> You also do not seem to acknowledge the role that our allies have
>> played in the prevention of previous attacks, and that they play now
>> in preventing future ones.
>
>The current use of their AWACS? That strikes me as window dressing.
There's a heck of a lot more to intelligence collection that AWACS.
>Or
>the arrest of terrorists by foreign governments? That strikes me as
>something that it is in any government's interest to do, regardless of
>alliances.
Why? Wouldn't their taking a "noninterventionist" stance protect them
from terrorism? You seem to think it would protect us.
>We were too busy rewarding the Taliban for helping us in the old "war",
>the one on drugs.
Agreed. But our assistance to the Taliban was really more centered on
opposing the Soviets, and later Russa. Remnant of the Cold War, which
has led us to getting in bed with all sorts of very bad governments.
>It is comforting to imagine that the U.S. military has
>the material resources and intelligence to stomp on every terrorist bug
>throughout the world before it reproduces, especially if you also think
>that the U.S. government should be meddling in affairs all over the
>world. But it is not realistic - in my personal opinion, of course.
I don't think it's at all unrealistic. Maybe not every single one,
but the major players, yes. You know, the ones with "global reach"?
And to stomp on them so hard that the smaller ones think twice about
doing anything to attract our attention.
I do worry about whether the American people have the endurance to
"stay the course," and whether our leadership has the courage to act
as decisively as necessary, especially if it involves ticking off an
"ally" or three.
>> >The basis of our disagreement here is, I think, largely factual. I
>> >believe that a foreign policy of nonintervention best protects the lives
>> >of U.S. citizens, and you do not.
>>
>> I suppose you're correct in where we most strongly disagree, but how
>> is that "factual"?
>
>I was merely bowing momentarily to the common view that there is a strong
>"factual versus moral" distinction. If you do not share it, no matter.
To my mind, a factual argument is one where you can go to some
reference and resolve the disagreement. Or, if the references
disagree, at least you can point your finger to specifics facts that
remain in dispute. I don't think that's the basis of our argument at
all.
>What exactly our "our" interests across the oceans? You have mentioned
>supporting democracies and humanitarian aid.
Our interests overseas are anything that furthers the goal of a
peaceful, stable world where people are free to trade, and to exchange
ideas, scientific information, technological progress.
>(I leave out alliances,
>since they are not interests in themselves.)
Yes they are. One does not normally go to war against allies (sort of
by definition) and generally has more influence on the actions of
allies with regard to other nations and international actors, and
sometimes with their internal policies as well. There are also more
opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, products, etc
with allies.
>Neither of these is
>absolute in your view, but the first has special weight. Do you think
>that we should support democracies in territorial disputes?
Depends what you mean by support. I think we should attempt to view
the situation from the democratic nations' point of view before we
decide what level of support to provide.
> And why must
>humanitarian aid be a function of government?
Because an well-fed, educated, un-oppressed group of people is more
likely and more able to contribute to a peaceful, stable world. Which
is better for everyone.
And because the majority of people in this country believe it is the
right thing to do. Collectively.
Fundamentally, your and my greatest disagreement, I think, is not
about facts and it's not about morals. It is the belief, or
philosophical position if you prefer, as to what extent people
(society, nation, whatever) can or should act collectively. And to
what extent the individual is (or should be) obligated to participate.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20269
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:22:46 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:41:56 GMT, debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek
Rule) wrote:
> <snarf> I did wonder how many of those food packs we're dropping
>contained Spam.
LOL. From what I have read, there's no meat at all in the food packs.
They were designed and produced for distribution in Bosnia, to a
predominantly Muslim populace.
> Any talk of torture seems to be ignoring the basic uselessness of it
>as a practice--you can't trust info gained that way.
I'm glad you brought that up, Deb. Very true.
Also, people who believe they may be subject to torture are much more
likely to fight to the death than to submit to capture.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20270
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:06:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Their women
>are beginning to expect to be treated like human beings (and
>personally, I think this reason has more to do with their hatred than
>most people are willing to admit).
I agree with that. Yet I keep puzzling over a weird contradiction in
cultures. We are still fussing over the idea that a female could
_someday_ be president. Yet several Moslem countries have already had
female rulers.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20271
From: Catherine Hampton
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:13:44 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:22:46 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 08:41:56 GMT, debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek
>Rule) wrote:
>> Any talk of torture seems to be ignoring the basic uselessness of it
>>as a practice--you can't trust info gained that way.
>I'm glad you brought that up, Deb. Very true.
>Also, people who believe they may be subject to torture are much more
>likely to fight to the death than to submit to capture.
True, but perhaps not relevant here. People from that part of the
world generally assume that war captives will be tortured -- it's part
of the standard practice of governments around there. (Including the
governments of Pakistan, current and past.) They likely consider any
statements on our part that we treat captives well to be pure
propaganda and discount them.
That doesn't mean I support torture. (I've been a member of Amnesty
International for over 20 years, after all.) :) And I agree that
torture is inefficient and stupid, as well as evil. I just don't
think that we are likely to convince any Afghan or Taleban soldiers
that we don't practice it, at least not until we have already captured
them, held them for a while, and they find we treat them better than
their alleged friends/allies do. <wry grin>
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
REVEAL * <http://www.reveal.org/>
The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20272
From: Jane Davitt
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:00:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Senate
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
dee wrote: (A red flag is the "Please forward this to as many people
> as you can." In my experience, the odds are low that any e-mail with this
> sort of tag is accurate.)
>
> --Dee2
It certainly is.
And they had an error of grammar; 'who's husband' instead of 'whose'. That sort
of sloppiness reflects badly on a message that purports to be from an educated
man.
(I know such errors appear in posts but they're more informal.)
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20273
From: Gordon Sollars"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:13:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bdec6e9.44913782@news.sff.net...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:10:35 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> >Technology makes it ever more possible for a small number of people to
> >engage in mass and well-publicized destruction. If you are going to have
> >foreign alliances, you need to take enormous precautions to protect the
> >average citizen, especially when you have made government leadership
> >relatively hard to hit.
>
> Do you seriously think that special precautions should not be taken to
> protect the President and other bodies of government, command &
> control, logistics, administration?
No. But, I seriously think that when you harden one target you increase the
likelihood of attack on another. Especially when you are engaging in
actions that others might attack you for. If the citizens of the U.S.
really want an interventionist foreign policy in today's world, then the
government needs to
greatly tighten security. There is always a trade off between security and
liberty. I happen to think that the alternative of more liberty and less
intervention is better. YMMV and all that.
....
> >The question is why attack? Switzerland is also an open society.
>
> And if Germany had taken over Europe in WWII, there would be no "open
> society" in Switzerland today. Isolationism will only place the
> future of the US in the hands of other nations, just as Switzerland's
> was. And is..
And which Middle Eastern countries want to invade the U.S. and take over
North America? Analogies are better, Jai, when they are, indeed, analogies.
> > What
> >is it, in particular, about the U.S. that makes it a target of
> >Islamic terrorism?
>
> To the extent that the fundamentalists are rational, which is not
> much,
They were rational enough to crash planes into the WTC rather than my house
in NJ.
> here are a handful of reasons: We are powerful.
So is Russia. (Careful before you mention /their/ problem with Islamic
terrorists; it rather plays into my hand. So is China.
> We are
> wealthy,
So is Japan. Yet their only terrorists are home grown.
> We are infidels.
I'm not sure about this. What is the Islamic definition of "infidel"? Jews
and Christians have a special status under Islamic law as "people of the
book" - they are not
required to convert in an Islamic state. Surely the Japanese are far better
examples of infidels.
> Our secular culture is invading theirs, by
> way of TV, movies, music, the internet, the world market. Their women
> are beginning to expect to be treated like human beings (and
> personally, I think this reason has more to do with their hatred than
> most people are willing to admit).
Now we might be getting somewhere. But our culture is also invading the
French, and aside from a McDonald's as I recall, there have been no acts of
terrorism directed at the U.S. by the French. But, of course, you might
have something with this. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I prefer the
hypothesis that the things Islamic terrorists have actually said are the
issues - U.S.
military in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel, for example - are what is
motivating
them. But I could be wrong, of course.
Now, if I am wrong and you are right, then after the U.S. moved to a policy
of nonintervention, Islamic terrorism against the U.S. would continue. The
new victims would be the terrible cost of proving my view wrong. If I am
right and you are wrong, then we will have conducted unnecessary wars
against a number (which you have yet to specify) of Middle Eastern
governments and terrorist organizations, with all the attendant loss of U.S.
soldiers and assets and innocent life abroad. And if we pursue your course
first but I am right, we will suffer from an increased number of terrorist
attacks before we win. (If we win.) I really can't judge between these
until you tell me how big a party you think is necessary.
....
> >Or
> >the arrest of terrorists by foreign governments? That strikes me as
> >something that it is in any government's interest to do, regardless of
> >alliances.
>
> Why? Wouldn't their taking a "noninterventionist" stance protect them
> from terrorism? You seem to think it would protect us.
It would protect them. But I have been clear that it is not possible to
pull a switch at midnight and suddenly have the benefits of a
non-interventionist foreign policy. To the extent that terrorists violate
local laws, local governments will go after them, and when they flee, those
governments will ask others to extradite the terrorists. In a period of
large-scale transition to non-intervention, it could happen that a
government would refuse to arrest terrorists on its soil wanted by other
governments. That can be taken as a reason to take the lead in adopting
non-intervention or for insisting that other governments and their citizens
dance to our tune. Would you favor the latter?
> >We were too busy rewarding the Taliban for helping us in the old "war",
> >the one on drugs.
>
> Agreed. But our assistance to the Taliban was really more centered on
> opposing the Soviets, and later Russa. Remnant of the Cold War, which
> has led us to getting in bed with all sorts of very bad governments.
Do you believe that jumping into those beds was necessary for the collapse
of the Soviet Union? (I do not.) But that question takes us rather far
afield. Let me just note that we involved ourselves with Afghanistan
before, and have less than nothing to show for it. Why imagine we will get
it right this time?
> >It is comforting to imagine that the U.S. military has
> >the material resources and intelligence to stomp on every terrorist bug
> >throughout the world before it reproduces, especially if you also think
> >that the U.S. government should be meddling in affairs all over the
> >world. But it is not realistic - in my personal opinion, of course.
>
> I don't think it's at all unrealistic. Maybe not every single one,
> but the major players, yes. You know, the ones with "global reach"?
> And to stomp on them so hard that the smaller ones think twice about
> doing anything to attract our attention.
As I've said before, just make sure that you don't create two more for every
one you stomp. The basic problem, Jai, is that your view requires that the
U.S. government do a large number of complex and costly things very well.
Mine requires that it stop doing things it has already shown it does poorly.
> I do worry about whether the American people have the endurance to
> "stay the course," and whether our leadership has the courage to act
> as decisively as necessary, especially if it involves ticking off an
> "ally" or three.
Oh, me, too! I am also, frankly, suspicious of "if only we had gotten
really tough" arguments, Jai. Especially when there is no way to quantify
in advance how tough that is supposed to be. The next time 'round, it's all
too likely to be, "If only we had gotten really, really tough".
....
> To my mind, a factual argument is one where you can go to some
> reference and resolve the disagreement. Or, if the references
> disagree, at least you can point your finger to specifics facts that
> remain in dispute. I don't think that's the basis of our argument at
> all.
Then, based on your previous post, you don't think that there is any factual
basis for deciding between our two foreign policies?
....
> Our interests overseas are anything that furthers the goal of a
> peaceful, stable world where people are free to trade, and to exchange
> ideas, scientific information, technological progress.
Precisely why I advocate free trade and non-intervention.
> >(I leave out alliances,
> >since they are not interests in themselves.)
>
> Yes they are. One does not normally go to war against allies (sort of
> by definition) and generally has more influence on the actions of
> allies with regard to other nations and international actors, and
> sometimes with their internal policies as well. There are also more
> opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, products, etc
> with allies.
These are reasons (whether good or bad) to have alliances, not reasons why
alliances are "interests in themselves". If you want something /because/
(you think) it will prevent war or provide influence or opportunities, then
you want it /for/ those things, not for itself. But neutral countries also
do not go to war with each other. And "influence" is, again, something that
is wanted for something else. Finally, free trade brings plenty of
opportunities for the exchange of ideas, information, etc.
> >Neither of these is
> >absolute in your view, but the first has special weight. Do you think
> >that we should support democracies in territorial disputes?
>
> Depends what you mean by support. I think we should attempt to view
> the situation from the democratic nations' point of view before we
> decide what level of support to provide.
Why from their point of view? Why is that likely to be correct in such a
dispute?
> > And why must
> >humanitarian aid be a function of government?
>
> Because an well-fed, educated, un-oppressed group of people is more
> likely and more able to contribute to a peaceful, stable world. Which
> is better for everyone.
Aid will never feed the third world. But since it is better for everyone,
there is no real bar to everyone pitching in and helping. All that is
needed is /some/ organization, not a governmental one.
> And because the majority of people in this country believe it is the
> right thing to do. Collectively.
As I have pointed out before, the majority of people in this country might
well believe the right thing to do is to get rid of the Bill of Rights. I
didn't think that your justification for democracy was that "whatever a
majority decides to do is right". If aid is right, nothing stops those who
believe it is right from acting in concert, without those who disagree.
> Fundamentally, your and my greatest disagreement, I think, is not
> about facts and it's not about morals. It is the belief, or
> philosophical position if you prefer, as to what extent people
> (society, nation, whatever) can or should act collectively. And to
> what extent the individual is (or should be) obligated to participate.
Well, then, it is a moral disagreement of sorts, since that is what "should"
is all about. But let's not forget the "shoulds" that we agree on in the
process.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20274
From: kevin mcgillicuddy"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:50:25 -0600
Subject: Re: Senate
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3bde270f.0@news.sff.net...
> All--
>
> I received this in E-mail the other day and cannot vouch for the
> acuracy thereof. But it would not surprise me. I thought I would throw
it
> open for discussion.
>
> <Big Charlie>>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Gold Star Mothers
>
>snip
>
I've found one pretty good source for tracking down internet rumors is
www.truthorfiction.com
McKevin
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20275
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:50:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 05:30:23 -0800, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
> Off to a much better start than I had with Win2K a few months
>ago (bailed out of that one after about 1 1/2 weeks). We'll see if it
>holds up.
>
I put it on at work, but haven't had much of a chance to look at
it--it's on my "test" machine. Keep us posted!
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20276
From: postmaster@sff.net
Date: 28 Dec 2001 18:58:58 GMT
Subject: No articles presently in newsgroup.
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This newsgroup has no articles yet; however, if
you were to post something, it would.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20277
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:48:10 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bde66e6.329615@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
>
> >No need to use torture. Just put them on an all-pork diet. :)
>
> <snarf> I did wonder how many of those food packs we're dropping
> contained Spam.
None. No meat at all.
> Any talk of torture seems to be ignoring the basic uselessness of it
> as a practice--you can't trust info gained that way.
Which doesn't make it useless at all. It becomes a lead to things to which
you otherwise might not have had a lead.
Note that not only have I not said I condone torture, but the articles I
have seen seem to only _imply_ torture is involved. There are a lot of ways
to pressure someone that don't use torture but would make a confession
_legally_ useless.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20278
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:51:34 -0800
Subject: Re: Senate
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3bdf3d00.0@news.sff.net...
> "Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3bde270f.0@news.sff.net...
> > All--
> >
> > I received this in E-mail the other day and cannot vouch for the
> > acuracy thereof. But it would not surprise me. I thought I would throw
> it
> > open for discussion.
> >
> > <Big Charlie>>
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: Gold Star Mothers
> >
> >snip
> >
> I've found one pretty good source for tracking down internet rumors is
> www.truthorfiction.com
That's a pretty good site. However, if you want the very cream of the crop,
go to www.snopes.com. It is much larger and goes into greater detail. For
example, while the Truth or Fiction page only says that yes, the FBI is
investigating a very large purchase of candy from Costco, snopes.com goes on
to say who bought it, why he is under arrest, has the _correct_ amount of
candy purchased, and that the FBI has concluded this has nothing to do with
terrorism.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20279
From: dee"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:03:08 -0600
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bdec6e9.44913782@news.sff.net...
> You seem to suffer from the dillusion . . .
Dillusion = delusion + illusion (?) I like it! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20280
From: dee"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:28:59 -0600
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai wrote:
> > To my mind, a factual argument is one where you can go to some
> > reference and resolve the disagreement. Or, if the references
> > disagree, at least you can point your finger to specifics facts that
> > remain in dispute. I don't think that's the basis of our argument at
> > all.
Gordon wrote:
> Then, based on your previous post, you don't think that there is any
factual
> basis for deciding between our two foreign policies?
So let's say "practical vs. moral" instead of "factual vs. moral" and
look for the facts to try to determine what is practical. I don't know
nearly enough about the facts to be comfortable with any decision as
practical. Ellen Goodman's recent column
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/298/oped/Let_s_start_practicing_the_unity_
we_preach+.shtml speaks for me, in part:
"The truth is that I find myself homeless, a foreigner in the
neighborhood of people who talk about evildoers and in the neighborhood of
people who talk about blowback.
"On the one hand, it seems to me that the language of evil describes a
conflict that is permanent and a condition that is immutable. The word
doesn't allow for the shifting sands that end up with the photograph of
George Bush and Vladimir Putin and Jiang Zemin - president of the United
States and heirs to the Evil Empires - now allies in Chinese silk jackets.
It doesn't allow for Iran striking deals with the Great American Satan.
". . .
"On the other hand, it seems to me that the language of blowback,
pinning the blame on the donkey of American foreign policy, implies that we
made this happen. If somehow we had only walked a mile in their shoes, aided
Afghanistan, gotten to ''yes'' with fundamentalists, bin Laden would have
been our best buddy."
Practical without moral is expediency in the worst sense. Moral without
practical is downright stupid.
BTW, now that everyone has taken a deep reath, I am enjoying the
debate. You two carry on. :-)
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20281
From: dee"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:37:31 -0600
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bdeba62.41705867@news.sff.net...
> I don't think I understand what your saying here. Was "your view"
> directed at me? Which arguments? I thought I was quite clear that I
> see a necessity for restricted freedom "for the duration," as they
> used to say in WWII. I don't think I'd go so far as outlawing any
> dissent, but I definitely do not think the law signed a couple of days
> ago (the Patriot Act, right?) goes too far. We should be more
> concerned with the war effort than the idea that our "rights" are
> being stepped on.
> What I would not be happy with is a "War on Drugs" scenario where the
> rights are taken away for no clear purpose, with no definition of
> victory, no re-establishment of those rights in sight, and no
> particular concern on the part of the American people one way or the
> other. My only concern over the Patriot Act is that it may play out
> the same way, in the long run.
Jai--
One big part of the problem, as I see it, is that we hear the word
"war" bandied about quite a bit, but the action does not seem to reflect a
war-time reality. We hear speeches about "terrorist and those who harbor
them" but we have not identified specifics, beyond ObL and Afghanistan. The
FBI reports more attacks expected this week, but we are told to live our
lives "normally." We are told to expect for this to take a long time. Does
that mean months? Years? Decades? How will we know that the war is over,
and who won? I would be a lot more comfortable with this war if our
objectives were spelled out. As it is, I greatly fear a "War on Drugs"
scenario, just as you defined above.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20282
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 23:43:42 -0500
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote in message
> Off to a much better start than I had with Win2K a few months
>ago (bailed out of that one after about 1 1/2 weeks). We'll see if it
>holds up.
>
>
I lasted one night with Win2k, last weekend. Whoever reported the demise of
the "BSOD" has greatly exaggerated.
Strange things happened under Win2k. Right clicking on the desktop caused a
BSOD. Other simple tasks caused the computer to hang to where C-A-D wouldn't
even bring it back. Truly bizarre.
I went back to Win98SE. I haven't made a decision on WinXP yet. I've once
again achieved a stable configuration with 98, so I'll stand pat for now.
WJaKe
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20283
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:53:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BDE35E2.DEC9931E@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
I rarely rearrange another's post, but it seems appropriate here.
> Your nation is at war. Its sons and daughters are in
> harm's way. You don't like it: leave, find somewhere more suitable to your
> "independent" temperment; and don't expect a Jimmie Carter to pardon your
> conduct and give you your citizenship back when this one's over; or, of
> course, you can shut up and wait until after the war is over and whine about
> it, infiltrate the colleges and try to inculcate the next generations with
> your views.
....
> Great idea. We'll keep them intact, Jai, while Gordon goes out and defends
> us. What, you're staying home, Gordon?
....
> Fine, then since we disagree with the bury our heads in the sand
> defense you espouse we'll do it our way. You can always emigrate elsewhere.
Perhaps you found such rhetoric useful for swaying juries, counselor, but
it takes real argument to impress me. And, since I know full well how
hard it is to teach old dogs new tricks, I won't even take offense.
....
> Or accept the conditions we think appropriate during wartime. If you speak in
> opposition, be careful. There are sedition laws that withstand Constitutional
> scrutiny.
....
> It won't be sedition then. There won't be a clear and present
> threat.
And melodrama isn't argument either.
Now, on to what is substantive.
> I'm sorry, but if it's easier to tape your phone, or Gordon's phone,
> during war than during peace, that's reasonable, considering the threat; and
> it's too bad if he or you want to insist on the latest wrinkle of freedom.
Have you read my posts? My point is that an undeclared, open-ended "war
on terrorism" has as much or more potential to erode our liberties as the
"war on drugs". Since you are also calling for a declaration, it is even
possible that we agree on this. We can explore that, or you can continue
to hint that I am a traitor. If you want to pursue the latter, here is
more to go on:
> > >Targeting a nation that harbors terrorists is not the same thing as
> > >having the overthrow of the government of that nation as a goal. Please
> > >correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Powell's statement
> > >that "the Taliban must go" is only a day or two old.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what Gordon is saying here; but if I do, it's a
> specious distinction. Is there some goal of 'targeting' in a war other than
> the overthrowal of the government you've targeted if it fails to surrender
> and accede to the demands placed on it?
OTOH, are you arguing that Powell had been making a specious distinction?
Or that the Bush administration is unwilling to tell the public up front
what its goals are?
But to respond to your question, a war has not been declared
- so I am not sure that your question applies. But if it does, wars have
been concluded in the past without the overthrow of governments, and not
all surrenders have been unconditional. There is often a place for
negotiation, even in war.
....
> I can only conclude by advancing this argument, Gordon wants, if there has to
> be a war, which he doesn't want at all, a replay of the war the elder Bush
> conducted against Sadam Hussein? "A Bridge Too Short"? An opportunity pissed
> away.
I think the best way in general to find out what a person wants is to ask
him or her - that's why I have been asking several questions of Jai. But
I suppose that the habits of the courtroom die hard. I would have said
before today that no reasonable person /wants/ a war, but I don't want to
rule you as unreasonable by a verbal trick.
As it happens, I think that going to war in the Gulf was a mistake /and/
that, after having gone to war, failing to remove Hussein was probably
also a mistake.
> The Taliban 'government' is one we do not recognize;
> accordingly, it has no status ... and all it gets 'offered' are
> non-negotiable terms. It either acquiesses to treatment as an irregular force
> not recognized as among the nations of the world -- a government of "pirates"
> with every man's hand against it, or it gets erradicated.
Sadly, it does not appear that every man's hand /is/ against it.
....
> So far as I am concern, they can land our armies at Haifa and
> proceed East and South and take over and occupy the entire Muddled East, and
> keep troops of occupation over there for fifty years, just as was done in
> Germany, until democratic governments acceptible to our definition of those
> terms are elected in every damned one of those tolitarian states and securely
> in power. If that means World War II mobilization, and World War III against
> all the governments of the area, so be it. I want a formal Declaration of War
> against Afghanistan and its de facto government
So I guess there /is/ some use to viewing the Taliban as a government.
At least we all agree about the need to declare war if our present
actions are to continue. Perhaps some good will come of that.
Nevertheless, it is trite but true that old generals always fight the
last war. I don't think that the lessons of WWII are that useful against
wide-spread, loosely connected terrorist cells.
> and each and every ally of
> those people that pops up his idiot head. "For us, or against us ... " is the
> appropriate standard. That isn't equivocal at all. "For" means 100 % support,
> nothing less. Maintaining neutral status doesn't mean anything less than
> totally neutral. One dollar, one bullet, one volunteer to the Taliban forces,
> and we come and occupy you too. Breach your treaties, your committments, be
> content to play both ends against the middle, and the result is a Declaration
> of War against you, and removal of your government. We can use your wealth to
> pay for the war. Screw you. If you'd acted other than as a tolitarian
> government we wouldn't have this problem of dealing with your own home-ground
> terrorists who are striking against us to ultimately defeat you. You may be
> the enemy of my enemy, but you're the problem. "Take him out and shoot him,"
> said Star.
I asked Jai how big a party she wanted; I doubt that she will top this.
Here is my caution: just remember what bacteria do when a person fails to
take the full course of antibiotics. I don't think that we have the
resources to do what you suggest. But I am willing to be convinced, if
you care to offer the argument.
....
> What else is new? Is this really as important as Gordon would have it during
> a war?
As I have suggested before, I'm not sure that it is useful to
characterize the current situation as a war. Doing so might make the
problem even more difficult to solve.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20284
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:36:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bdf7094.0@news.sff.net>, dee writes...
> Ellen Goodman's recent column
> http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/298/oped/Let_s_start_practicing_the_unity_
> we_preach+.shtml speaks for me, in part:
....
> "On the other hand, it seems to me that the language of blowback,
> pinning the blame on the donkey of American foreign policy, implies that we
> made this happen.
I understand that Goodman is somewhat exaggerating for effect, but "made"
is too simple. U.S. foreign policy has been /one/ factor contributing to
the current situation. And I have made it clear in an earlier post that
a cause is not the same thing as a justification, but since passions are
running high I will stress it again. U.S. foreign policy is not morally
responsible for the WTC tragedy; terrorists are.
What the U.S. government is responsible for is not carefully weighing the
consequences of an interventionist foreign policy in a world of new
technology, and, if it decided to retain this policy after such a
weighing, not adequately protecting its citizens from threats concomitant
with the policy. It seems clear to me that such protection would
seriously erode our liberties, and that is a major reason why I favor
keeping the liberties and giving up the intervention. Those who favor a
policy of U.S. intervention are caught in a dilemma: they (at least the
ones worth arguing with) want to have the cake of freedom and to consume
it in international venturing as well. The inclination to avoid and
evade hard tradeoffs is a much-remarked growing phenomena in U.S.
culture. We want it all.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20285
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:05:16 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:48:10 -0800, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3bde66e6.329615@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>> Any talk of torture seems to be ignoring the basic uselessness of it
>> as a practice--you can't trust info gained that way.
>
>Which doesn't make it useless at all. It becomes a lead to things to which
>you otherwise might not have had a lead.
>
>Note that not only have I not said I condone torture, but the articles I
>have seen seem to only _imply_ torture is involved.
Involved? Are you saying you've read articles which indicate that
someone in the US government is torturing someone? From reliable
sources? And using a traditional definition of torture?
>There are a lot of ways
>to pressure someone that don't use torture but would make a confession
>_legally_ useless.
Well yeah, but I think the point of even suggesting torture is to
provide information that's needed to prevent some future attack, even
if it screws up a later prosecution.
To digress just a bit, I head a very good discussion on NPR that the
"failure" of the intel community in not predicting Sept 11th was
really a policy failure. That is, the law enforcement community
collects "intelligence" to support criminal prosecutions. The
restrictions on how you can collect that information are obviously
extensive, and under normal circumstances, justified. The rest of the
intel community (CIA, State, military) have different objectives and
different methods, but are/have been prohibited from collecting
against US citizens or within US borders. And what they do find, even
overseas, they generally do not share with the FBI. Not because they
could not, or would not, if it would protect against a terrorist
attack. But because the FBI cannot use most of what the CIA (et al)
collects--remembering that not only is "illegally" collected info not
allowed in court, but any info derived therefrom--the system is not
structured for one agency to support the other. [Actually, that's not
completely true--some coordinated organizational structure has been
put in place to support the anti-drug effort, but it's not the norm
and would not be set up to handle anything BUT drug-related info.]
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20286
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:50:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:37:31 -0600, "dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
> One big part of the problem, as I see it, is that we hear the word
>"war" bandied about quite a bit, but the action does not seem to reflect a
>war-time reality. We hear speeches about "terrorist and those who harbor
>them" but we have not identified specifics, beyond ObL and Afghanistan. The
>FBI reports more attacks expected this week, but we are told to live our
>lives "normally." We are told to expect for this to take a long time. Does
>that mean months? Years? Decades? How will we know that the war is over,
>and who won? I would be a lot more comfortable with this war if our
>objectives were spelled out. As it is, I greatly fear a "War on Drugs"
>scenario, just as you defined above.
Good points all, Dee. But I do think there is one major difference
between the "War on Drugs" (or War on Poverty, or any other lesser use
of the term "war") and our "War on Terrorism": We do actually have a
foreign entity which has "formally" declared war on us and physically
attacked our nation. That they used aircraft in place of missiles
doesn't seem like a big difference to me. That they are not a
"nation" in the traditional sense makes defining the war somewhat
harder, but not enough so to make a difference in recognizing this war
for what it is.
I know that some would argue that the drug traffickers are also
"waging war" on our American way of life. But their motives are not
ideological and they do not seek to change our political system or
governmental policies--if anything, our system seems to suit them
quite well, sad to say. And there is no American "victim" of the
narcos who does not, at least to some extent, volunteer to be a
victim. Well, except for the families of the victims, but I think
including them here is stretching definitions too far. Certainly,
there is a significant difference between a drug addict's
participation in his/her own demise, and that of someone who happened
to be stuck on the 89th floor of the WTC on the morning of Sept 11th.
As for specific points of your post, I don't know the answers. The
president has said that the war will not stop with Bin Laden and
Afghanistan. At this point, I have to believe him, recognizing that
he's trying to maintain a coalition that might fall apart if/when he
names other organizations and nations. I don't think he knows what
comes next, altho I think there is a plan, and that the diplomats will
have to play it by ear as the plan unfolds.
We are told to act "normally," but let's face it, only to some extent.
Obviously mail-handlers and those involved in the air travel cannot
return to "normalcy," nor any who work in or frequent any other
possible target--Emmy awards, anyone? Fwiw, I wasn't alive in WWII,
but I think "normal" life did continue after Pearl Harbor, altho it
was certainly changed in many ways.
How long will it last? I think the President said "years" at some
point. But again, he doesn't know. I don't think we knew how long
WWII would take either (or WWI, or the Civil War, or VietNam, or any
other war), but that doesn't mean any of them didn't need to be
fought. Even VietNam. Altho I do think that VietNam taught us all
that the American people will not stay committed for a long war that
shows no tangible results.
I am amazed at the people I hear on TV that seem to think that we
should have already "won" in Afghanistan. I'm not sure they even know
what we're supposed to win there, but I am sure they have no clue
about what's involved in military operations.
But yes, the lack of a defined end-state, of what it will mean to have
"won" is what's the most frustrating, the most scary, from a civil
liberties stand-point. But I do think it's a mistake to make one's
support of the war effort dependent upon one's fears in this area.
It's completely possible, as a worse-case scenario, that the war might
never be over, and that our system of government, as we know it now,
will collapse under the effort (altho I would like to think we are
resiliant enough, politically, to keep that from happening). But
there are no guarentees. And if the alternative is to sit back and
let them keep hitting us, keep murdering US citizens, keep destroying
US ships and embassies, I don't see much alternative to taking that
risk.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20287
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:12:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:53:33 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>OTOH, are you arguing that Powell had been making a specious distinction?
Did Powell ever specifically say that taking the Taliban down was not
a goal? What distinction are you attribution to Powell?
>Or that the Bush administration is unwilling to tell the public up front
>what its goals are?
I pretty sure I heard Mr. Bush say that destroying terrorists "with
global reach" was his goal, and in his first adress to Congress. It's
the process that he's hiding, not the goal.
>> So far as I am concern, they can land our armies at Haifa and
>> proceed East and South and take over and occupy the entire Muddled East, and
>> keep troops of occupation over there for fifty years, just as was done in
>> Germany, until democratic governments acceptible to our definition of those
>> terms are elected in every damned one of those tolitarian states and securely
>> in power. If that means World War II mobilization, and World War III against
>> all the governments of the area, so be it. I want a formal Declaration of War
>> against Afghanistan and its de facto government
>
>So I guess there /is/ some use to viewing the Taliban as a government.
>
>At least we all agree about the need to declare war if our present
>actions are to continue. Perhaps some good will come of that.
>Nevertheless, it is trite but true that old generals always fight the
>last war. I don't think that the lessons of WWII are that useful against
>wide-spread, loosely connected terrorist cells.
I'm not ready to throw out all the lessons of WWII. The Marshal Plan
was a brilliant, but very expensive, success. It could not have gone
forward without the total surrender of Germany and Japan.
But for the most part, you'll find that my references to WWII
specifically deal with American reaction to and preparation for a
state of war. They have nothing to do with how we fight, militarily.
>> and each and every ally of
>> those people that pops up his idiot head. "For us, or against us ... " is the
>> appropriate standard. That isn't equivocal at all. "For" means 100 % support,
>> nothing less. Maintaining neutral status doesn't mean anything less than
>> totally neutral. One dollar, one bullet, one volunteer to the Taliban forces,
>> and we come and occupy you too. Breach your treaties, your committments, be
>> content to play both ends against the middle, and the result is a Declaration
>> of War against you, and removal of your government. We can use your wealth to
>> pay for the war. Screw you. If you'd acted other than as a tolitarian
>> government we wouldn't have this problem of dealing with your own home-ground
>> terrorists who are striking against us to ultimately defeat you. You may be
>> the enemy of my enemy, but you're the problem. "Take him out and shoot him,"
>> said Star.
>
>I asked Jai how big a party she wanted; I doubt that she will top this.
Hard to "top" total victory. I don't disagree with it.
>As I have suggested before, I'm not sure that it is useful to
>characterize the current situation as a war. Doing so might make the
>problem even more difficult to solve.
However you characterize it, it is what it is.
But you're right in that how we define a problem greatly influences
the possible solutions we devise. Unfortunately, the preference for a
specific solution can also lead one to misdefine the problem.
Denial is not just a river in, of all places, Egypt.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20288
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:20:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 20:06:40 GMT, debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek
Rule) wrote:
>>Their women
>>are beginning to expect to be treated like human beings (and
>>personally, I think this reason has more to do with their hatred than
>>most people are willing to admit).
>
> I agree with that. Yet I keep puzzling over a weird contradiction in
>cultures. We are still fussing over the idea that a female could
>_someday_ be president. Yet several Moslem countries have already had
>female rulers.
Yes, that's true, and a strange phenomenon. Turkey I can
understand--they began to modernize back at the turn of the century
and are more like Europe, in a lot of ways, than we are. Pakistan is
somewhat more surprising, altho I think women have been educated there
for quite some time.
Of course, no Arab nation has had a female leader, nor is likely to in
the forseeable future. It is probably true that the status of women
has more to do with culture, overall, than religion specifically
(except in the latter's most extreme fundamentalist forms).
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20289
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 17:22:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 21:03:08 -0600, "dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
> Dillusion = delusion + illusion (?) I like it! ;-)
I'd like you to know I did that on purpose!
I'd like you to, but it would be a lie. <g>
Ack, save me from the spelling police! (just kidding--it was too good
an observation for you to pass up)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20290
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:02:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:13:35 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> here are a handful of reasons: We are powerful.
>
>So is Russia. (Careful before you mention /their/ problem with Islamic
>terrorists; it rather plays into my hand. So is China.
>
>> We are
>> wealthy,
>
>So is Japan. Yet their only terrorists are home grown.
Not in the same league. Not even close.
>> We are infidels.
>
>I'm not sure about this. What is the Islamic definition of "infidel"? Jews
>and Christians have a special status under Islamic law as "people of the
>book" - they are not
>required to convert in an Islamic state. Surely the Japanese are far better
>examples of infidels.
It's the excuse the terrorists use. Guess they choose to read
different parts of the Quran. Not an uncommon practice in any
religion, btw.
>> Our secular culture is invading theirs, by
>> way of TV, movies, music, the internet, the world market. Their women
>> are beginning to expect to be treated like human beings (and
>> personally, I think this reason has more to do with their hatred than
>> most people are willing to admit).
>
>Now we might be getting somewhere. But our culture is also invading the
>French, and aside from a McDonald's as I recall, there have been no acts of
>terrorism directed at the U.S. by the French.
The French are not significantly different, culturally. But you knew
that. The McDonalds probably offends their cultural sensibilities as
much as anything American ever will.
In any case, you can't really analyze each reason I gave separately.
It is a combination of factors, and many others besides. But the US
is the symbol for all Western society. "Leader of the Free World" and
all.
>Now, if I am wrong and you are right, then after the U.S. moved to a policy
>of nonintervention, Islamic terrorism against the U.S. would continue. The
>new victims would be the terrible cost of proving my view wrong. If I am
>right and you are wrong, then we will have conducted unnecessary wars
>against a number (which you have yet to specify) of Middle Eastern
>governments and terrorist organizations, with all the attendant loss of U.S.
>soldiers and assets and innocent life abroad. And if we pursue your course
>first but I am right, we will suffer from an increased number of terrorist
>attacks before we win. (If we win.)
Too bad there's not a lab somewhere to run the simulation. In its
absense, I guess we'll just have to go with what our elected
officials, and the people who voted them in, happen to believe.
>I really can't judge between these
>until you tell me how big a party you think is necessary.
LOL. Like that would make a difference.
>Do you believe that jumping into those beds was necessary for the collapse
>of the Soviet Union? (I do not.)
In general, no. But doing so, at least in some cases, may have
forestalled Soviet agression until it collapsed under its own weight.
And until information technology, and trade, and cultural exchange
programs, made the average Soviet citizen want more than the Soviet
political system could provide them.
I think I said in one of my early posts that our best chance of
"winning" may only be to hold on until modernity catches up in the
Arab/Muslim world.
>But that question takes us rather far
>afield. Let me just note that we involved ourselves with Afghanistan
>before, and have less than nothing to show for it. Why imagine we will get
>it right this time?
Because we have no other choice.
>> >It is comforting to imagine that the U.S. military has
>> >the material resources and intelligence to stomp on every terrorist bug
>> >throughout the world before it reproduces, especially if you also think
>> >that the U.S. government should be meddling in affairs all over the
>> >world. But it is not realistic - in my personal opinion, of course.
>>
>> I don't think it's at all unrealistic. Maybe not every single one,
>> but the major players, yes. You know, the ones with "global reach"?
>> And to stomp on them so hard that the smaller ones think twice about
>> doing anything to attract our attention.
>
>As I've said before, just make sure that you don't create two more for every
>one you stomp.
I think you overestimate how easy it is to grow a terrorist capable of
actually doing major harm in another part of the world. There may be
many young men willing or even anxious to ride an airliner into the
WTC, but could any of them have done it without a Bin Laden to pay for
it, to plan it, to train them for it, to get them to Boston airport?
I'm not trying to oversimplify the problem. Yes, hatred of the US and
what we stand for goes much deeper than Bin Laden or even the relative
handful of other terrorist leaders. But it's not insurmountable.
>The basic problem, Jai, is that your view requires that the
>U.S. government do a large number of complex and costly things very well.
>Mine requires that it stop doing things it has already shown it does poorly.
Oh please. The US has done many good things in this world, and done
them well.
>> To my mind, a factual argument is one where you can go to some
>> reference and resolve the disagreement. Or, if the references
>> disagree, at least you can point your finger to specifics facts that
>> remain in dispute. I don't think that's the basis of our argument at
>> all.
>
>Then, based on your previous post, you don't think that there is any factual
>basis for deciding between our two foreign policies?
We seem to be working from the same set of facts, by and large. Or
conclusions are what differ.
>As I have pointed out before, the majority of people in this country might
>well believe the right thing to do is to get rid of the Bill of Rights. I
>didn't think that your justification for democracy was that "whatever a
>majority decides to do is right".
But nothing I've suggested violates the Bill of Rights. At least, to
no more extent than has been done in prior times of war. And I do
agree we should have a formal declaration to justify any violation
now.
Didn't Thoreau refuse to pay his taxes because he did not support the
war in Mexico? Seems to me he spent a number of years in jail for his
moral stancd. You too have that option. <g>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20291
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:06:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:36:46 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>The inclination to avoid and
>evade hard tradeoffs is a much-remarked growing phenomena in U.S.
>culture. We want it all.
Do you think it's unique to US culture?
I'd say it's more part of human nature. Granting that American
affluence may contribute to some expectation of everything nice and
easy, all the time.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20292
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 11:49:12 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3BDE35E2.DEC9931E@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
>
> I rarely rearrange another's post, but it seems appropriate here.
Rearrange all you wish, Gordon. I'll try my humble best to follow the road you lay
out, however you try to make it fit your feet better than mine.
> > Your nation is at war. Its sons and daughters are in
> > harm's way. You don't like it: leave, find somewhere more suitable to your
> > "independent" temperment; and don't expect a Jimmie Carter to pardon your
> > conduct and give you your citizenship back when this one's over; or, of
> > course, you can shut up and wait until after the war is over and whine about
> > it, infiltrate the colleges and try to inculcate the next generations with
> > your views.
> ...
> > Great idea. We'll keep them intact, Jai, while Gordon goes out and defends
> > us. What, you're staying home, Gordon?
> ...
> > Fine, then since we disagree with the bury our heads in the sand
> > defense you espouse we'll do it our way. You can always emigrate elsewhere.
>
> Perhaps you found such rhetoric useful for swaying juries, counselor, but
> it takes real argument to impress me. And, since I know full well how
> hard it is to teach old dogs new tricks, I won't even take offense.
You haven't even reply to the points, either. I agree 'tis an easy way to avoid a
difficult argument when you do that. Of course it is also a tacit admission that
you don't have a decent reply, but you may argue however you wish.
The argument that requires your reply is, let me restate it for you, that a
President of this country, correctly or incorrectly under the Constitution, *has*
declared we are at war. He didn't really have much of a choice after September 9,
did he? What does that require you to do? I cannot answer what you deem your
requirements of citizenship to be, but I can answer for myself. That forces me,
regardless of the fact that I wouldn't have voted for this President for
dogcatcher, to accept his declaration at face value. Even his lack of leadership,
lack of plan, and lack of vision (inherited, obviously) requires that I support
his position for the time being to enable him to put something that may pass for a
plan together that ultimately will succeed. Moreover, more importantly, his
position that there is and should be a war is correct in my viewpoint. There
should be a declared war -- Constitutionally lawful, not some vague speeches by a
figurehead declaring 'a new kind of war' that 'may last' on into the 22d century.
I support the position that there is a war because I agree there must be a real
declared war to remedy the offense -- a serious offense against our Country's
peace and tranquility that has killed some 6,000 citizens of this country, killed
not merely a few before, and continues counting victims even today ... that nurse
in New York City just died, didn't she? He said it is war. The current somewhat
stupid law allows him to do that for sixty days. He didn't have to wait sixty days
to ask for a declared war from Congress. But seemingly he has. The clock is
running. He's sent our sons and daughters to the middle east. They are engaged in
war-making. And some have died, in non-combat accidents, and plainly more will, if
this goes on, and those who die eventually will be in combat.
> ...
> > Or accept the conditions we think appropriate during wartime. If you speak in
> > opposition, be careful. There are sedition laws that withstand Constitutional
> > scrutiny.
> ...
> > It won't be sedition then. There won't be a clear and present
> > threat.
>
> And melodrama isn't argument either.
There is nothing melodramatic about sedition. What do you find 'melodramatic'
about an offense that can result in execution of a death sentence? Do you consider
giving tangible and actual aid and support to an armed enemy waging actual war
against this nation laughable? Look up, by the way, the definitions of that
offense before you claim I'm applying it to any of the twaddle you've posted. You
know I'm a lawyer, you've made that plain by the phrases you've included in your
response, now don't be surprised when I insist that you not lightly claim a
silliness -- that I've libeled you as a criminal to position yourself as a falsely
accused martyr on the altar of free speech. I know what the elements are. When I
decide you've committed sedition I'll say so very directly and bluntly. Do you
even know what the elements of the crime are?
The fact that the President, for reasons which baffle me, has failed to call for a
formal Declaration of War from the Congress may be a reason that sedition doesn't
yet apply to some acts. We haven't had a sedition case successfully prosecuted
since World War II; we haven't had a Declaration of War since that time either; do
you detect some possible connection? Jane Fonda, to name one raw wound, wasn't
even charged for her conduct during Vietnam. Why was that, do you suppose? Might
it have had something to do with the fact that war was never declared against
North Vietnam? That the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations
left the question of what we were engaged in conducting open? And, therefore, left
open a greater quantum of freedom of dissent to those who choose to take it?
> Now, on to what is substantive.
Perhaps this that follows is "substantive" to you. Your mindset seems stuck in the
wish that there shouldn't be a war so, therefore, peacetime privacy issues are
paramount to you. I disagree. I repeat: the President, rightfully or
wrongheadedly, has invoked the mantra "war." The rules of what privacy may be
afforded and what privacy may be invaded by the State differ in war and peacetime.
And should!
> > I'm sorry, but if it's easier to tape your phone, or Gordon's phone,
> > during war than during peace, that's reasonable, considering the threat; and
> > it's too bad if he or you want to insist on the latest wrinkle of freedom.
>
> Have you read my posts? My point is that an undeclared, open-ended "war
> on terrorism" has as much or more potential to erode our liberties as the
> "war on drugs".
I seem to have missed that point, Gordon. Perhaps it's because concurrently I seem
to have read a great deal of argument these past two weeks from you declaring in
substance that there is no reason to do anything vis-a-vis the Middle East but
withdraw from everything except mere 'trade,' as if that were even possible. I
agree that an open-ended, undeclared and un-Constitional "war on terrorism" has
little potential for anything other than to serve as excuse to erode more than
merely our privacy -- it could easily serve as an excuse to justifiy doing just
about anything the current administration wishes to do in any of many other areas
-- just look at the list of what was actually done during World War II, wage
freezes, mineral extraction in Alaska, imprisonment under national security
without trials, nationalization of certain aspects of industry, condemnation of
certain public lands, huge increases in tax authority, enormous deficit spending
for 'defense' ... the list is virtually endless.
> Since you are also calling for a declaration, it is even
> possible that we agree on this. We can explore that, or you can continue
> to hint that I am a traitor. If you want to pursue the latter, here is
> more to go on:
>
> > > >Targeting a nation that harbors terrorists is not the same thing as
> > > >having the overthrow of the government of that nation as a goal. Please
> > > >correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Powell's statement
> > > >that "the Taliban must go" is only a day or two old.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand what Gordon is saying here; but if I do, it's a
> > specious distinction. Is there some goal of 'targeting' in a war other than
> > the overthrowal of the government you've targeted if it fails to surrender
> > and accede to the demands placed on it?
>
> OTOH, are you arguing that Powell had been making a specious distinction?
> Or that the Bush administration is unwilling to tell the public up front
> what its goals are?
We'll know in somewhat less than one month, when the Bush administration's power
to wage war without a Congressional authorization runs out, won't we? The
President will either submit the report to Congress required by law and ask for a
Declaration of War for the reasons contained in his report, or he will ignore that
requirement of law, won't he? Then, either the media and the Congress will ignore
its absence, as is likely if the citizenry doesn't object, and we'll continue on
meandering in this morass and lack of the 'vision-thing,' or we won't.
> But to respond to your question, a war has not been declared
> - so I am not sure that your question applies.
An actual state of war applies, because the President said so. It can last for up
to sixty days under the War Powers Act of 1973, without a report and
recommendation to Congress, and Congress's ratification by an actual Declaration
of War, but no longer, unless some other factor applies legally (e.g., a treaty
obligation such as with NATO or the UN to 'keep the peace'), which here, I would
argue, doesn't, because the attack was made directly upon us, not some citizens of
some other country.
> But if it does, wars have
> been concluded in the past without the overthrow of governments, and not
> all surrenders have been unconditional. There is often a place for
> negotiation, even in war.
Sure there is, Gordon. We accepted a treaty in 1918 with Germany. The second act
of that war started on or around September 9, 1939, with the invasion of Poland;
and this country rejoined following December 7, 1941, when, in response to our
declaration against their ally Japan, war was declared by them on us a few days
later. Our fathers decided there wouldn't be a third act of that war, so they got
together and they killed them all.
There were lots of treaties during the Hundred Years war between England and
France. But it kept going on and on and on for rather more than 100 years, didn't
it? I'm sure you've read Mao. You know how it goes ... retreat when they're
strong, rebuild, attack when they're weak .. why give anyone a chance to do that?
Unless you're lazy, or lack purpose or stupid or a coward.
> ...
> > I can only conclude by advancing this argument, Gordon wants, if there has to
> > be a war, which he doesn't want at all, a replay of the war the elder Bush
> > conducted against Sadam Hussein? "A Bridge Too Short"? An opportunity pissed
> > away.
>
> I think the best way in general to find out what a person wants is to ask
> him or her - that's why I have been asking several questions of Jai. But
> I suppose that the habits of the courtroom die hard. I would have said
> before today that no reasonable person /wants/ a war, but I don't want to
> rule you as unreasonable by a verbal trick.
Oh? I happen to think I'm completely reasonable. I want the war right now! My
country didn't start this war, but I damned sure want them to end it, finally and
for all. I want a full mobilization; I want armies sufficient to the task trained
as soon as possible; I want an order of battle that equals World War II; and I
want the mess in the middle East cleaned up starting right now! While they're
weaker in my estimation than they'll be in ten years, or five years, or next year.
Next year Saddam may give them blackpox to deliver into our cities; next year a
few nice little suitcase bombs to detonate in the estuary between Delaware and New
Jersey, among other places; next year the Taliban may own the government of
Pakistan in fact and in law, not merely be in a position to disrupt it. Next year
Faud in Saudi Arabia may be dead and, in the struggle to succeed to his throne,
deals may be made with the fundamentalists in Saudi that would keep us from easily
positioning the Armored Corps I think we need to keep the rest of the middle East
quiet while we tend to Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and anyone else giving
harbor to the terrorists. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right, and it's
worth doing now, rather than in the tomorrow that may never come, because we've
been killed while we slept. Why let them educate another ten years of Hitler Jugen
in those schools in northern Pakistan? So they can have more suicide bombers? More
storm troopers? Let's start the end of the beginning now, not push it off a
generation.
> As it happens, I think that going to war in the Gulf was a mistake /and/
> that, after having gone to war, failing to remove Hussein was probably
> also a mistake.
I'm not surprised about your first conclusion; and I am surprised about the
'probably' in your second; but it's not surprising to me that you should qualify
something that's as obvious as pimples on a face. I suppose you're among the
brighter percentiles among ostriches, though, so perhaps, unlikely as it seems,
there is some hope here.
> > The Taliban 'government' is one we do not recognize;
> > accordingly, it has no status ... and all it gets 'offered' are
> > non-negotiable terms. It either acquiesses to treatment as an irregular force
> > not recognized as among the nations of the world -- a government of "pirates"
> > with every man's hand against it, or it gets erradicated.
>
> Sadly, it does not appear that every man's hand /is/ against it.
And the longer we piddle around, the more lukewarm support will melt away and the
stronger the Taliban and its alter ego, bin Laden, will become. As I said, I
wouldn't have voted for Bush for dogcatcher. Instead of calling for an immediate
Declaration of War, instead of calling for 1,000,000 volunteers on September 10,
instead of a plan, we've gotten silly speeches, media extravaganzas, executive
appointments to vague mandates, bumbling pronoucements, vague frightening alerts
from cabinet and quasi-cabinet officers who cannot stay out of the spotlight of
the media, panic mongering, and indecisive half-measures designed for execution by
someone who I think is a half-wit. I want this weakling and his minders, some of
whom may be competent, shoved into a fixed position of being required to conduct a
declared war, not to remain in a position where they can, at any time, for any
reason they need not disclose, evade accountability to the American people. I
don't want him in a position to play "Guns and Tax Relief," or "Guns and Exploit
the Alaskan Oilfields," or "Guns and Star Wars Revisted," or anything else except
to properly conduct and effectively wage the War he's been forced to declare, but
wants to keep it one he's declared and can end unilaterally. Johnson screwed up
Vietnam, whether you thought it a worthwhile effort or not, by trying to keep his
domestic programs going full-bore while shoving it onto the back burner. A war
requires a wartime effort, not something you do in your spare time just out of the
basement in the Executive Office with a few people, which Bush, left to his own
devices, could allow this to quickly devolve into while he moves on to his
political item of the day. Do we need a more graphic example of how not to do it?
Leaving this President free to try to do anything his minders choose, as he is
free to do without a Congressional Declaration, is the same as a prescription for
failure; and the threat isn't a supposed one predicated on a domino theory; it's
very real, predicated on an almost fully-successful plan of four airliners
slamming into buildings occupied by tens of thousands of our peaceful citizens
going about their peaceful jobs in peace.
> ...
> > So far as I am concern[ed], they can land our armies at Haifa and
> > proceed East and South and take over and occupy the entire Muddled East, and
> > keep troops of occupation over there for fifty years, just as was done in
> > Germany, until democratic governments acceptible to our definition of those
> > terms are elected in every damned one of those tolitarian states and securely
> > in power. If that means World War II mobilization, and World War III against
> > all the governments of the area, so be it. I want a formal Declaration of War
> > against Afghanistan and its de facto government
>
> So I guess there /is/ some use to viewing the Taliban as a government.
>
> At least we all agree about the need to declare war if our present
> actions are to continue. Perhaps some good will come of that.
Perhaps.
> Nevertheless, it is trite but true that old generals always fight the
> last war.
Yeah, yeah, yeah ... and there's a necessary winnowing out of old generals in
every war, to the unfortunate detriment of the troops they command -- I can tell
you reasons why Westmoreland should never have been placed in command in Vietnam,
how Abrams who never had the chance to win was better, but that's beside the
point. Then they find out who the Grants and Pattons are, and put them in place,
or they lose. What else is new, Gordon? It hasn't kept all wars from being won.
> I don't think that the lessons of WWII are that useful against
> wide-spread, loosely connected terrorist cells.
Really? The lessons, in case you missed it, are the lessons of post-WWII. I didn't
notice any attacks by Werewolves out of the redouts in the Barvarian Alps last
time I was there, as part of the occupation force we called USAEUR in 1960-1, but
maybe I missed something. I think we have more than merely the lessons of WWII to
draw upon, but we'll have to draw up a few lesson plans of our own to deal with
contingencies in any event. Very little is new under the sun, Gordon, except it
seems a new lesson is required every time teaching people how to completely follow
up and that wars aren't won on the 'cheap.'
> > and each and every ally of
> > those people that pops up his idiot head. "For us, or against us ... " is the
> > appropriate standard. That isn't equivocal at all. "For" means 100 % support,
> > nothing less. Maintaining neutral status doesn't mean anything less than
> > totally neutral. One dollar, one bullet, one volunteer to the Taliban forces,
> > and we come and occupy you too. Breach your treaties, your committments, be
> > content to play both ends against the middle, and the result is a Declaration
> > of War against you, and removal of your government. We can use your wealth to
> > pay for the war. Screw you. If you'd acted other than as a tolitarian
> > government we wouldn't have this problem of dealing with your own home-ground
> > terrorists who are striking against us to ultimately defeat you. You may be
> > the enemy of my enemy, but you're the problem. "Take him out and shoot him,"
> > said Star.
>
> I asked Jai how big a party she wanted; I doubt that she will top this.
> Here is my caution: just remember what bacteria do when a person fails to
> take the full course of antibiotics. I don't think that we have the
> resources to do what you suggest. But I am willing to be convinced, if
> you care to offer the argument.
The major solution without which there can never be a victory in any guerrilla or
irregular war is you deny the enemy completely and utterly any support anywhere.
No sanctuaries, no allies, no relief. Every ally who "pops up his idiot head" you
shoot off. Weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, ad nauseum. You require idigenious
populations to swear alleigance, as under the law of land warfare you are entitled
to, and if they violate that oath by attempting to support the terrorists, you
hang them. The weeping hearts in the media, of course, will go nutso, just as they
did in 1901-2 when the occupation of the Phillipines was underway. You engage in
the deNazification of post war occupation in Germany; and that means lots of
Taliban Imans (if that's what they call themselves, I really don't care what the
title is) are going to go to prison for the rest of their lives where they can
address their hatred to the stone walls and bars until they die out. That means
you run the schools, ensuring that a new generation of martyrs isn't being home
grown. That means you prescribe who can run for office, who can work for their
governments, who can even control economic power, and under what conditions. That
means you track down, capture, and after a modicum of due process, you hang all
the Eickmanns who got away. Every damned one -- even the "Ivans not so terrible."
That means, in time, you hand the keys back over to home grown Afghan democrats,
ditto the Syrians, ditto the Iraqis, and so on, and you walk away, hoping it took.
It seems to have taken in Germany, in Japan and, even if it's a little melodramic
and quite corrupt in some areas in practice, in the Phillipines.
I'm not looking for a perfect solution; merely one that gives some reasonable
promise that it will work. And the isolationism you practice never will, Gordon.
After Varus, Caesar Augustus pulled back to his former frontiers and reduced the
troops to 28 legions. It took the Goths, the Vandals, and the Huns a while,
Gordon, but they came, eventually, and Rome fell, didn't it? They didn't have
blackpox to make their way easier and the time shorter, did they? And while it
occurred, life got lousier and lousier. Then there followed ages that were truly
Dark for some centuries -- about ten, I think it was, didn't there? I don't think
our oceans are quite that wide, nor any walls we build high enough. They don't
have to send rockets via the south pole, just a few aerosol bombs by Federal
Express ... wait a few months while we die. What? they don't have that ability
yet? How do you know? Give them ten years and let's see. I don't propose to give
them even one more year. I want to fumigate the middle east, selectively, because
there are humans beings there who want what the ninety percent want everywhere,
just to live their lives; but I want to fumigate it now. I don't choose to leave
it to my grandsons. Mostly because I think my grandsons will be in a greatly
weakened position, and that's not the inheritance I wish to leave.
> ...
> > What else is new? Is this really as important as Gordon would have it during
> > a war?
>
> As I have suggested before, I'm not sure that it is useful to
> characterize the current situation as a war. Doing so might make the
> problem even more difficult to solve.
What do you want to call it, Gordon? A few annoying Islamic fundamentalists?
Wolves following far, far behind our three-horse sleigh? Give them the few
provinces in dispute they wish. "Peace in our times!" Toss them a few of our
friends. A few more next year. Let them raise another generation of assassins. Let
them learn a little more about how to deliver death from afar. They'll never catch
us, will they?
Read a little history, would you?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20293
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 21:07:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I found this on the MSNBC message board and thought it was worth
posting over here. Just to show why Jordan itself is the Palestinian
nation, at least as originally established.
**************************************
THE PALESTINE MANDATE
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the
purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22
of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a
Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration
of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to
the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be
fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that
the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into
effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd,
1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and
adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment
in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it
being clearly understood that nothing should be done
which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of
existing nonJewish communities in Palestine, or the
rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other
country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the
historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine
and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home
in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His
Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been
formulated in the following terms and submitted to the
Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in
respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on
behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the
following provisions; and
Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22 (paragraph 8),
it is provided that the degree of authority, control or
administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not
having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the
League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the
League Of Nations; confirming the said Mandate, defines
its terms as follows:
ARTICLE 1. The Mandatory shall have full powers of
legislation and of administration, save as they may be
limited by the terms of this mandate.
ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing
the country under such political, administrative and
economic conditions as will secure the establishment of
the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble,
and the development of selfgoverning institutions, and
also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of
all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race
and religion.
ARTICLE 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances
permit, encourage local autonomy."
ARTICLE 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a
public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the
Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters
as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the
interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always
to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the
development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution
are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised
as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic
Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are
willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no
Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed
under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
ARTICLE 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the
rights and position of other sections of the population are not
prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable
conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency
referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land,
including State lands and waste lands not required for public
purposes.
ARTICLE 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for
enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law
provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian
citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in
Palestine.
ARTICLE 8. The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the
benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed
by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be
applicable in Palestine.
Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the aforementioned
privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously
renounced the right to their reestablishment, or shall have agreed to
their nonapplication for a specified period, these privileges and
immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately
reestablished in their entirety or with such modifications as may have
been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.
ARTICLE 9. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the
judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners,
as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities
and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In
particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised
in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
ARTICLE 10. Pending the making of special extradition agreements
relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the
Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.
ARTICLE 11. The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary
measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection
with the development of the country, and, subject to any international
obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to
provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural
resources of the country or of the public works, services and
utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce
a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard,
among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close
settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in
Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any
public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the
natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not
directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall
provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or
indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital,
and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the
country in a manner approved by the Administration.
ARTICLE 12. The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the
foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to
consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to
afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine
when outside its territorial limits.
ARTICLE 13. All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and
religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of
preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy
Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of
worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum,
is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the
League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that
nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into
such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration
for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into
effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be
construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with
the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the
immunities of which are guaranteed.
ARTICLE 14. A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory
to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection
with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the
different religious communities in Palestine. The method of
nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall
be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the
Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without
the approval of the Council.
ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of
conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only
to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No
discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of
Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall
be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the
education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to
such educational requirements of a general nature as the
Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
ARTICLE 16. The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such
supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in
Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and
good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be
taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of
such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of
them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
ARTICLE 17. The Administration of Palestine may organist on a
voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and
order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to
the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes
other than those above specified save with the consent of the
Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces
shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine
from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the
Mandatory in Palestine.
The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads,
railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and
the carriage of fuel and supplies.
ARTICLE 18. The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in
Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of
Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared
with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters
concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of
industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or
civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in
Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said
States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable
conditions across the mandated area.
Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the
Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory,
impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and
take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the
natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the
population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a
special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in
1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
ARTICLE 19. The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration
of Palestine to any general international conventions already
existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the
League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms
and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial
equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and
postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic
or industrial property.
ARTICLE 20. The Mandatory shall cooperate on behalf of the
Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other
conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted
by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease,
including diseases of plants and animals.
ARTICLE 21. The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve
months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of
Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure
equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological
research to the nationals of all States Members of the League of
Nations.
(1) "Antiquity" means any construction or any product of human
activity earlier than the year 1700 A. D.
(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by
encouragement rather than by threat.
Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished
with the authorization referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to
an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according
to the value of the discovery.
(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent
Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any
such antiquity.
No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the
said Department.
(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an
antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.
(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding
antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to
persons authorised by the competent Department.
(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or
permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological
interest.
(7) Authorization to excavate shall only be granted to persons who
show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The
Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these
authorizations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation
without good grounds.
(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator
and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department.
If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator
shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.
ARTICLE 22. English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages
of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or
money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or
inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
ARTICLE 23. The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy
days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest
for the members of such communities.
ARTICLE 24. The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of
Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the
measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the
mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued
during the year shall be communicated with the report.
ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the
eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory
shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of
Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of
this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local
conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the
territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided
that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the
provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
ARTICLE 26. The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should
arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of
Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the
provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by
negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of
International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of
the League of Nations.
ARTICLE 27. The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is
required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
ARTICLE 28. In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby
conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations
shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for
safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights
secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for
securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of
Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately
incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the
mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or
gratuities.
The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives
of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by
the SecretaryGeneral of the League of Nations to all members of the
League.
Done at London the twentyfourth day of July, one thousand nine
hundred and twentytwo.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20294
From: Gordon Sollars"
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 16:13:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3be03cf6.29719947@news.sff.net...
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 10:36:46 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >The inclination to avoid and
> >evade hard tradeoffs is a much-remarked growing phenomena in U.S.
> >culture. We want it all.
>
> Do you think it's unique to US culture?
No.
> I'd say it's more part of human nature. Granting that American
> affluence may contribute to some expectation of everything nice and
> easy, all the time.
It is particularly marked in this culture at this time, as you yourself
("may contribute", "all the time") seem willing to agree. And it will make
David's "WWII levels of mobilization" rather hard to achieve. But my reply
to him will have to wait for later.
I note that you had no comment on the rest of my post. Could it be that you
agree with much of it, as you seem to agree with the above? The only reason
I ask is that my first post in this thread contained the following:
"Normalcy returned in the sense that the measures taken in response to the
specific wars (and threat of war) mentioned in that editorial are not an
issue today. But, then, those were wars with others states, which could
be decisively beaten. The "war of drugs" has provided a great weakening
of liberties, and, since it is a "war" that can never be won, the
weakening effects will continue indefinitely. The "war of terrorism" has
all the same potential."
This is the main point; all else was elaboration. And now I find that you
have posted something rather similar in reply to dee! Beware of sedition.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20295
From: Filksinger"
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:35:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bdf078d.604490@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >Their women
> >are beginning to expect to be treated like human beings (and
> >personally, I think this reason has more to do with their hatred than
> >most people are willing to admit).
>
> I agree with that. Yet I keep puzzling over a weird contradiction in
> cultures. We are still fussing over the idea that a female could
> _someday_ be president. Yet several Moslem countries have already had
> female rulers.
There are a lot of reasons for this. There are multiple legal systems under
Muslim religious law, with different degrees of freedom to women. There are
also multiple views of life in Islamic cultures, starting with books
transcribed entirely by Christian scholars, followed by lurid romances by
writers who never actually saw a harem or the inside of a mosque, followed
by a warped Western view of Islam that sees women with rights in Islam as
more oppressed than women who live in India where things are far worse.
Islam, early on, was considered radically feminist for the time. Women were
allowed to be religious leaders. They could own property, inherit, and
manage their own business affairs. Even Mohammed, the great prophet, was
taken to task for a sexist position by a woman in judging her request for a
divorce, admitted her point, and granted the divorce. This was at a time
when in the West, a woman could _never_ get a divorce and escape her
husband, no matter how abusive.
OTOH, in the West, women's rights were much less pronounced for centuries
afterwards. Some inheritance rights in the US didn't catch up until about 35
years ago.
It is true that women's rights are restricted in most of these countries,
but that is true in most countries outside North America/Europe. We look at
Islam and we see the women as oppressed, when often what we see are cultural
differences and poverty.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20296
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 19:04:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Senate
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
BC:
In addition to all the other comments you got about the hoax nature of this
e-mail, I'll note that it is literally incredible and self-contradictory on
its face: Why would anyone about whom it can be said...
> This woman
> wants to be president of the United States --- and there is a huge
> percentage of the voters who are anxious to help her achieve that.
.... be so immensely stupid as to deliberately give a poke in the eye to a
group that simultaneously represents motherhood AND patriotism? If the
Clintons -- either one of them -- really had political instincts that lousy,
nobody outside of Arkansas would've ever heard of them.
BTW, I wonder if ...
> Cdr Hamilton McWhorter USN(ret)
....is a real person, and if so, whether he was foolish enough to actually
write this... or is he just another unwitting victim of this slander? Please
note that whoever did write the note has not only besmirched Ms. Clinton's
name, but also that of the Gold Star Mothers and potentially Cdr McWhorter.
Nice work, eh? Good thing there's no way to e-mail anthrax.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20297
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:10:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BE055B6.3C1E2EDF@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> You haven't even reply to the points, either. I agree 'tis an easy way to avoid a
> difficult argument when you do that. Of course it is also a tacit admission that
> you don't have a decent reply, but you may argue however you wish.
You misunderstand me. I'll make a decent reply to a /decent/ argument.
I have no desire to look for an argument that might be lodged somewhere
inside insult and condescension.
> The argument that requires your reply is, let me restate it for you, that a
> President of this country, correctly or incorrectly under the Constitution, *has*
> declared we are at war.
This is a claim, not an argument. An argument, as all Monty Python fans
know, is a series of connected statements in support of a proposition.
And try as I might, I'm not sure I find an argument in the rest of that
long paragraph I cut. Are you trying to establish with all that the
proposition that the U.S. is at war, despite the lack of a declaration?
Despite the fact that it is a "new kind of war"? What, exactly, are
citizens to expect from a "new kind of war"? Are we supposed to intuit
this?
From some legal perspective we might well be at war; I'll leave that to
you, as the lawyer. I am not sure that it makes sense (not that the law
has to make sense) for a nation to be "at war" with a non-governmental
organization or individual(s). If and when Congress declares war on some
entity, I'll start researching the precedents for war on that kind of
entity.
....
> > And melodrama isn't argument either.
>
> There is nothing melodramatic about sedition. What do you find 'melodramatic'
> about an offense that can result in execution of a death sentence?
What is melodramatic is your bringing it into the discussion in response
to my post.
....
> Look up, by the way, the definitions of that
> offense before you claim I'm applying it to any of the twaddle you've posted.
First you bring up sedition in a reply to me. Now you say my comments
are "twaddle" that don't qualify as sedition. Do you think I won't spot
this sort of rhetorical whipsaw? Or am I supposed to think that you
bring sedition into any conversation, based on, say, the roll of the
dice?
> Your mindset seems stuck in the
> wish that there shouldn't be a war so, therefore, peacetime privacy issues are
> paramount to you.
No. Once again, here is what I said in my first post in this thread:
"Normalcy returned in the sense that the measures taken in response to
the specific wars (and threat of war) mentioned in that editorial are not
an issue today. But, then, those were wars with others states, which
could be decisively beaten. The "war of drugs" has provided a great
weakening of liberties, and, since it is a "war" that can never be won,
the weakening effects will continue indefinitely. The "war of [sic]
terrorism" has all the same potential."
What is "paramount" to me is that the "war on terrorism" not become
another "war on drugs".
> I seem to have missed that point, Gordon.
Yep.
> Perhaps it's because concurrently I seem
> to have read a great deal of argument these past two weeks from you declaring in
> substance that there is no reason to do anything vis-a-vis the Middle East but
> withdraw from everything except mere 'trade,' as if that were even possible.
Yep. But I don't see why that should contribute to your missing my other
point.
> I
> agree that an open-ended, undeclared and un-Constitional "war on terrorism" has
> little potential for anything other than to serve as excuse to erode more than
> merely our privacy -- it could easily serve as an excuse to justifiy doing just
> about anything the current administration wishes to do in any of many other areas
Careful, or we'll practically be in bed together.
....
> I want the war right now! My
> country didn't start this war, but I damned sure want them to end it, finally and
> for all. I want a full mobilization; I want armies sufficient to the task trained
> as soon as possible; I want an order of battle that equals World War II;
WWII levels of mobilization are very unlikely with a volunteer army, and
so strategies based upon those levels are very likely to fail.
....
> > As it happens, I think that going to war in the Gulf was a mistake /and/
> > that, after having gone to war, failing to remove Hussein was probably
> > also a mistake.
>
> I'm not surprised about your first conclusion; and I am surprised about the
> 'probably' in your second; but it's not surprising to me that you should qualify
> something that's as obvious as pimples on a face.
And I am surprised that you can be both surprised and unsurprised at the
same thing. Aristotle won't let philosophers do that, but then, lawyers
are allowed to argue that their client's dog doesn't bite and that the
client doesn't have a dog. I say that it was a mistake, because it would
have been a good thing for Hussein to have been removed and our forces
were already committed. I say "probably" because I am not sure that the
loss of innocent life to remove Hussein would have been justified. I'm
not sure exactly how we would have gotten to him.
> And the longer we piddle around, the more lukewarm support will melt away and the
> stronger the Taliban and its alter ego, bin Laden, will become. As I said, I
> wouldn't have voted for Bush for dogcatcher. Instead of calling for an immediate
> Declaration of War, instead of calling for 1,000,000 volunteers on September 10,
> instead of a plan, we've gotten silly speeches, media extravaganzas, executive
> appointments to vague mandates, bumbling pronoucements, vague frightening alerts
> from cabinet and quasi-cabinet officers who cannot stay out of the spotlight of
> the media, panic mongering, and indecisive half-measures designed for execution by
> someone who I think is a half-wit.
[and much more of the same cut for brevity]
Surely I'm not expected to disagree with any of this?
....
> > As I have suggested before, I'm not sure that it is useful to
> > characterize the current situation as a war. Doing so might make the
> > problem even more difficult to solve.
>
> What do you want to call it, Gordon? A few annoying Islamic fundamentalists?
> Wolves following far, far behind our three-horse sleigh? Give them the few
> provinces in dispute they wish.
No. Withdraw our forces from Saudi Arabia. Oil will still come out of
the ground; count on it. Support a Palestinian state in the territory
outside of the borders that Israel came into the U.N. with. If Israel
cannot defend those borders, it is not the problem of the U.S.
government. Private parties may give aid as they wish.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20298
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 00:10:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3be02cf9.25625852@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:53:33 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >OTOH, are you arguing that Powell had been making a specious distinction?
>
> Did Powell ever specifically say that taking the Taliban down was not
> a goal? What distinction are you attribution to Powell?
I thought "the Taliban must go" was a position he had not announced
before. I thought we started out to "destroy terrorists". If that meant
"the Taliban must go" from the start, why not say so? They had already
refused to give him up before we started massing our forces. What
changed?
> >Or that the Bush administration is unwilling to tell the public up front
> >what its goals are?
>
> I pretty sure I heard Mr. Bush say that destroying terrorists "with
> global reach" was his goal, and in his first adress to Congress. It's
> the process that he's hiding, not the goal.
I am all in favor of that goal. But hiding too much of the process makes
it difficult to judge what the goals are or if the actions are in line
with them.
....
> >At least we all agree about the need to declare war if our present
> >actions are to continue. Perhaps some good will come of that.
> >Nevertheless, it is trite but true that old generals always fight the
> >last war. I don't think that the lessons of WWII are that useful against
> >wide-spread, loosely connected terrorist cells.
>
> I'm not ready to throw out all the lessons of WWII. The Marshal Plan
> was a brilliant, but very expensive, success. It could not have gone
> forward without the total surrender of Germany and Japan.
OK, Jai, name the countries you want to see in the new Marshal Plan.
Maybe we can make a rough estimate of the cost.
....
> >I asked Jai how big a party she wanted; I doubt that she will top this.
>
> Hard to "top" total victory. I don't disagree with it.
I don't disagree with total victory, either. I just doubt that it is
achievable. Fortunately, I also disagree that it is necessary.
> >As I have suggested before, I'm not sure that it is useful to
> >characterize the current situation as a war. Doing so might make the
> >problem even more difficult to solve.
>
> However you characterize it, it is what it is.
> But you're right in that how we define a problem greatly influences
> the possible solutions we devise. Unfortunately, the preference for a
> specific solution can also lead one to misdefine the problem.
I couldn't have said it better.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20299
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 07:51:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:35:50 -0800, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>We look at
>Islam and we see the women as oppressed, when often what we see are cultural
>differences and poverty.
I'm not willing to write off oppression as mere "cultural
differences." Wearing a chador is not a mere "cultural difference" if
you have no other other choice. Nor even the means to express a
preference not to. Not to mention the "right" of your father or
brother to beat you death for not wearing one, or not wearing it
properly, or expressing your preference, or whatever offense they
might decide you have committed.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20300
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 08:12:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 00:10:50 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >OTOH, are you arguing that Powell had been making a specious distinction?
>>
>> Did Powell ever specifically say that taking the Taliban down was not
>> a goal? What distinction are you attribution to Powell?
>
>I thought "the Taliban must go" was a position he had not announced
>before.
Not announcing something is not the same as making a "specious
distinction." Especially if the President had already announced it.
"...and the nations who harbor them," remember?
>I thought we started out to "destroy terrorists". If that meant
>"the Taliban must go" from the start, why not say so? They had already
>refused to give him up before we started massing our forces. What
>changed?
Really, Gordon, you're off on a tangent and no longer making sense.
At least not to me. Nothing changed, and there's no indication that
it did. If Mssr. Bush and/or Powell said "destroy terrorists" and
whoever harbors them from the beginning (and they did) and if they
gave an ultimatim to the Taliban to stop harboring terrorists and it
was refused (and they did, and it was), why do you say something
changed? And I really don't understand the "before we started massing
our forces"--military forces were put on alert on Sept 11th. It does
take time to move them into theater, especiallly if you have to secure
basing and overflight rights in neighboring countries.
>> >Or that the Bush administration is unwilling to tell the public up front
>> >what its goals are?
>>
>> I pretty sure I heard Mr. Bush say that destroying terrorists "with
>> global reach" was his goal, and in his first adress to Congress. It's
>> the process that he's hiding, not the goal.
>
>I am all in favor of that goal. But hiding too much of the process makes
>it difficult to judge what the goals are or if the actions are in line
>with them.
Too bad. I'd like to know more too, but not at the expense of
jeopardizing our operations or the lives of our soldiers.
>> I'm not ready to throw out all the lessons of WWII. The Marshal Plan
>> was a brilliant, but very expensive, success. It could not have gone
>> forward without the total surrender of Germany and Japan.
>
>OK, Jai, name the countries you want to see in the new Marshal Plan.
>Maybe we can make a rough estimate of the cost.
I said several notes ago that I think it's too early to say. I'll say
the same if you ask me yet again.
Do you think a cost/benefit analysis of the Marshal Plan was presented
to Congress (or the people) a month after Pearl Harbor?
>> >As I have suggested before, I'm not sure that it is useful to
>> >characterize the current situation as a war. Doing so might make the
>> >problem even more difficult to solve.
>>
>> However you characterize it, it is what it is.
>> But you're right in that how we define a problem greatly influences
>> the possible solutions we devise. Unfortunately, the preference for a
>> specific solution can also lead one to misdefine the problem.
>
>I couldn't have said it better.
Are you implying that I WANT to see us go to war? That really is
insulting. And stupid.
Believe me, no one hates war more than a soldier. Unless it's the
mother of a soldier, which I could also be in another year or two.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20301
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 08:28:26 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 23:10:41 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> I am not sure that it makes sense (not that the law
>has to make sense) for a nation to be "at war" with a non-governmental
>organization or individual(s). If and when Congress declares war on some
>entity, I'll start researching the precedents for war on that kind of
>entity.
You can start with Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Coast Pirates. I
don't think that one was declared either, but it was definitely war.
You might also start reading up on the evolution of transnational
entities and how they are beginning to overtake the sovereignty of
nations.
>> I want the war right now! My
>> country didn't start this war, but I damned sure want them to end it, finally and
>> for all. I want a full mobilization; I want armies sufficient to the task trained
>> as soon as possible; I want an order of battle that equals World War II;
>
>WWII levels of mobilization are very unlikely with a volunteer army, and
>so strategies based upon those levels are very likely to fail.
And you don't think the volunteer army couldn't become a drafted army
relatively quickly? Or that there aren't a coupla million reservists
and retirees that couldn't be called back even more quickly? Know
anything about industrial mobilization plans? Some of those were
enacted in Desert Storm, and that wasn't a declared war either.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20302
From: les.johnson@erols.com (Les)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:28:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Gathering Next Year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I think we might be able to swing a CO trip. It'd be iffy though,
because of the baby. But if flying to CO is a problem for us then it
occurs to me that flying to MO would probably be a problem too. So
what the heck!
But what does everyone else think eh? Come on! Speak up! We need
more ideas. Or at least some interest.
Les
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:19:45 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:32:03 -0600, "Clay Steiner"
><claysteiner@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>snipped<
>
>CO would be a BIG hike, I'd personally love to do it, but don't see
>how. Can't fly (long story) & shouldn't drive (makes the story even
>longer). Probably have to wait till Transporter Tech comes into vogue.
>
>Fader
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20303
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:24:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3be0ff9e.4060049@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 00:10:50 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> >OTOH, are you arguing that Powell had been making a specious distinction?
> >>
> >> Did Powell ever specifically say that taking the Taliban down was not
> >> a goal? What distinction are you attribution to Powell?
> >
> >I thought "the Taliban must go" was a position he had not announced
> >before.
>
> Not announcing something is not the same as making a "specious
> distinction."
Jai, my reply was to David, who had been busy asserting what I thought.
My "are you arguing" was just a little hair of the dog.
> Especially if the President had already announced it.
> "...and the nations who harbor them," remember?
That is what Bush said. But we do not recognize the Taliban as the
government of a nation. Does "nation" refer to all of Afghanistan? I am
also interested in what his various advisors say, since they do not
always agree with each other. What we know is that Bush made some
general statements. You claimed that there had been no mission creep,
and perhaps you are correct. But with general statements and conflicting
advisors, mission creep is not that easy to detect in the early stages.
And in the late stages it is, well, too late.
....
> >But hiding too much of the process makes
> >it difficult to judge what the goals are or if the actions are in line
> >with them.
>
> Too bad. I'd like to know more too, but not at the expense of
> jeopardizing our operations or the lives of our soldiers.
Again, I agree. There are details that must be kept secret to protect
the operation. The problem is that other things may be kept secret as
well. Since I can't tell one from the other from where I sit, I start
listening for the slightest clues in public statements, much as the
financial world tries its best to read the real meaning out of
Greenspan's comments. If I was listening so closely to Powell I heard
something that wasn't there, well, that is what open discussion like this
one are for.
....
> >OK, Jai, name the countries you want to see in the new Marshal Plan.
> >Maybe we can make a rough estimate of the cost.
>
> I said several notes ago that I think it's too early to say. I'll say
> the same if you ask me yet again.
> Do you think a cost/benefit analysis of the Marshal Plan was presented
> to Congress (or the people) a month after Pearl Harbor?
Did we have a Marshall Plan to consider at that time? In any event, I
don't think a cost/benefit analysis was ever done before adopting it.
Of course, you can always say you would rather be lucky than smart, but
I've never been sure I was going to be lucky.
It should be easier to analyze the prospects now using our past
experience as a guide. Of course, it is not fair for me to expect you to
do the detailed analysis that would involve 100s or 1000s of specialists,
and I don't. But I do plan to keep reminding you of the consequences of
your position. That analysis is needed at some point on your view as I
understand it. David seems to want to wage a world-wide war to make the
world safe for democracy. You agreed with his prescription for "total
victory". I don't happen to think that it is feasible, much as it would
be desirable to have liberal democratic states throughout the world.
> >> However you characterize it, it is what it is.
> >> But you're right in that how we define a problem greatly influences
> >> the possible solutions we devise. Unfortunately, the preference for a
> >> specific solution can also lead one to misdefine the problem.
> >
> >I couldn't have said it better.
>
> Are you implying that I WANT to see us go to war? That really is
> insulting. And stupid.
And so I should have been insulted when you said it? After all, I have
expressed a preference for a specific solution, and you clearly believe
that I have misdefined the problem. I apologized for insulting Geo, and
I have taken David to task for insulting me. But if you are going to
make a statement that cuts two ways, please be prepared.
> Believe me, no one hates war more than a soldier.
That's what I thought, until David said that he wanted a war. Jai, your
position, as I understand it, is that Islamic fundamentalists are
implacable foes who seek, not specific goals that they have already
articulated (and which I believe we should have done any way, but let's
leave that aside in this part of the exchange), but the destruction of
the U.S. culture and way of life. If I believed as you do, /I/ would be
calling for total war myself. So I can't see how you are not already
committed to it.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20304
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 15:46:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:24:25 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >> However you characterize it, it is what it is.
>> >> But you're right in that how we define a problem greatly influences
>> >> the possible solutions we devise. Unfortunately, the preference for a
>> >> specific solution can also lead one to misdefine the problem.
>> >
>> >I couldn't have said it better.
>>
>> Are you implying that I WANT to see us go to war? That really is
>> insulting. And stupid.
>
>And so I should have been insulted when you said it?
It's never an insult to say someone wants to avoid war.
>After all, I have
>expressed a preference for a specific solution, and you clearly believe
>that I have misdefined the problem.
But I do believe you have misdefined the problem, partly because of
your desire to avoid war, partly because of assumptions you have made
about what the Islamic fundies really want and about the feasibility
of isolationism. If you consider that an insult, I'm sorry (that you
do--it's still how I assess your position).
>> Believe me, no one hates war more than a soldier.
>
>That's what I thought, until David said that he wanted a war. Jai, your
>position, as I understand it, is that Islamic fundamentalists are
>implacable foes who seek, not specific goals that they have already
>articulated (and which I believe we should have done any way, but let's
>leave that aside in this part of the exchange), but the destruction of
>the U.S. culture and way of life. If I believed as you do, /I/ would be
>calling for total war myself. So I can't see how you are not already
>committed to it.
Oh, I am. But I believe the war is "thrust upon us." I think David
has made it clear he does too.
Close to 10 years ago, shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union
iirc, may have been a year or two later at most, I said on this very
forum (some here may actually remember), that religious fundamentalism
would be the great threat of the turn of century. I believe I have
been proven correct. It doesn't mean I ever wanted to be.
Btw, if I don't post anything for the next few days, it's just because
I'm out of town for the weekend.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20305
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 11:48:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3be16b50.31634110@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
....
> But I do believe you have misdefined the problem, partly because of
> your desire to avoid war, partly because of assumptions you have made
> about what the Islamic fundies really want and about the feasibility
> of isolationism. If you consider that an insult, I'm sorry (that you
> do--it's still how I assess your position).
I didn't take your statement that "Unfortunately, the preference for a
specific solution can also lead one to misdefine the problem" as an
insult to me, and I didn't expect you to take it as one when applied to
you.
We already know that we have different positions. Frankly, I think that
I have shown more respect for the possibility that I am wrong and that
you are right than you have shown for the reverse, and certainly more
than David has.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20306
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:41:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3be0336d.27278706@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 18:13:35 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> >> We are
> >> wealthy,
> >
> >So is Japan. Yet their only terrorists are home grown.
>
> Not in the same league. Not even close.
Right. So why are they so lucky? (My suggestion: take a look at their
policy on the Middle East.)
....
> >I'm not sure about this. What is the Islamic definition of "infidel"? Jews
> >and Christians have a special status under Islamic law as "people of the
> >book" - they are not
> >required to convert in an Islamic state. Surely the Japanese are far better
> >examples of infidels.
>
> It's the excuse the terrorists use.
But why do they use an excuse? You are trying to explain why they hate
us. "They just do" is not an explanation.
> Guess they choose to read
> different parts of the Quran. Not an uncommon practice in any
> religion, btw.
Then we should be positioned to score big against the terrorists with
other Muslims, but showing the terrorists are wrong on Islamic terms.
....
> In any case, you can't really analyze each reason I gave separately.
> It is a combination of factors, and many others besides. But the US
> is the symbol for all Western society. "Leader of the Free World" and
> all.
I was just asking why you held you view. You are free to mention any
number of factors of any weight that you like; you chose a certain set,
at least as a first cut. I have to address those reasons as you give
them. For example, if "our wealth" is a reason with /some/ weight, then
we might expect /some/ degree of Islamic terrorist activity against other
wealthy countries /purely/ for their wealth. Japan is a wealthy country
that does not intervene in the Middle East, and it has been spared
Islamic terrorism. As such it counts against your view. It is of course
not conclusive by itself - we are not in the realm of conclusive proof.
But when we add up what you have said so far, I still see no reason to
change my view that Islamic fundamentalists have a few specific goals
that they care most about, and that destruction of the U.S. is not one of
them.
> >Now, if I am wrong and you are right, then after the U.S. moved to a policy
> >of nonintervention, Islamic terrorism against the U.S. would continue. The
> >new victims would be the terrible cost of proving my view wrong. If I am
> >right and you are wrong, then we will have conducted unnecessary wars
> >against a number (which you have yet to specify) of Middle Eastern
> >governments and terrorist organizations, with all the attendant loss of U.S.
> >soldiers and assets and innocent life abroad. And if we pursue your course
> >first but I am right, we will suffer from an increased number of terrorist
> >attacks before we win. (If we win.)
>
> Too bad there's not a lab somewhere to run the simulation. In its
> absense, I guess we'll just have to go with what our elected
> officials, and the people who voted them in, happen to believe.
This is a weak reply, Jai. If the shoe was on the other foot, if the
U.S. had sent no troops, you and David would be clamouring for it, and
then I could just yawn and say, "I guess we'll just have to go with what
our elected officials believe". Except I wouldn't say that. The
question is what is the right thing to believe, and the problem is trying
to find it.
> >I really can't judge between these
> >until you tell me how big a party you think is necessary.
>
> LOL. Like that would make a difference.
Far be it for an anarchist to lecture on democracy, but what I judge and
what you think are very important, if democracy is important.
> >Do you believe that jumping into those beds was necessary for the collapse
> >of the Soviet Union? (I do not.)
>
> In general, no. But doing so, at least in some cases, may have
> forestalled Soviet agression until it collapsed under its own weight.
> And until information technology, and trade, and cultural exchange
> programs, made the average Soviet citizen want more than the Soviet
> political system could provide them.
Then if it was not necessary, we certainly need to judge the improvement
it added against the downstream consequences of being in bed with corrupt
regimes. I don't have an exact score, but our past decisions look bad
so far.
> I think I said in one of my early posts that our best chance of
> "winning" may only be to hold on until modernity catches up in the
> Arab/Muslim world.
I agree with that. And notice that Iran is moving, however hesitantly,
toward democracy, while Iraqi is an enormous problem. Those guys at the
State Dept. are true geniuses at intervention!
> >But that question takes us rather far
> >afield. Let me just note that we involved ourselves with Afghanistan
> >before, and have less than nothing to show for it. Why imagine we will get
> >it right this time?
>
> Because we have no other choice.
There were lots of choices - but, to be clear, I don't think that we are
pursuing the worst of them.
....
> I think you overestimate how easy it is to grow a terrorist capable of
> actually doing major harm in another part of the world. There may be
> many young men willing or even anxious to ride an airliner into the
> WTC, but could any of them have done it without a Bin Laden to pay for
> it, to plan it, to train them for it, to get them to Boston airport?
Perhaps I do overestimate. And perhaps not. I understand that the
Italian police have wire taps of a terrorist cell that views itself as
part of bin Laden's network, without any evidence that they have actually
been in contact with bin Laden. For all the evidence I have been
/shown/, bin Laden might simply be an inspiration, like Karl Marx to
communists. Should England have put Marx in jail? If we have the goods
on bin Laden, fine. Get the bastard. But I don't think that the WTC
conspiracy required his level of wealth to carry out. If all we
accomplish is making him a martyr, we will see a lot more terrorists.
....
> >The basic problem, Jai, is that your view requires that the
> >U.S. government do a large number of complex and costly things very well.
> >Mine requires that it stop doing things it has already shown it does poorly.
>
> Oh please. The US has done many good things in this world, and done
> them well.
Not in the Middle East, so far as I can tell.
....
> >As I have pointed out before, the majority of people in this country might
> >well believe the right thing to do is to get rid of the Bill of Rights. I
> >didn't think that your justification for democracy was that "whatever a
> >majority decides to do is right".
>
> But nothing I've suggested violates the Bill of Rights. At least, to
> no more extent than has been done in prior times of war. And I do
> agree we should have a formal declaration to justify any violation
> now.
I wasn't arguing that you were suggesting that the Bill of Rights be
violated. I was claiming that your argument was "the majority is right".
And if you look back at your statement, it seems that I was right. Is
that really the argument you want to make?
>
> Didn't Thoreau refuse to pay his taxes because he did not support the
> war in Mexico? Seems to me he spent a number of years in jail for his
> moral stancd. You too have that option. <g>
True. But whether I ever choose civil disobedience will not effect
whether or not my position is correct. And all the smug talk about how I
am free to leave the country or jokes about my choosing to go to jail
will not change that.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20307
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:27:09 -0800
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bdf8112.0@news.sff.net...
>
> Geo Rule wrote in message
>
> > Off to a much better start than I had with Win2K a few months
> >ago (bailed out of that one after about 1 1/2 weeks). We'll see if it
> >holds up.
> >
> >
>
> I lasted one night with Win2k, last weekend. Whoever reported the demise
of
> the "BSOD" has greatly exaggerated.
>
> Strange things happened under Win2k. Right clicking on the desktop caused
a
> BSOD. Other simple tasks caused the computer to hang to where C-A-D
wouldn't
> even bring it back. Truly bizarre.
>
> I went back to Win98SE. I haven't made a decision on WinXP yet. I've once
> again achieved a stable configuration with 98, so I'll stand pat for now.
>
> WJaKe
It sounds like you had a bad install or bad drivers on your Win2k system.
I'd say it was your sound driver.
"Sound driver?", I hear you say. "Don't you mean video driver? What does a
sound driver have to do with my display?"
Normally, I'd say video driver, but I'm sure you already covered the video
driver. So I go with sound, because I'll bet your computer crashed when your
right click activated a sound. You might want to check all other drivers, as
well.
If you use a dual-boot, you can always set-up Win2k while keeping your known
good configuration of Win98SE. You could also use Win98 to edit files that
you can't reach in Win2k, say by renaming your sound files in your sounds
directory to prevent running the sounds, or by downloading the driver for
installation in Win2k.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20308
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (John Tilden)
Date: 1 Nov 2001 18:37:19 GMT
Subject: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
BC, I just saw a blurb about mail centers in Indianapolis having found traces
of Anthrax. Since I know you deal with the machinery I hope that you have
been tested and passed.
My thoughts are with you.
--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20309
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 11:18:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Logan's Run (was Starship Troopers -- The Movie)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hi, Deb.
> You ought to delurk more often.
Would that I could -- I do my lurking and infrequent participating from
work... and my bosses have this annoying habit of insisting that I get
work done.
> That was an excellent analysis of
> the movie vs the book. (And nice to meet you, BTW).
Thank you!
> You do have me at
> a disadvantage as it's been decades since I read the book. I did read
> the sequels but have almost no memory of them--that was at a point
> where I read pretty much any and all science fiction to come out.
It's been a couple of years since I read the first, but you know how it
is -- some books just imprint themselves on your memory, while others
(usually required reading from college) fade away mere moments after
reading the last line. The two sequels aren't the books the first one
is, and I don't remember the details from them too terribly much.
> A lot comes down to taste, of course. In the case of the Mt.
> Rushmore scene you seem to like, that struck me then and now as
> standing out as something disconnected from the actual story. It's
> like the author had a file of cool scenes and plugged them into the
> book just to use the cool scenes, rather than them coming out of any
> driving need of the story to have the scenes, and to have them set
> there (travelogue, in a way).
Yeah, I can see your point here. I interpreted such scenes differently;
one of the author's points was to show the fundamental differences in
that culture as compared to our own, which, paradoxically, weren't very
obvious in a "casual" viewing of the everyday aspects of the characters'
lives. One way to point out these differences is to show the characters
engaging in actions and appearing in places familiar to the reader, and
then just "by the way" mentioning, almost in passing, the fundamental
difference. I found the approach similar to RAH's style; simply alluding
to aspects of a particular culture in passing, assuming we "knew" that
this was normal and ordinary (I see this used most effectively in
"Friday"). In terms of the Rushmore scene -- in our reality, it's a
tourist attraction; in Logan's, it's a quasi-military reservation,
trespassing upon which is punishable by immediate execution. But this
latter is not explained to a great deal; the characters know the why's
and wherefore's, and we're just given an explanation in passing.
But, apparently, Nolan and Johnson could have done better -- you didn't
get this (or assert that it wasn't done well enough); perfectly
legitmate literary criticism.
And, of course, I'm sure some measure of truth is in your statement "the
author had a file of cool scenes and plugged them into the book..."
Perhaps unprofessional, especially if he had to use the "bash to fit"
method to make the scenes work in the story... but authors are people
too (so I'm told), and I can perhaps forgive an author for wanting to
use a "cool scene" that's been in his head since he was kid, if the
story doesn't suffer therefrom *too* much.
> The movie does the same thing in some
> scenes, too, though (it's not a great movie--I just think it's better
> than the book).
I like the movie, too. I tend to keep it (and most movie/book combos)
separate in my head, as I understand to some minor degree the ideas of
"interpretation" and how difficult it is to translate a book to the
screen.
The hologram scene at the end is there because they
> could do a hologram scene and had to work it in--first movie to use
> the neat new toy ("The Mattrix" had a reason to use the effects it
> did, none of the following movies to follow it have yet use it because
> it looks neat).
I found the hologram scene lacking, as well, but not for the same reason
("neat new toy"). The idea that Logan, once "in rapport" with the
computer, could by force of his own will destroy that computer
ridiculous. (That was one heck of a powerful computer; it ran the entire
society, after all. And I don't want to hear any Star Trek "compute to
the last digit the value of pi" explanations, either! Dang cop-outs...)
Logan wasn't established as a well-developed character in the film; I
didn't really see any strength of will -- he was in panicked flight
through most of the movie. (In the book, he also has a rather weak will,
but this was intentional, as his entire world-view was shown to be
false. Quite a hit to take...)
> The poor movie suffered most from Star Wars coming out the next year
> and tromping it every which way in look, style and dynamics. It's such
> a clear transition in science fiction film styles--Logan's Run to Star
> Wars, with Logan's Run having the look of the old sf movie style and
> Star Wars the new.
Were they really only separated by a year? Wow, I hadn't realized that.
Quite a difference, yes. Of course, in my particular taxonomy of genres,
Logan's Run will always be "better" than Star Wars in that Logan is an
actual SF movie. Star Wars isn't (it's a fantasy; the two aren't, in my
view, really comparable beyond use and quality of special effects).
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20310
From: David Wright"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:43:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3be18f87.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3bdf8112.0@news.sff.net...
> >
> > Geo Rule wrote in message
> >
(snip)
> If you use a dual-boot, you can always set-up Win2k while keeping your
known
> good configuration of Win98SE. You could also use Win98 to edit files that
> you can't reach in Win2k, say by renaming your sound files in your sounds
> directory to prevent running the sounds, or by downloading the driver for
> installation in Win2k.
I am anticipating installing WinXP when the media arrives. We've got a
10-user license, but no media yet. I have been studying Win2K and noted the
possibility of dual-booting. Do you or anyone else know if WinXP will have
the same capability?
(Actually, I have an eval copy of WinXP now, but installed it on a fresh
machine, so I didn't come across any possibility of dual-booting if it is
there. One thing I'll say about it. Make sure you got enough RAM, otherwise
it is as slow as molasses).
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20311
From: David Wright"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:46:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:3be1a5f1.0@news.sff.net...
>
(snip)
> (Actually, I have an eval copy of WinXP now, but installed it on a fresh
> machine, so I didn't come across any possibility of dual-booting if it is
> there. One thing I'll say about it. Make sure you got enough RAM,
otherwise
> it is as slow as molasses).
P.S.
I am running on 128mb on a 200mhz machine, so it might be a good idea to get
a faster machine also.
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20312
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 12:02:15 -0800
Subject: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hi, Dee!
Thanks for responding.
dee wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that you have never met a cop who wasn't
> trustworthy, if you have much exposure to cops.
Well, "much" is a comparative, of course. I know more cops than the
average citizen, for a variety of reasons. But not as many as you do,
probably, since you actually work in the field. So anything I say
regarding my experience would be as nothing compared to yours. However,
I believe that, because of the unique requirements/situations/social
status of police officers, the perception that there are many "bad ones"
is artificially inflated.
As you say, any sufficiently large social universe will contain "bad
apples"; however, if we look at the special niche police occupy, I think
it can be shown that the "bad apples" there tend to "spoil the barrel"
to a much more significant degree than is warranted from an objective
perspective (which no one can have, of course). In any given subset of
the population that is not police officers (teachers, truck drivers, tap
dancers), the few bad apples will cause most observers to say something
to the effect, "Well, we can discount that; *most* of them are good
teachers (or truck drivers, or tap dancers)." We assume that the subset
as a whole is made up of decent individuals, who act professionally and ethically.
Not so police officers, when considered as the subset. Because they are
charged with maintaining order, and are, ideally, the epitome of all
that is decent and good about humans (I know, I know... I *said*
"ideally!"), AND are given power beyond that of normal people, we expect
and need them to be professional and ethical ALL of the time, no matter
the situation, no matter who in the public they happen to be dealing
with. We expect them, really, to be "not human" as far as having normal
human reactions, fears, prejudices, etc.
Impossible, of course. The problem here, though, is that when one of
*these* humans slips (or is just a jerk in general), we *don't* use the
"Well, we can discount that..." line, because *these* particular human
beings are *not allowed*, in our minds, to be normal. They must be
superior. Which they can't be, not all the time (and never for the
jerks). Thus, when there is a problem with a cop, because of their
unique position in both society and our internalized perceptions, that
problem is magnified enormously. When the problem repeats, it's but a
short step to "all cops are that way." When other societal shortcomings
are thrown into the police/civilian mix, the problem is magnified yet again.
I don't mean to suggest that the above is The Reason police officers can
and are unprofessional, unethical, even criminal in the behavior towards
some or all of the civilians they run across -- sociology doesn't really
allow for a single reason human being behave the way they do. There are
the cases that, as you point out, the person gets that badge just so
he/she can strut around with a gun and hassle people with impunity.
Nor do I mean it as an excuse of unacceptable behavior on the part of
police; my attitude is, if you want to wear that badge, you need to try
harder than *anyone* else does to suppress whatever aspects of your
personality are not appropriate to the job (assuming you slipped through
the screening process).
But I think it does explain to some degree the prevalent attitude that
"cops are just legal stormtroopers." I think most who apply to be police
officers really *do* want to contribute positively to society. What do
they get? Lousy pay, dangerous working conditions, the derision of the
very public they wanted to serve. How often have you heard someone
complaining about the "damn cops; we should git rid of them all," only
to discover that this complainer got pulled over for speeding this
afternoon? Most of us get angry with cops because they're actually doing
the job we pay them to do... but wish they wouldn't do that job when
*we're* the ones who've been caught.
There are way too many factors to go into here, and I don't know that
anyone can really prove that one set of factors derived from another --
actually deciding which came first, the "bad cops," which caused the
public to look down on the whole professions... or the disgust of the
public for anyone who deigns to tell them what to do, thus resulting in
"bad cops" who have lost respect for the public they serve. It all feeds
itself, and there's no one thing that we can fix that will make it "all better."
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20313
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:07:03 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3be01c54.21364975@news.sff.net...
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 17:48:10 -0800, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
<snip>
> >Note that not only have I not said I condone torture, but the articles I
> >have seen seem to only _imply_ torture is involved.
>
> Involved? Are you saying you've read articles which indicate that
> someone in the US government is torturing someone? From reliable
> sources? And using a traditional definition of torture?
That isn't what I meant. I meant, "Involved in the possible _future_
application of more 'pressure', whatever that means", not "involved in
present activities."
What I was trying to say was that the reporter implied that the government
might use torture, but, judging by what the article actually _says_, the
government never said anything of the sort. The government said they might
want to use "pressure" that would make information gained legally
inadmissable in court, and the reporter implied that such "pressure" was
"torture".
> >There are a lot of ways
> >to pressure someone that don't use torture but would make a confession
> >_legally_ useless.
>
> Well yeah, but I think the point of even suggesting torture is to
> provide information that's needed to prevent some future attack, even
> if it screws up a later prosecution.
Yes. But from what I saw, the officials who spoke about applying more
pressure never mentioned torture at all, except to deny it as a possibility.
The _reporter_ implied torture might occur, but every article I have seen so
far indicate that the government denies that torture might be involved.
> To digress just a bit, I head a very good discussion on NPR that the
> "failure" of the intel community in not predicting Sept 11th was
> really a policy failure. That is, the law enforcement community
> collects "intelligence" to support criminal prosecutions. The
> restrictions on how you can collect that information are obviously
> extensive, and under normal circumstances, justified. The rest of the
> intel community (CIA, State, military) have different objectives and
> different methods, but are/have been prohibited from collecting
> against US citizens or within US borders. And what they do find, even
> overseas, they generally do not share with the FBI. Not because they
> could not, or would not, if it would protect against a terrorist
> attack. But because the FBI cannot use most of what the CIA (et al)
> collects--remembering that not only is "illegally" collected info not
> allowed in court, but any info derived therefrom--the system is not
> structured for one agency to support the other. [Actually, that's not
> completely true--some coordinated organizational structure has been
> put in place to support the anti-drug effort, but it's not the norm
> and would not be set up to handle anything BUT drug-related info.]
All quite true. The FBI is geared to prosecute crimes, not gather
intelligence.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20314
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 13:47:18 -0800
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:3be1a697.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:3be1a5f1.0@news.sff.net...
> >
>
> (snip)
>
> > (Actually, I have an eval copy of WinXP now, but installed it on a fresh
> > machine, so I didn't come across any possibility of dual-booting if it
is
> > there. One thing I'll say about it. Make sure you got enough RAM,
> otherwise
> > it is as slow as molasses).
>
> P.S.
>
> I am running on 128mb on a 200mhz machine, so it might be a good idea to
get
> a faster machine also.
I thought XP didn't even run on a 200 Mhz machines. I'd better review my
facts.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20315
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 14:33:35 -0800
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:3be1a5f1.0@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> I am anticipating installing WinXP when the media arrives. We've got a
> 10-user license, but no media yet. I have been studying Win2K and noted
the
> possibility of dual-booting. Do you or anyone else know if WinXP will have
> the same capability?
It should. Win95 had that as an option, and I would expect XP will, too. If
so, your software will need to be reinstalled under XP. Just make certain
you don't convert your drive to NTFS until you are done with Win9x.
> (Actually, I have an eval copy of WinXP now, but installed it on a fresh
> machine, so I didn't come across any possibility of dual-booting if it is
> there. One thing I'll say about it. Make sure you got enough RAM,
otherwise
> it is as slow as molasses).
There are a lot of reasons why XP will run slow, though that is a big one.
Here's some more suggestions for slow XP:
The NTFS filing system is much more stable than, has more features than, and
is all around superior to the Win9x/ME filing system, with one drawback. It
is slower.
The next two tips came from Fred Langa's Langalist:
************
2) XP Speed Tweaks
Speaking of XP's speed: I'm sure we'll be seeing more and more of these
as time goes on and as people begin to dig into the new OS. Here's a
sampling of the first round of tweaking info:
Had an adventure with the preinstall for XP...I found that it
seemed slower than Windows 2000 pro. (Am using the XP Pro,
consider the XP home a crippled OS). Anyway it appeared to be
slower than acceptable. Since the Motherboard was an Intel,
with a Pentium 4, and XP was designed for this CPU, I figured
it should be quick, at least quicker than 2K. So I again did
the research. Well I figured it out and when properly setup
for this configuration, the comparison between XP and W2K is
on the same hardware is as dramatic as running windows 98 on a
386 compared to running windows 98 on a PIII 1G, mind you on
the same hardware. On the machine related to the comments
contained in this news letter, If it has an Intel chip set, go
to the Intel sight download the latest chipset drivers for XP,
and the ATA IDE drives for XP. Uninstall the video drivers,
uninstall any ide drivers installed on the machine. Reboot,
install if INF (chipset drivers) reboot, install the IDE
drivers, reboot, Reinstall the video drivers, and if [the
vendor] did not cripple the capabilities of the hardware, you
have a machine the is so much faster that you will not believe
it's the same hardware.--- Randy
Hello Fred, I was reading your newsletter dated 2001-10-22.
While reading article #12, I clicked on the link that was
provided, http://www.southbaypc.com/PromptExplore and shortly
after downloaded the file called Prompt Explore. When
installation was almost completed, I had clicked on the
website button and it brought me to this site
http://www.firase.com/ , and lo and behold at the bottom of
this page was one possible answer to article #2 of the same
newsletter concerning Windows XP.
Speed up Windows 2000 & XP:
Here's a tip for speeding up Internet and LAN
browsing on Windows 2000 and XP machines.
Open regedit.exe from Start->Run
Navigate to
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current
Version/Explorer/RemoteComputer/NameSpace
[note: line break inserted so line will fit]
Under that branch, select the key
{D6277990-4C6A-11CF-8D87-00AA0060F5BF}
Delete it
This key instructs Windows to search for Scheduled
Tasks on remote computers. Unless you use this
feature, which most people don't (for remote
machines), it is safe to delete the key.
--- Tom
Thanks, Randy and Tom!
************
Hope that helps!
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20316
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 20:36:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
David: You and I seem have started from vastly different positions
to arrive at nearly the same view on this latest war.
Thank you for saying what I feel needed to be said. BTW: Sen. Joe
Biden of Delaware said much the same as you shortly after 9-11 and
the media did not bother to repeat it more than once, sad to say.
It's time to stop pussy-footing around and declare war on those who
wish us dead. It shouldn't prove too difficult to word such a
declaration of war, IMHO.
Ed J
>The argument that requires your reply is, let me restate it for you, that a
>President of this country, correctly or incorrectly under the Constitution, *has*
>declared we are at war. He didn't really have much of a choice after September 9,
>did he? What does that require you to do? I cannot answer what you deem your
>requirements of citizenship to be, but I can answer for myself. That forces me,
>regardless of the fact that I wouldn't have voted for this President for
>dogcatcher, to accept his declaration at face value. Even his lack of leadership,
>lack of plan, and lack of vision (inherited, obviously) requires that I support
>his position for the time being to enable him to put something that may pass for a
>plan together that ultimately will succeed. Moreover, more importantly, his
>position that there is and should be a war is correct in my viewpoint. There
>should be a declared war -- Constitutionally lawful, not some vague speeches by a
>figurehead declaring 'a new kind of war' that 'may last' on into the 22d century.
>I support the position that there is a war because I agree there must be a real
>declared war to remedy the offense -- a serious offense against our Country's
>peace and tranquility that has killed some 6,000 citizens of this country, killed
>not merely a few before, and continues counting victims even today ... that nurse
>in New York City just died, didn't she? He said it is war. The current somewhat
>stupid law allows him to do that for sixty days. He didn't have to wait sixty days
>to ask for a declared war from Congress. But seemingly he has. The clock is
>running. He's sent our sons and daughters to the middle east. They are engaged in
>war-making. And some have died, in non-combat accidents, and plainly more will, if
>this goes on, and those who die eventually will be in combat.
>
<snip>
>
>What do you want to call it, Gordon? A few annoying Islamic fundamentalists?
>Wolves following far, far behind our three-horse sleigh? Give them the few
>provinces in dispute they wish. "Peace in our times!" Toss them a few of our
>friends. A few more next year. Let them raise another generation of assassins. Let
>them learn a little more about how to deliver death from afar. They'll never catch
>us, will they?
>
>Read a little history, would you?
> --
> David M. Silver
> http://www.heinleinsociety.org
> http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
> "The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
> Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
> Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20317
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 00:42:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3be064ca.39917174@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> I found this on the MSNBC message board and thought it was worth
> posting over here. Just to show why Jordan itself is the Palestinian
> nation, at least as originally established.
Thanks for posting this, Jai, but I am puzzled as to your "just to show
why". Where is this shown in the document? The only mention of "Jordan"
is the Jordan river in Article 25. All that Article says it that it is
up to the discretion of the Mandatory whether to apply the other Articles
(save 15, 16, and 18 which /must/ apply) to the inhabitants of the area
between the as-yet-to-be-established (at that time) eastern border of
Palestine and the Jordan River. That leaves the West Bank up in the air.
If anything, it means that the "Palestinian nation" was Mandatory
Palestine /excluding/ West Bank. This nation was, of course, like the
West bank itself, filled with Arabs.
Now it is true that the document calls for Jews being allowed and
encouraged to settle in Palestine. This settlement specifically mentions
"state" and "waste" lands. And, of course, we are told that the
Administration will see to to that "the rights and position of other
sections of the population are not prejudiced". So if I am an Arab with
title to an olive grove from the days of the Ottoman Empire, I cannot
legally be chased away.
All very interesting, but how any of this makes Jordan the "originally
established" Palestinian nation escapes me.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20318
From: David Wright"
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 12:11:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3be1dd90.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
> news:3be1a5f1.0@news.sff.net...
(snip)
Thanks for the tips. Our media arrived late yesterday afternoon, but
surprise,surprise. Microsoft is having trouble with its server that handles
the activation codes and we have not yet received them. They were supposed
to have e-mailed the codes directly to me, but nichevo so far.
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20319
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 18:27:48 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3be0fcc4.3329490@news.sff.net...
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:35:50 -0800, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >We look at
> >Islam and we see the women as oppressed, when often what we see are
cultural
> >differences and poverty.
>
> I'm not willing to write off oppression as mere "cultural
> differences." Wearing a chador is not a mere "cultural difference" if
> you have no other other choice. Nor even the means to express a
> preference not to. Not to mention the "right" of your father or
> brother to beat you death for not wearing one, or not wearing it
> properly, or expressing your preference, or whatever offense they
> might decide you have committed.
None of these are generally accepted in the Muslim world, so they are not
reasons why Islamic countries wouldn't have women leaders. They are
localized, and most Islamic countries do not find acceptable.
Egypt has more women judges than the US. Morocco has banned the veil
outright. There are a larger percentage of female Egyptian judges than in
the US. In many Muslim countries the college students are 50% female. Many
of these countries have mandatory maternity leave, child care, and equal pay
laws for women, as well.
Just because a country is Muslim, and women dress in the fashion they do,
does not make these countries any more oppressive to women than other
countries around the world, but when we see a veil, we assume some sort of
oppressive atmosphere, regardless of whether or not it is there. _Some_ of
these countries are oppressive, but some are not, and many are changing
rapidly. Some will still have vestiges of such policies, too, in spite of
improved records, but so did many US states until recently.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20320
From: William B. Dennis 2nd"
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 23:33:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3be2dccf.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3be0fcc4.3329490@news.sff.net...
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 13:35:50 -0800, "Filksinger"
> > <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
> >
> > >We look at
> > >Islam and we see the women as oppressed, when often what we see are
> cultural
> > >differences and poverty.
> >
> > I'm not willing to write off oppression as mere "cultural
> > differences." Wearing a chador is not a mere "cultural difference" if
> > you have no other other choice. Nor even the means to express a
> > preference not to. Not to mention the "right" of your father or
> > brother to beat you death for not wearing one, or not wearing it
> > properly, or expressing your preference, or whatever offense they
> > might decide you have committed.
>
> None of these are generally accepted in the Muslim world, so they are not
> reasons why Islamic countries wouldn't have women leaders. They are
> localized, and most Islamic countries do not find acceptable.
>
> Egypt has more women judges than the US. Morocco has banned the veil
> outright. There are a larger percentage of female Egyptian judges than in
> the US. In many Muslim countries the college students are 50% female. Many
> of these countries have mandatory maternity leave, child care, and equal
pay
> laws for women, as well.
>
> Just because a country is Muslim, and women dress in the fashion they do,
> does not make these countries any more oppressive to women than other
> countries around the world, but when we see a veil, we assume some sort of
> oppressive atmosphere, regardless of whether or not it is there. _Some_ of
> these countries are oppressive, but some are not, and many are changing
> rapidly. Some will still have vestiges of such policies, too, in spite of
> improved records, but so did many US states until recently.
In some nations, you will find a large proportion of the women -- especially
the young ones -- decked out in clothing that is quite revealing. Of course,
that is because they are working in the sex trades, often at very young
ages. Are these women less oppressed because they wear revealing clothing?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20321
From: dee"
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 05:42:10 -0600
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Shane Glaseman" <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org> wrote in message
news:3BE1AA47.F99FD11D@aero.org...
> dee wrote:
> > I find it hard to believe that you have never met a cop who wasn't
> > trustworthy, if you have much exposure to cops.
> Well, "much" is a comparative, of course. I know more cops than the
> average citizen, for a variety of reasons. But not as many as you do,
> probably, since you actually work in the field. So anything I say
> regarding my experience would be as nothing compared to yours. However,
> I believe that, because of the unique requirements/situations/social
> status of police officers, the perception that there are many "bad ones"
> is artificially inflated.
Hi, Shane. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that most cops are bad
cops, just taking issue with having met _none_ who were not trustworthy.
That may be very true of your experience (and what you knew about the
officers) but I believe (based on my experience) that it is just as silly
and/or dangerous to accept that all cops are good as that all cops are bad.
One can easily go from there to "The cop is always right/wrong," depending
on your original perspective. In reality, the old bell curve applies--there
are a few really exceptional good guys, a few really exceptional bad guys,
and a great big middle ground of hardworking folks, trying hard and doing a
good job, with occasional human lapses.
> As you say, any sufficiently large social universe will contain "bad
> apples"; however, if we look at the special niche police occupy, I think
> it can be shown that the "bad apples" there tend to "spoil the barrel"
> to a much more significant degree than is warranted from an objective
> perspective (which no one can have, of course). <snip>
The "bad apples" don't just spoil the barrel of public perception,
though, they can also spoil the barrel of real trustworthiness. The "blue
code" still lives. Elected judges are extremely hesitant to make a ruling
that amounts to calling a police officer a liar, _even the ones that
everyone in the system knows would rather "climb a tree and tell a lie than
stay on the ground and tell the truth."_ Juries don't know as much about
the individual officers as local judges do, but around here, they tend to
accept what the officers say, no matter how improbable, over anyone else.
<large snip about painting with too broad a brush.>
> Nor do I mean it as an excuse of unacceptable behavior on the part of
> police; my attitude is, if you want to wear that badge, you need to try
> harder than *anyone* else does to suppress whatever aspects of your
> personality are not appropriate to the job (assuming you slipped through
> the screening process).
Agreed, about trying harder. In fact, I will go further--it's not just
those who slipped through the screening process: it is every single person
who serves as a police officer. They are not machines, they are not angels,
they are human beings. There _will_ be times when the demands of the job
strike a nerve of one sort or another. The multitude of good officers do
their best to suppress the impulses they have at that time, and "rise above"
it to conduct themselves with their usual professionalism. Usally, they
succeed. Sometimes there are lapses. If we could all acknowledge the
lapses, without needing to believe that all cops are saints, and deal with
them individually, maybe the public would not be as likely to believe that
cops are just legal stormtroopers, and the PTB will whitewash all
wrongdoing. If we could all acknowledge the lapses, without needing to
believe that all cops are monsters, and deal with them individually, maybe
the police would not be as likely to believe that its them vs. all
non-police, and the rest of the world is out to do them in.
> But I think it does explain to some degree the prevalent attitude that
> "cops are just legal stormtroopers."
I get the distinct impression that this part is vastly different in
small-town south Alabama, from L.A. The "many bad ones" perception is not
particularly prevalent, here. We're pretty conservative, you know.
>It all feeds
> itself, and there's no one thing that we can fix that will make it "all
better."
Here we agree completely. As a start, maybe if we all made an effort to
get to know some police officers individually, we would see them as
individuals, and they would see us as individuals, too.
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20322
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 10:31:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3be2dccf.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> Egypt has more women judges than the US.
....
> There are a larger percentage of female Egyptian judges than in
> the US.
Are both these statements true, or were you trying to say something else
with one of them?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20323
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:45:39 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I've been ignoring the parent thread so I'm late to this party.
It depends on how you define "untrustworthy." This past week a local
officer entered an Alford plea in a domestic violence case. Personally,
I've known several officers, deputies, and troopers in Eastern Washington
who thought that wedding rings, both their own and MINE, were for display
only. Shall we talk about the "perks" of the ~job~ like free coffee, meals,
entertainment, etc.
Back when I was working nights in the only 24 hour cafe in a 20 mile radius,
I saw and heard too much. These were/are ~good~ guys; overworked, very
underpaid, and undertrained.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message news:3be3d8c4.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Shane Glaseman" <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org> wrote in message
> news:3BE1AA47.F99FD11D@aero.org...
> > dee wrote:
> > > I find it hard to believe that you have never met a cop who wasn't
> > > trustworthy, if you have much exposure to cops.
> > Well, "much" is a comparative, of course. I know more cops than the
> > average citizen, for a variety of reasons. But not as many as you do,
> > probably, since you actually work in the field. So anything I say
> > regarding my experience would be as nothing compared to yours. However,
> > I believe that, because of the unique requirements/situations/social
> > status of police officers, the perception that there are many "bad ones"
> > is artificially inflated.
>
> Hi, Shane. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that most cops are bad
> cops, just taking issue with having met _none_ who were not trustworthy.
> That may be very true of your experience (and what you knew about the
> officers) but I believe (based on my experience) that it is just as silly
> and/or dangerous to accept that all cops are good as that all cops are
bad.
> One can easily go from there to "The cop is always right/wrong,"
depending
> on your original perspective. In reality, the old bell curve
applies--there
> are a few really exceptional good guys, a few really exceptional bad guys,
> and a great big middle ground of hardworking folks, trying hard and doing
a
> good job, with occasional human lapses.
>
> > As you say, any sufficiently large social universe will contain "bad
> > apples"; however, if we look at the special niche police occupy, I think
> > it can be shown that the "bad apples" there tend to "spoil the barrel"
> > to a much more significant degree than is warranted from an objective
> > perspective (which no one can have, of course). <snip>
>
> The "bad apples" don't just spoil the barrel of public perception,
> though, they can also spoil the barrel of real trustworthiness. The "blue
> code" still lives. Elected judges are extremely hesitant to make a ruling
> that amounts to calling a police officer a liar, _even the ones that
> everyone in the system knows would rather "climb a tree and tell a lie
than
> stay on the ground and tell the truth."_ Juries don't know as much about
> the individual officers as local judges do, but around here, they tend to
> accept what the officers say, no matter how improbable, over anyone else.
>
> <large snip about painting with too broad a brush.>
>
> > Nor do I mean it as an excuse of unacceptable behavior on the part of
> > police; my attitude is, if you want to wear that badge, you need to try
> > harder than *anyone* else does to suppress whatever aspects of your
> > personality are not appropriate to the job (assuming you slipped through
> > the screening process).
>
> Agreed, about trying harder. In fact, I will go further--it's not
just
> those who slipped through the screening process: it is every single person
> who serves as a police officer. They are not machines, they are not
angels,
> they are human beings. There _will_ be times when the demands of the job
> strike a nerve of one sort or another. The multitude of good officers do
> their best to suppress the impulses they have at that time, and "rise
above"
> it to conduct themselves with their usual professionalism. Usally, they
> succeed. Sometimes there are lapses. If we could all acknowledge the
> lapses, without needing to believe that all cops are saints, and deal with
> them individually, maybe the public would not be as likely to believe that
> cops are just legal stormtroopers, and the PTB will whitewash all
> wrongdoing. If we could all acknowledge the lapses, without needing to
> believe that all cops are monsters, and deal with them individually, maybe
> the police would not be as likely to believe that its them vs. all
> non-police, and the rest of the world is out to do them in.
>
> > But I think it does explain to some degree the prevalent attitude that
> > "cops are just legal stormtroopers."
>
> I get the distinct impression that this part is vastly different in
> small-town south Alabama, from L.A. The "many bad ones" perception is not
> particularly prevalent, here. We're pretty conservative, you know.
>
> >It all feeds
> > itself, and there's no one thing that we can fix that will make it "all
> better."
>
> Here we agree completely. As a start, maybe if we all made an effort
to
> get to know some police officers individually, we would see them as
> individuals, and they would see us as individuals, too.
>
> --Dee
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20324
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 07:53:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3BE055B6.3C1E2EDF@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The argument that requires your reply is, let me restate it for you, that a
> > President of this country, correctly or incorrectly under the Constitution, *has*
> > declared we are at war.
>
> This is a claim, not an argument. An argument, as all Monty Python fans
> know, is a series of connected statements in support of a proposition.
> And try as I might, I'm not sure I find an argument in the rest of that
> long paragraph I cut. Are you trying to establish with all that the
> proposition that the U.S. is at war, despite the lack of a declaration?
> Despite the fact that it is a "new kind of war"? What, exactly, are
> citizens to expect from a "new kind of war"? Are we supposed to intuit
> this?
>
> From some legal perspective we might well be at war; I'll leave that to
> you, as the lawyer. I am not sure that it makes sense (not that the law
> has to make sense) for a nation to be "at war" with a non-governmental
> organization or individual(s). If and when Congress declares war on some
> entity, I'll start researching the precedents for war on that kind of
> entity.
>
snip large portions ... but see below.
> ...
> > > As I have suggested before, I'm not sure that it is useful to
> > > characterize the current situation as a war. Doing so might make the
> > > problem even more difficult to solve.
> >
> > What do you want to call it, Gordon? A few annoying Islamic fundamentalists?
> > Wolves following far, far behind our three-horse sleigh? Give them the few
> > provinces in dispute they wish.
>
> No. Withdraw our forces from Saudi Arabia. Oil will still come out of
> the ground; count on it. Support a Palestinian state in the territory
> outside of the borders that Israel came into the U.N. with. If Israel
> cannot defend those borders, it is not the problem of the U.S.
> government. Private parties may give aid as they wish.
Based on this position, I really don't think there's any purpose in continuing the
argument. You've a closed mind to any argument, and merely being provocative. [Also,
what in the world makes you think that, if Israel cannot defend those borders and faces
Holocaust II, it'll leave those wells producing for anyone's consumption? You must
think this is some ivory tower game they're playing. I wouldn't if I were being pushed
by their owners into the sea. Green glass all over those fields would be my last act;
and they'd glow in the dark for centuries thereafter. Maybe not even the last act.
"Welcome back to your former wealth of camels and goats, if any of them or you
survive," would be my imprecation ending that War.] However, for your general
edification on the issue whether there is a war now ... see, the discussion of what is,
and what isn't a 'war' in Campbell v. Clinton, United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit at
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5214a.txt
It may surprise you to find how how few 'declared' wars we've found in our history, yet
equally amaze you how little doubt the Court expresses that those other wars were
indeed wars.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20325
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 14:13:10 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BE5645D.EBE62D78@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
....
> > No. Withdraw our forces from Saudi Arabia. Oil will still come out of
> > the ground; count on it. Support a Palestinian state in the territory
> > outside of the borders that Israel came into the U.N. with. If Israel
> > cannot defend those borders, it is not the problem of the U.S.
> > government. Private parties may give aid as they wish.
>
> Based on this position, I really don't think there's any purpose in continuing the
> argument. You've a closed mind to any argument, and merely being provocative.
I think I have been managing to conduct an argument with Jai, and I have
several times within that argument suggested the possibility that I might
be wrong in some way. (In the course of this, and other discussions, we
have had a few heated exchanges, but nothing like your response to me.)
I suppose I could give even more evidence of my open mind if I were to
actually change it, but I have seen no reason to do that yet.
> [Also,
> what in the world makes you think that, if Israel cannot defend those borders and faces
> Holocaust II, it'll leave those wells producing for anyone's consumption?
So U.S. policy should be held hostage the fact that Israel has nuclear
weapons it might use? If Israel becomes so desperate that it endorses
wanton destruction, perhaps we should destroy it first.
> However, for your general
> edification on the issue whether there is a war now ... see, the discussion of what is,
> and what isn't a 'war' in Campbell v. Clinton, United States Court of Appeals for the
> District of Columbia Circuit at
>
> http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200002/99-5214a.txt
Thank you, David. I always appreciate pointers from an expert.
You have given my "close mindedness" as a reason for discontinuing this
discussion. I have another reason. It seems to me that the issue of
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is a subject on which you cannot,
at least at present, simply present argument without adding a noticeable
degree of personal animosity. While I sometimes enjoy a flame war on the
'net, it is really not my desire to engage in such with anyone who has
shown the degree of respect for Mr. Heinlein's work that you have. We
have better things to discuss.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20326
From: William B. Dennis 2nd"
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 21:15:06 -0600
Subject: guestbook scripts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
http://cgi.resourceindex.com/Programs_and_Scripts/Perl/Guestbooks/
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
Editor -- Peoria Times-Observer
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term
security, deserve neither freedom nor security. -Benjamin Franklin,
statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
begin 666 William B. Dennis 2nd.vcf
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3,S$U,#9:#0I%3D0Z5D-!4D0-"@``
`
end
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20327
From: William B. Dennis 2nd"
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 22:29:53 -0600
Subject: Re: guestbook scripts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Boy, I posted this to the wrong place, didn't I?
That could have been embarrassing...
"William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com> wrote in message
news:3be6048d.0@news.sff.net...
> http://cgi.resourceindex.com/Programs_and_Scripts/Perl/Guestbooks/
>
> --
>
> William B. Dennis 2nd
> Editor -- Peoria Times-Observer
> http://peoriatimesobserver.com
>
> People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term
> security, deserve neither freedom nor security. -Benjamin Franklin,
> statesman, author, and inventor (1706-1790)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20328
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 04:36:49 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:07:03 -0800, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>The FBI is geared to prosecute crimes, not gather
>intelligence.
Exactly. (to draw my rather long-winded paragraph to a neat, more
succinct conclusion <g>)
But if the FBI is also in charge of providing early warning for
terrorist attacks, where does that leave us?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20329
From: Filksinger"
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 21:22:16 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.164dd7e8a3f169e19897bf@news.sff.net...
> In article <3be2dccf.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> ...
> > Egypt has more women judges than the US.
> ...
> > There are a larger percentage of female Egyptian judges than in
> > the US.
>
> Are both these statements true, or were you trying to say something
else
> with one of them?
Cut and paste confusion.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20330
From: Filksinger"
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 21:26:57 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3be6169e.10461932@news.sff.net...
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 12:07:03 -0800, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >The FBI is geared to prosecute crimes, not gather
> >intelligence.
>
> Exactly. (to draw my rather long-winded paragraph to a neat, more
> succinct conclusion <g>)
>
> But if the FBI is also in charge of providing early warning for
> terrorist attacks, where does that leave us?
On the watershed end of a creek polluted with human feces while
lacking possession of a manual propulsion device?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20331
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 22:18:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3BE5645D.EBE62D78@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> > "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
[snip]
> We
> have better things to discuss.
You're quite correct, of course. [But don't bet one of our boomers can get its missles off
before IDF gets off theirs.]
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20332
From: Charles Graft"
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 07:25:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"John Tilden" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3be1965f.0@news.sff.net...
> BC, I just saw a blurb about mail centers in Indianapolis having found
traces
> of Anthrax. Since I know you deal with the machinery I hope that you have
> been tested and passed.
>
> My thoughts are with you.
>
> --JT
JT--
Sorry I'm so late on this --things have been busy here. (I have a new
girl friend!)
But the facility where anthrax was supposedly found is a privately
operated facility that does contract repairs for the Postal Service. They
repaired some devices used by the Brentwood facility near DC. So it wasn't
even the facility where I work.
In addition, I just got home from a two week school in Norman, OK. so I
have not been anywhere near it. The school was advanced telecommunications
and was mainly twisted pair networking. Hubs, switches, routers, bridges,
and all that. Kind of fun.
Our facility is due for "decontamination" in the next week or two.
It's hard to tell rumor from fact in this case, but my worry quotient is
pretty low.
<<Big Charlie>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20333
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 09:55:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3be622c6.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
>
> "Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.164dd7e8a3f169e19897bf@news.sff.net...
> > In article <3be2dccf.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> > ...
> > > Egypt has more women judges than the US.
> > ...
> > > There are a larger percentage of female Egyptian judges than in
> > > the US.
> >
> > Are both these statements true, or were you trying to say something
> else
> > with one of them?
>
> Cut and paste confusion.
And it is the second sentence that is true?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20334
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:28:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 07:25:01 -0600, "Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:
> In addition, I just got home from a two week school in Norman, OK. so I
>have not been anywhere near it.
Glad to hear it. I heard more details AFTER I posted my note, of
course, and figured it wasn't your site since I've heard you speak of
actually being around the mail, but it's good to hear it. And
congrats on the girlfriend and the new tech knowledge!
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20335
From: Filksinger"
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:25:12 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1650726bc95633cb9897c1@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> And it is the second sentence that is true?
Yes. The first was supposed to be removed as incorrect, the second retained.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20336
From: Filksinger"
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 15:44:31 -0800
Subject: Re: Civil Liberties
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com> wrote in message
news:3be381e2.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:3be2dccf.0@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> > Just because a country is Muslim, and women dress in the fashion they
do,
> > does not make these countries any more oppressive to women than other
> > countries around the world, but when we see a veil, we assume some sort
of
> > oppressive atmosphere, regardless of whether or not it is there. _Some_
of
> > these countries are oppressive, but some are not, and many are changing
> > rapidly. Some will still have vestiges of such policies, too, in spite
of
> > improved records, but so did many US states until recently.
>
> In some nations, you will find a large proportion of the women --
especially
> the young ones -- decked out in clothing that is quite revealing. Of
course,
> that is because they are working in the sex trades, often at very young
> ages. Are these women less oppressed because they wear revealing clothing?
Of course not. Nevertheless, it is often seen that way. In 1994, I believe,
French public schools ordered that Islamic women wearing head scarves (not
even veils, just scarves) were to be forbidden entry into the schools. In
the US, it has been my long experience that while it may be considered
offensive to speak out against Catholics, Jews, or other religious groups, a
great deal of ignorance and prejudice is considered acceptable when speaking
about Islam. In particular, cultural differences common between the Middle
East and the West are seen as being the fault of Islam, and extreme
situations in Islamic countries are seen as characteristic of the whole.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20337
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:33:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
BC: Glad to hear that you were not near the contaminated site.
They have just cleaned up a Postal processing plant in South Jersey
that employs over 1100 people. After decontamination this work site
has been declared clean. I would hate to seem like an alarmist, but
how long does a work area remain clean? (Until it get contaminated
again?).
I think we should all buy stock in the companies that do
environmental cleaning and the companies that make the machines that
radiate (sterilize) food (and now mail).
Ed J
On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 07:25:01 -0600, "Charles Graft"
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"John Tilden" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
>news:3be1965f.0@news.sff.net...
>> BC, I just saw a blurb about mail centers in Indianapolis having found
>traces
>> of Anthrax. Since I know you deal with the machinery I hope that you have
>> been tested and passed.
>>
>> My thoughts are with you.
>>
>> --JT
>
>JT--
>
> Sorry I'm so late on this --things have been busy here. (I have a new
>girl friend!)
>
> But the facility where anthrax was supposedly found is a privately
>operated facility that does contract repairs for the Postal Service. They
>repaired some devices used by the Brentwood facility near DC. So it wasn't
>even the facility where I work.
>
> In addition, I just got home from a two week school in Norman, OK. so I
>have not been anywhere near it. The school was advanced telecommunications
>and was mainly twisted pair networking. Hubs, switches, routers, bridges,
>and all that. Kind of fun.
>
> Our facility is due for "decontamination" in the next week or two.
>It's hard to tell rumor from fact in this case, but my worry quotient is
>pretty low.
>
><<Big Charlie>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20338
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 01:43:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Win XP & Cable Modem
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote in message
>
>It sounds like you had a bad install or bad drivers on your Win2k system.
>I'd say it was your sound driver.
>
>"Sound driver?", I hear you say. "Don't you mean video driver? What does a
>sound driver have to do with my display?"
>
Nope. Sound card was not even installed yet. I can't do anything at VGA, so
I was merely trying to change resolution, etc. Latest ATI drivers, yadda
yadda yadda. Got past it, went on to other things, more problems, futzed and
fussed for a while, gave up. Am much happier at the moment. Waiting to see
on XP.
WJaKe
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20339
From: Jane Davitt
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 09:08:07 -0500
Subject: Links on Heinlein Society page
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Some of you here may have taken a look at the web site
for The Heinlein
Society over the last few months. Some of you have joined
the Society or
supported its efforts. Thanks to all of you who have
helped to 'pay it
forward'.
I have a new way for you to help, members and non members
alike and I'd
appreciate it if you could take the time to read this
post.
I am on the library committee for the HS and I've added
some links to
Amazon on the newly designed web site. If you go through
any of the
links to buy anything (doesn't have to be the featured
Heinlein books,
though they make great gifts!) then Amazon give the
Society a percentage
of the cost of your order. This costs you nothing and
benefits us
greatly.
All you need to do is bookmark us, if you haven't
already, and, the next
time you're thinking of buying from Amazon simply take a
few seconds to
go in through our door, instead of directly to Amazon.
Thanks to any of you who support us in this way. It's
much appreciated.
Jane Davitt
for The Heinlein Society Library Committee.
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20340
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:04:46 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hi, Dee.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that most cops are bad
> cops, just taking issue with having met _none_ who were not trustworthy.
> That may be very true of your experience (and what you knew about the
> officers) but I believe (based on my experience) that it is just as silly
> and/or dangerous to accept that all cops are good as that all cops are bad.
> One can easily go from there to "The cop is always right/wrong," depending
> on your original perspective. In reality, the old bell curve applies--there
> are a few really exceptional good guys, a few really exceptional bad guys,
> and a great big middle ground of hardworking folks, trying hard and doing a
> good job, with occasional human lapses.
Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that, because all the ones I knew were
(apparently) trustworthy, that therefore ALL of them are. Of course,
they're not; they're human beings, after all, and they span the range of
decency. I just take exception to the apparently prevailing attitude
that *most* are corrupt to one degree or another -- I don't buy it. Even
if one's direct experience of police officers has *always* been
negative, that's still not sufficient cause to assert that they all are
losers. Your last sentence above is telling and true... and the fact
that someone might suffer the "occasional human lapse" is not, to me,
sufficient reason to label that person "untrustworthy"; by this measure,
NO ONE is trustworthy.
> > As you say, any sufficiently large social universe will contain "bad
> > apples"; however, if we look at the special niche police occupy, I think
> > it can be shown that the "bad apples" there tend to "spoil the barrel"
> > to a much more significant degree than is warranted from an objective
> > perspective (which no one can have, of course). <snip>
>
> The "bad apples" don't just spoil the barrel of public perception,
> though, they can also spoil the barrel of real trustworthiness. The "blue
> code" still lives. Elected judges are extremely hesitant to make a ruling
> that amounts to calling a police officer a liar, _even the ones that
> everyone in the system knows would rather "climb a tree and tell a lie than
> stay on the ground and tell the truth."_ Juries don't know as much about
> the individual officers as local judges do, but around here, they tend to
> accept what the officers say, no matter how improbable, over anyone else.
Well, true.
> <large snip about painting with too broad a brush.>
Me, too -- the snip, that is. We agree.
>
> >It all feeds
> > itself, and there's no one thing that we can fix that will make it "all
> better."
>
> Here we agree completely. As a start, maybe if we all made an effort to
> get to know some police officers individually, we would see them as
> individuals, and they would see us as individuals, too.
>
True of pretty much every human endeavor.
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20341
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 16:14:12 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
>
> I've been ignoring the parent thread so I'm late to this party.
>
> It depends on how you define "untrustworthy." This past week a local
> officer entered an Alford plea in a domestic violence case. Personally,
> I've known several officers, deputies, and troopers in Eastern Washington
> who thought that wedding rings, both their own and MINE, were for display
> only. Shall we talk about the "perks" of the ~job~ like free coffee, meals,
> entertainment, etc.
>
> Back when I was working nights in the only 24 hour cafe in a 20 mile radius,
> I saw and heard too much. These were/are ~good~ guys; overworked, very
> underpaid, and undertrained.
I think the telling part of that above is the "undertrained" part --
ideally, complete and correct training would include ethics. Even the
most ideologically-driven rookie would take part in activities that we
would consider unethical if such were considered to be normal,
reasonable perks of the job. I exclude, of course, anything patently
illegal, e.g., your comments about "ornamental" wedding bands and the
implied assumption that domestic violence is permitted (I'm sorry, I
don't recognize the term "Alford plea"). All jobs have perks of one sort
or another, and in many cases I would argue that far from being
detrimental, they contribute to the job, both for the worker and the "customer."
The perks for police officers you mention -- free coffee, food,
entertainment -- should not be such, however; they place the officer in
the position of feeling morally bound to "favor" such benefactors. Those
selfsame benefactors would themselves feel entitled to such favor.
Neither is desirable.
But other perks I wouldn't object to. Preferential seating on airlines.
Preferred parking spaces. Minor things that neither benefit nor harm
specific individuals directly.
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20342
From: dee"
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 20:29:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
'rita wrote:
> >Shall we talk about the "perks" of the ~job~ like free coffee, meals,
> > entertainment, etc.
Shane wrote:
> The perks for police officers you mention -- free coffee, food,
> entertainment -- should not be such, however; they place the officer in
> the position of feeling morally bound to "favor" such benefactors. Those
> selfsame benefactors would themselves feel entitled to such favor.
> Neither is desirable.
I, on the other hand, don't see anything worng with a free cup of
coffee. It costs the business _pennies_ and I cannot imagine that any
owner expects that tiny favor to "buy" him anything more than the presence
of the officers on their break time. I you operate an all-night donut shop
or Awful House, it is a good thing to have squad cars in the parking lot and
uniformed officers coming in and out on a regular basis.
When a community group I belonged to many years ago ran a concession at
the fair, we opened early and closed late, to feed the carnies. A group of
nearly all women, rarrely more than 1 man, never more than 2 that I can
recall, we had a lot of cash in the register, with mobs of people. We
offered the uniformed FD and PD officers free drinks and 1/2 price food
(covering the cost of the food) because we were glad to have them dropping
in a lot, and to shoow a general appreciation. We did not look for anything
unethical out of the officers, and I would certainly expect that to be _far_
to small a benefit to be effective as any sort of bribe.
The fair outhority in the city where I live now gives officers _in
uniform_ free admission. (I think that a lot of stadium-type events may
have the same policy.) Again, the reasoning seems to be the desirability of
having a visible law-enforcement presence.
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20343
From: Bob
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 22:48:43 -0800
Subject: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I have been absent for far too long. I intend to post and read a bit more
often in the future. I'm finally more or less settled in in my dorm, and
while the net connection is sporadic, it seems sufficient for reading HF.
<br>Anyway, I'm off to go find some thread to jump in to. It's good to
be back!
<br>Bob Lawson
<br> </html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20344
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 09:04:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Welcome back, Bob!
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20345
From: David Wright"
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:47:45 -0500
Subject: Awful House (Waffle House)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message news:3be9ef5c.0@news.sff.net...
>
(snip)
I you operate an all-night donut shop
> or Awful House,
(snip)
First heard it called that from my son when he was in college.
Over here in North Jawjuh, we have, (due to a light being out), a "Waffle
Hose".
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20346
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 09:01:36 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Dee wrote:
> I, on the other hand, don't see anything worng with a free cup of
> coffee. It costs the business _pennies_ and I cannot imagine that any
> owner expects that tiny favor to "buy" him anything more than the presence
> of the officers on their break time. I you operate an all-night donut shop
> or Awful House, it is a good thing to have squad cars in the parking lot and
> uniformed officers coming in and out on a regular basis.
I don't think the cost to the business is really the issue; people could
argue that the cost (no matter what it was) was inconsequential in their
minds, compared to the the value of having those squad cars in the
parking lot.
It seems to me that that "tiny favor" *does* buy the owner something
normal citizens are not getting -- increased police presence. If the
officers are spending *more* time in that parking lot, getting free
coffee and donuts, and discussing the whichness of what, they're
spending *less* time on patrol, where they belong... and where I pay
them to be. Yes, perhaps (in fact, certainly) you appreciate that
increased presence during the wee hours; am I supposed to cheer that you
get extra protection, and I get less?
I'm not really objecting to a free cup of coffee, or similar minor
perks; were I in the same position, I'd probably do the same. I'd do the
same for military personnel, too. But whether or not it's done, and
whether or not we in the public think it's wrong, it is in fact
unethical -- the cost of the courtesy is irrelevant. Those charged with
providing law enforcement are not supposed to favor some over others.
Such things will always go on, and like I say, I'd be "guilty," too. In
such cases all parties involved need to keep a sharp eye on it, lest
they fall down the slippery slope of ever increasing "courtesies" and
returned "benefits."
> When a community group I belonged to many years ago ran a concession at
> the fair, we opened early and closed late, to feed the carnies. A group of
> nearly all women, rarrely more than 1 man, never more than 2 that I can
> recall, we had a lot of cash in the register, with mobs of people. We
> offered the uniformed FD and PD officers free drinks and 1/2 price food
> (covering the cost of the food) because we were glad to have them dropping
> in a lot, and to shoow a general appreciation. We did not look for anything
> unethical out of the officers, and I would certainly expect that to be _far_
> to small a benefit to be effective as any sort of bribe.
But, unless the officers and firefighters were going to be there anyway,
it *was* unethical -- they were showing preferential treatment to you,
and neglecting their duty to the rest of the public (what were those
firefighters doing at a fair? I hope they were off duty. "Why did your
house burn down? You're only two blocks from the firehouse?" "Oh, the
firefighters were taking a break, having a snack at the fair... ten
blocks away."). If they were off duty but still uniformed, fine. But on
duty? No.
> The fair outhority in the city where I live now gives officers _in
> uniform_ free admission. (I think that a lot of stadium-type events may
> have the same policy.) Again, the reasoning seems to be the desirability of
> having a visible law-enforcement presence.
Again, fine if they're off duty, and the department is cool with it. If
they're on duty, why would they need to pay for admission in the first
place? Seems patrolling such a venue would be well within their job
description. And if the particular event really needs increased police
presence, maybe they should dip into that profit margin and hire some
more security guards. (And why only in uniform? An off-duty undercover
cop would be useful, yes?)
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20347
From: Charles Graft
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:30:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT and Ed --
The preliminary results of the decontamination team are in, and no
infection was found. (The official results are mostly paperwork.)
Yes, Ed; it lasts until next time. Like the rest of the world.
We technicians figure that our biggest risk is if one of our
machines converts an infected mail piece into confetti and we are the
one to pull the remains out. I guess we are mostly trusting to luck and
the fact that we are not on the east coast. Some mail handlers are
using gloves and face masks a lot more often; our group doesn't seem too
concerned. We have gone to HEPA filters on our vacuum cleaners.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20348
From: Anthony Alford"
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 15:31:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Awful House (Waffle House)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
When I lived in Nashville, I liked to joke about places being "right off
I-40, next to the Waffle House." Which pretty much describes every I-40
exit from Knoxville to Memphis. :)
"David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:3bea9b12.0@news.sff.net...
>
>
> First heard it called that from my son when he was in college.
>
> Over here in North Jawjuh, we have, (due to a light being out), a "Waffle
> Hose".
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20349
From: D.S.Higginbotham"
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 16:11:30 -0600
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Shane Glaseman wrote in message <3BEABA70.B5042FC2@aero.org>...
>Dee wrote:
>
>> I, on the other hand, don't see anything worng with a free cup of
>> coffee. It costs the business _pennies_ and I cannot imagine that any
>> owner expects that tiny favor to "buy" him anything more than the
presence
>> of the officers ON THEIR BREAK TIME. [Empasis added with Dee's current
post.]
<large snip of Shane's reasoning.>
Ah, now I see why we see this so very far apart--you are picturing duty
time and I am picturing break time.
>But, unless the officers and firefighters were going to be there anyway,
>it *was* unethical -- they were showing preferential treatment to you,
>and neglecting their duty to the rest of the public (what were those
>firefighters doing at a fair? I hope they were off duty. "Why did your
>house burn down? You're only two blocks from the firehouse?" "Oh, the
>firefighters were taking a break, having a snack at the fair... ten
>blocks away."). If they were off duty but still uniformed, fine. But on
>duty? No.
Officers on duty, when their duty is patrolling the fairground, still
get to take a break now and again. If they choose to spend their meal break
at a concession on the fairground, instead of leaving the fairground for
supper, they haven't shorted anyone.
I guess it wasn't clear that I was talking about the ones with
fairground duty. In addtion to police officers "walking their beat" on the
fairground, there is always at least one firetrick on the premises, several
firefighters, and several medics. At least around here. Again, they get
break time, too. Usually, they stay right there ont he fairgrounds, maybe
walk around with their hand-held in case something happens, leaving a
sufficient crew with the truck to respond if necessary. I am _not_ talking
about firefighters who were supposed to be on duty at the station.
(Although if they have a full crew and a truck, and they are within their
fire district, there are times it might be better for them to take their
break with their truck than POV.)
>> The fair outhority in the city where I live now gives officers _in
>> uniform_ free admission. (I think that a lot of stadium-type events may
>> have the same policy.) Again, the reasoning seems to be the desirability
of
>> having a visible law-enforcement presence.
>
>Again, fine if they're off duty, and the department is cool with it. If
>they're on duty, why would they need to pay for admission in the first
>place? Seems patrolling such a venue would be well within their job
>description. And if the particular event really needs increased police
>presence, maybe they should dip into that profit margin and hire some
>more security guards. (And why only in uniform? An off-duty undercover
>cop would be useful, yes?)
Again, this is the off-duty officers who come in uniform. The idea is
that visibility discourages rowdiness. The on-duty officers do not pay
admission, and they are paid for their time. If the business thinks it is
worth it to have them around, and the officers choose to spend their
off-duty or meal time this way, I just don't see a problem. If officers who
are supposed to be on duty are sitting around in coffee shops instead of
patrolling, surely their supervisors soon find out and deal with that.
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20350
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:44:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> >Dee wrote:
> >
> >> I, on the other hand, don't see anything worng with a free cup of
> >> coffee. It costs the business _pennies_ and I cannot imagine that any
> >> owner expects that tiny favor to "buy" him anything more than the
> presence
> >> of the officers ON THEIR BREAK TIME. [Empasis added with Dee's current
> post.]
>
> <large snip of Shane's reasoning.>
>
> Ah, now I see why we see this so very far apart--you are picturing duty
> time and I am picturing break time.
Oops. You'd think I'd read more carefully, wouldn't you? Sorry.
<snip the rest; I don't really disagree, now that I've been smacked
upside my head and told to LISTEN!)
Y'know, probably the biggest problem is that I live in L.A.
We don't have "real" county fairs. Things would be better if we did.
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20351
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:15:11 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
dee wrote:
> 'rita wrote:
> > >Shall we talk about the "perks" of the ~job~ like free coffee, meals,
> > > entertainment, etc.
>
> Shane wrote:
> > The perks for police officers you mention -- free coffee, food,
> > entertainment -- should not be such, however; they place the officer in
> > the position of feeling morally bound to "favor" such benefactors. Those
> > selfsame benefactors would themselves feel entitled to such favor.
> > Neither is desirable.
>
> I, on the other hand, don't see anything worng with a free cup of
> coffee. It costs the business _pennies_ and I cannot imagine that any
> owner expects that tiny favor to "buy" him anything more than the presence
> of the officers on their break time. I you operate an all-night donut shop
> or Awful House, it is a good thing to have squad cars in the parking lot and
> uniformed officers coming in and out on a regular basis.
Exactly! I worked graveyard in a gas station in a rather rough part of Los
Angeles during my first year back at college for the few pennies in pocket
money, supplementing my GI Bill, it gave me. Gas stations all over the area
were getting hit by armed robbers. Manager and I invested a few bucks weekly in
a 5 gallon pot, and there was coffee available in the early AM hours on my
station. Everytime a black and white stopped I made it known. I also made the
reason known. When they had time, they stopped and had a cuppa. There was no
where else open in the area where you could even buy a cup. Eight months I
worked, and there was not even an attempt. Of course, when someone stopped in
for gas and seemed disposed to hang around I offered him a free cup too,
mentioning that I kept a pot full for the cops who stopped by occasionally.
Three days after I quit to tutor high school kids for more bucks in less time,
the idiot working graveyard stopped filling the pot. Cops stopped stopping by.
They patrolled as they had before, of course, but took their breaks elsewhere
where they could find coffee or donuts or food. Within the next two months
there were three armed robberies and a shooting on the station.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20352
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:27:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Shane Glaseman wrote:
> Dee wrote:
>
> > I, on the other hand, don't see anything worng with a free cup of
> > coffee. It costs the business _pennies_ and I cannot imagine that any
> > owner expects that tiny favor to "buy" him anything more than the presence
> > of the officers on their break time. I you operate an all-night donut shop
> > or Awful House, it is a good thing to have squad cars in the parking lot and
> > uniformed officers coming in and out on a regular basis.
>
> I don't think the cost to the business is really the issue; people could
> argue that the cost (no matter what it was) was inconsequential in their
> minds, compared to the the value of having those squad cars in the
> parking lot.
>
> It seems to me that that "tiny favor" *does* buy the owner something
> normal citizens are not getting -- increased police presence. If the
> officers are spending *more* time in that parking lot, getting free
> coffee and donuts, and discussing the whichness of what, they're
> spending *less* time on patrol, where they belong... and where I pay
> them to be. Yes, perhaps (in fact, certainly) you appreciate that
> increased presence during the wee hours; am I supposed to cheer that you
> get extra protection, and I get less?
>
> I'm not really objecting to a free cup of coffee, or similar minor
> perks; were I in the same position, I'd probably do the same. I'd do the
> same for military personnel, too. But whether or not it's done, and
> whether or not we in the public think it's wrong, it is in fact
> unethical -- the cost of the courtesy is irrelevant. Those charged with
> providing law enforcement are not supposed to favor some over others.
> Such things will always go on, and like I say, I'd be "guilty," too. In
> such cases all parties involved need to keep a sharp eye on it, lest
> they fall down the slippery slope of ever increasing "courtesies" and
> returned "benefits."
Actually Shane you don't pay them anymore than the gas station operator and I
did;. and they are entitled to take their "Code 7" when and where they wish,
calls permitting. Would you rather they left their patrol area if open food and
beverage facilities aren't available, as they were not in the area I worked and
provided them coffee for free, as they were permitted to do so, calls permitting,
or remained in it? Your assumptions are invalid. The cops I served free coffee to
frequently asked me where the coffee came from. I told them my manager and I
bought it out of our pockets, which was true. Not infrequently they pressed on me
a couple of bucks, for the "coffee fund" and threatened to stop coming by if I
refused it. You didn't buy a damned thing for a cup of coffee or a donut from the
veteran street monsters we had patrolling Los Angeles in the late 1960s; and any
'slippery slope' or ever increasing 'courtesies' and returned 'benefits' arising
out of free coffee is a figment of your imagination.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20353
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 17:30:55 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Shane Glaseman wrote:
> Y'know, probably the biggest problem is that I live in L.A.
Or, possibly, you live in a different L.A. than I've lived fifty years and yet
live in; and believe everything you read in the Los Angeles Times and hear on
the TV news.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20354
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 18:34:47 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BEB30FC.77FBBE7E@verizon.net...
<snip>
> Actually Shane you don't pay them anymore than the gas station operator
and I
> did;. and they are entitled to take their "Code 7" when and where they
wish,
> calls permitting. Would you rather they left their patrol area if open
food and
> beverage facilities aren't available, as they were not in the area I
worked and
> provided them coffee for free, as they were permitted to do so, calls
permitting,
> or remained in it? Your assumptions are invalid. The cops I served free
coffee to
> frequently asked me where the coffee came from. I told them my manager and
I
> bought it out of our pockets, which was true. Not infrequently they
pressed on me
> a couple of bucks, for the "coffee fund" and threatened to stop coming by
if I
> refused it. You didn't buy a damned thing for a cup of coffee or a donut
from the
> veteran street monsters we had patrolling Los Angeles in the late 1960s;
and any
> 'slippery slope' or ever increasing 'courtesies' and returned 'benefits'
arising
> out of free coffee is a figment of your imagination.
No, it isn't. I don't usually go in for "slippery slope" arguments, but
sometimes that is what happens.
Cops are human beings. If you give them free coffee or donuts, then some
cops will, being human, just happen to pass buy your shop more often than
others, because they like you more. They aren't neglecting their jobs, as
they are just patrolling. They just, possibly unconsciously, tend to patrol
more often near you. You are a nice guy and their friend.
While it is true that cops today are more honest in the past, and thus
insist on things like paying towards the coffee, it has happened in the past
that different shop owners whose shops are not close together have
inadvertently started a competition to try to get the cops to stay at their
stores/coffee shops/restaurants. If this is allowed to continue, and the
officers get used to it, they can, quite unintentionally, come to patrol
more near places that give them more. No dishonesty; just the way habits
form.
Cops today _know_ this happens. That's why they insist on paying something
for the coffee, etc., because _they_ know that, being human, it can happen
to them if they let it.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20355
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 21:48:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charlie: The closet I have come to this type of work place worry
was with Pharmaceuticals. I worked as a second-shift machine
mechanic for Elkins-Sinn (American Home Products) for over 8 years.
When one of our machines started breaking glass and spewing toxic
chemicals, oops, I mean medicines about, we often had to kneel in it
to repair the offending machine. The worst substances to deal with
were the anti Cancer Chemotherapy drugs that had been freeze dried.
(We had massive freeze dryers that held over a ton or two of bottled
meds.) Many broken bottles put quite a spray of dust into the air.
.. . . At least we did not have some nffubyr terrorist
intentionally sending us something lethal for an aberrant machine to
chew up and spit into the air.
Ed J
(Sorry: I didn't mean to sound callus about this 'safe until the
next time subject'. Your work place is safe like a skyscraper is:
we will try to prevent someone from endangering us again; there is
just no absolutely guarantee of it.)
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:30:37 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:
>JT and Ed --
>
> The preliminary results of the decontamination team are in, and no
>infection was found. (The official results are mostly paperwork.)
>
> Yes, Ed; it lasts until next time. Like the rest of the world.
>
> We technicians figure that our biggest risk is if one of our
>machines converts an infected mail piece into confetti and we are the
>one to pull the remains out. I guess we are mostly trusting to luck and
>the fact that we are not on the east coast. Some mail handlers are
>using gloves and face masks a lot more often; our group doesn't seem too
>concerned. We have gone to HEPA filters on our vacuum cleaners.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20356
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 21:52:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Links on Heinlein Society page
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jane: Sounds like an easy way to help out. Thanks for the info. I
always seen to be shopping on Amazon this time of year.
Ed J
On Tue, 06 Nov 2001 09:08:07 -0500, Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
wrote:
>Some of you here may have taken a look at the web site
>for The Heinlein
>Society over the last few months. Some of you have joined
>the Society or
>supported its efforts. Thanks to all of you who have
>helped to 'pay it
>forward'.
>
>I have a new way for you to help, members and non members
>alike and I'd
>appreciate it if you could take the time to read this
>post.
>
>I am on the library committee for the HS and I've added
>some links to
>Amazon on the newly designed web site. If you go through
>any of the
>links to buy anything (doesn't have to be the featured
>Heinlein books,
>though they make great gifts!) then Amazon give the
>Society a percentage
>of the cost of your order. This costs you nothing and
>benefits us
>greatly.
>
>All you need to do is bookmark us, if you haven't
>already, and, the next
>time you're thinking of buying from Amazon simply take a
>few seconds to
>go in through our door, instead of directly to Amazon.
>
>Thanks to any of you who support us in this way. It's
>much appreciated.
>
>Jane Davitt
>for The Heinlein Society Library Committee.
>
>--
>http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20357
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 22:01:25 -0500
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bob: Welcome back. Another survivor from the 'Prodigy'
years <G>. Don't be a stranger (you'd be surprised at how many
of the 'old gang' are back posting again.)
.. . . . So tell us something of dorm life. Any
'roommate-from-hell' stories to share? (Hopefully, not.)
Ed J
On Wed, 07 Nov 2001 22:48:43 -0800, Bob <rclawson@calpoly.edu>
wrote:
><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
><html>
>I have been absent for far too long. I intend to post and read a bit more
>often in the future. I'm finally more or less settled in in my dorm, and
>while the net connection is sporadic, it seems sufficient for reading HF.
><br>Anyway, I'm off to go find some thread to jump in to. It's good to
>be back!
><br>Bob Lawson
><br> </html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20358
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 20:26:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> "David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:3BEB30FC.77FBBE7E@verizon.net...
> <snip>
> > Actually Shane you don't pay them anymore than the gas station operator
> and I
> > did;. and they are entitled to take their "Code 7" when and where they
> wish,
> > calls permitting. Would you rather they left their patrol area if open
> food and
> > beverage facilities aren't available, as they were not in the area I
> worked and
> > provided them coffee for free, as they were permitted to do so, calls
> permitting,
> > or remained in it? Your assumptions are invalid. The cops I served free
> coffee to
> > frequently asked me where the coffee came from. I told them my manager and
> I
> > bought it out of our pockets, which was true. Not infrequently they
> pressed on me
> > a couple of bucks, for the "coffee fund" and threatened to stop coming by
> if I
> > refused it. You didn't buy a damned thing for a cup of coffee or a donut
> from the
> > veteran street monsters we had patrolling Los Angeles in the late 1960s;
> and any
> > 'slippery slope' or ever increasing 'courtesies' and returned 'benefits'
> arising
> > out of free coffee is a figment of your imagination.
>
> No, it isn't. I don't usually go in for "slippery slope" arguments, but
> sometimes that is what happens.
>
> Cops are human beings. If you give them free coffee or donuts, then some
> cops will, being human, just happen to pass buy your shop more often than
> others, because they like you more.
Perhaps. OTOH they might be more aware that I'm the only thing open in their
area that is likely to be an object, on their graveyard shift, of an armed
robbery; and maybe focus on that very active potential for the deadly use of
force on a citizen. You did note the post upthread in which I recited how many
robberies of gas stations were occuring. You should know, Filk, that a series
of murders of station attendants occurred at or about that time. I'm not
talking about a shop or store open during daylight hours when every other
coffee shop and roach wagon is open.
> They aren't neglecting their jobs, as
> they are just patrolling. They just, possibly unconsciously, tend to patrol
> more often near you. You are a nice guy and their friend.
Precisely what I hope will occur. Why should they, possibly unconsicously,
patrol near the border of their beat so they can get outside their beat to have
coffee over there on another beat, when they feel they want it? I'd rather have
them in the middle of their beat, which is where the station at which I'm
working is.
> While it is true that cops today are more honest in the past, and thus
> insist on things like paying towards the coffee,
You did notice I was talking about the late 1960s, did you? William Parker had
a quite different standard of behavoir in the 1960s than exists today. One area
in which the standard was superior was what a street cop could accept from
anyone. "A cup of coffee" was it. Obviously some cops, like the one portrayed
by Wambaugh in _The Blue Knight_ would take more. But those guys were sui
generis, and Parker left them alone. He focused on the young ones coming up. He
had higher standards for police recruits. Today, "Rampart" is the name for all
that is wrong so far as media and public are concerned with the LAPD. Quite a
change from the late 1960s, isn't it, when "Rampart" was the newly-built
station where actors Milner and McCord patrolled in their "Adam-12." Guess
where my gas station was?
And, most media to the contrary, guess what changed?
> it has happened in the past
> that different shop owners whose shops are not close together have
> inadvertently started a competition to try to get the cops to stay at their
> stores/coffee shops/restaurants. If this is allowed to continue, and the
> officers get used to it, they can, quite unintentionally, come to patrol
> more near places that give them more. No dishonesty; just the way habits
> form.
>
> Cops today _know_ this happens.
I'm sure cops yesterday were just as fully aware of it; and, you'll note, they
insisted on paying, even though I wasn't charging a damned thing to anyone. A
gas station making coffee available to cops was unusual enough for them to
inquire where the funds were coming from. Perhaps they'd have taken coffee in
those years from the donut shop ... we don't really know, do we? Equally
perhaps the same guys who insisted on handing me a buck or two for the "coffee
fund" as they called it didn't take coffee from anyone. Remember: the ones
trained by "Wild Bill" Parker were just a little different than the "average
bears," we may have had in Los Angeles since.
Another point: a cup of coffee is an ammenity; not a bribe. I worked for a
federal agency that prosecuted law a few years later. Our boss had a rule: a
cup of coffee (or the equivalent, a coke or tea) from any member of the public
you encounter in your duties is okay if freely offered and you wish it,
anything else is verbotten, and I'll fire you if I find out about it. I agree
with him.
> That's why they insist on paying something
> for the coffee, etc., because _they_ know that, being human, it can happen
> to them if they let it.
Bottom line in my view: arguing about giving a cop a cup of coffee is
equivalent to searching for fly-specking among the ground pepper.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20359
From: Geo Rule
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 21:01:52 -0800
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 22:01:25 -0500, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>Bob: Welcome back. Another survivor from the 'Prodigy'
>years <G>. Don't be a stranger (you'd be surprised at how many
>of the 'old gang' are back posting again.)
>. . . . So tell us something of dorm life. Any
>'roommate-from-hell' stories to share? (Hopefully, not.)
>
>Ed J
>
>
Prodigy "Era", Ed. Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Prodigy.<g>
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20360
From: dee"
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 02:53:34 -0600
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Shane--
I hope the limited use of all caps didn't seem to be shouting at you. I
just wanted a way to make the emphasis easily visible, and plain text has
its limits. I had a feeling that we did not have a disagreement so much as
a mental picture of different situations. Please don't think I meant to
imply that I was provoked.
As for having a county fair, I live in a small city in an area with a
largely agricultural economy. We call our Fair week teh "National Peanut
Festival." (Of course, most of the nation has never heard of it.) Typical
county fair--recipe contests, 4-H exhibits, local beauty queens, rides and
"games of chance" on the midway, culminating in a parade. Bands and color
guards from the area high schools and from the Army, floats, antique farm
equipment and firetrucks, Shriners, etc. Just a typical small-town parade
down Main Street. There is one unique(as far as I know) feature to the
parade, that everyone looks forward to--the concrete mixer. A local
concrete company puts a mixer full of peanuts in the parade, every year,
and purs the peanuts out on the pavement as it rolls down the parade route.
Kids and adults com prepared with plastic bags too scoop them up. Funny how
much better parade peanuts taste! (There are a number of safety
precautions, and this is the only "favor" allowed in the parade. No
throwing candy, or anything else, for fear the kids might run out into
danger, trying to get goodies.) Not having any children, I would not go if
I didn't help with communications. But its lots of fun to watch the
children. I love to watch the little ones when the big Percherons pull
their wagon by.
You know, Shane, it's real hard to get a good, flaming argument going
with you. You're just so darned reasonable and courteous. Looks like a
discussion is the best we can do. ;-)
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20361
From: Filksinger"
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:13:40 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3BEB5ADC.8BE36164@verizon.net...
> Filksinger wrote:
<snip>
> > Cops are human beings. If you give them free coffee or donuts, then some
> > cops will, being human, just happen to pass buy your shop more often
than
> > others, because they like you more.
>
> Perhaps. OTOH they might be more aware that I'm the only thing open in
their
> area that is likely to be an object, on their graveyard shift, of an armed
> robbery; and maybe focus on that very active potential for the deadly use
of
> force on a citizen. You did note the post upthread in which I recited how
many
> robberies of gas stations were occuring. You should know, Filk, that a
series
> of murders of station attendants occurred at or about that time. I'm not
> talking about a shop or store open during daylight hours when every other
> coffee shop and roach wagon is open.
I understand. And I'd do the same thing. I'd just be aware that, just
because the benefits clearly far outweigh the "slippery slope" danger,
nevertheless, it exists. Slippery slopes are less dangerous if you note
their existence and put clear markers out saying, "Here, and no further."
> > They aren't neglecting their jobs, as
> > they are just patrolling. They just, possibly unconsciously, tend to
patrol
> > more often near you. You are a nice guy and their friend.
>
> Precisely what I hope will occur. Why should they, possibly unconsicously,
> patrol near the border of their beat so they can get outside their beat to
have
> coffee over there on another beat, when they feel they want it? I'd rather
have
> them in the middle of their beat, which is where the station at which I'm
> working is.
As I said, it outweighs the risks.
> > While it is true that cops today are more honest in the past, and thus
> > insist on things like paying towards the coffee,
>
> You did notice I was talking about the late 1960s, did you? William Parker
had
> a quite different standard of behavoir in the 1960s than exists today. One
area
> in which the standard was superior was what a street cop could accept from
> anyone. "A cup of coffee" was it. Obviously some cops, like the one
portrayed
> by Wambaugh in _The Blue Knight_ would take more. But those guys were sui
> generis, and Parker left them alone. He focused on the young ones coming
up. He
> had higher standards for police recruits. Today, "Rampart" is the name for
all
> that is wrong so far as media and public are concerned with the LAPD.
Quite a
> change from the late 1960s, isn't it, when "Rampart" was the newly-built
> station where actors Milner and McCord patrolled in their "Adam-12." Guess
> where my gas station was?
>
> And, most media to the contrary, guess what changed?
That may be how things changed in that part of the country. I don't know,
because I have not talked to anyone who was in a position to truly know who
was from that area. I _have_ talked to people who were in a position to know
in the Pacific Northwest, and in the South, and they said it changed to make
the restrictions tighter and the cops more ethical. However, I don't have a
time scale on most of that, and it may have been mostly an improvement that
happened _before_ the late 1960s.
> > it has happened in the past
> > that different shop owners whose shops are not close together have
> > inadvertently started a competition to try to get the cops to stay at
their
> > stores/coffee shops/restaurants. If this is allowed to continue, and the
> > officers get used to it, they can, quite unintentionally, come to patrol
> > more near places that give them more. No dishonesty; just the way habits
> > form.
> >
> > Cops today _know_ this happens.
>
> I'm sure cops yesterday were just as fully aware of it; and, you'll note,
they
> insisted on paying, even though I wasn't charging a damned thing to
anyone. A
> gas station making coffee available to cops was unusual enough for them to
> inquire where the funds were coming from. Perhaps they'd have taken coffee
in
> those years from the donut shop ... we don't really know, do we? Equally
> perhaps the same guys who insisted on handing me a buck or two for the
"coffee
> fund" as they called it didn't take coffee from anyone. Remember: the ones
> trained by "Wild Bill" Parker were just a little different than the
"average
> bears," we may have had in Los Angeles since.
That is part of the problem we are having with this discussion. I am not
talking about cops in Los Angeles, I am talking about cops, in my admittedly
limited experience, everywhere. While things may have gone downhill in some
areas recently, or even done a roller-coaster ride throughout the 20th
Century, the trend for the past 150 years has been, as best I can determine,
towards a greater recognition of the ethics of being a cop.
> Another point: a cup of coffee is an ammenity; not a bribe. I worked for
a
> federal agency that prosecuted law a few years later. Our boss had a rule:
a
> cup of coffee (or the equivalent, a coke or tea) from any member of the
public
> you encounter in your duties is okay if freely offered and you wish it,
> anything else is verbotten, and I'll fire you if I find out about it. I
agree
> with him.
As do I. But that doesn't argue against the slippery slope. It might even
argue for it. I'd call that saying, essentially, "Here's the slope, you can
stand here, and here's the rail. Don't cross the rail."
> > That's why they insist on paying something
> > for the coffee, etc., because _they_ know that, being human, it can
happen
> > to them if they let it.
>
> Bottom line in my view: arguing about giving a cop a cup of coffee is
> equivalent to searching for fly-specking among the ground pepper.
So long as it never goes farther, I'd agree. But it can start at a cup of
coffee and go farther, and I've talked to people who were at ground zero
when it did.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20362
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 15:40:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Ed Johnson wrote:
> The worst substances to deal with
> were the anti Cancer Chemotherapy drugs that had been freeze dried.
> (We had massive freeze dryers that held over a ton or two of bottled
> meds.) Many broken bottles put quite a spray of dust into the air.
Ouch! Those drugs are _highly_ toxic. They're built to kill growing cells,
after all.
> . . . At least we did not have some nffubyr terrorist
First time I've seen that use of ROT13. I like it!
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20363
From: Bob
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 16:34:46 -0800
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
My roommate's a rather amiable guy. I was fortunate enough to wind up with
someone who has some common interests; we both like computers and baseball. We
both dislike TI calculators (he, however, is a stalwart Casio fan.) We both
enjoy taking things apart.
The dorm itself is so-so. They can't seem to get their act together about the
net access; it's never at anything close to their claimed speed (384/384) so I
intend to file a complaint shortly along with a request for a partial refund.
It's an off campus dorm (by the time I decided I wanted to go here all of the
on-campus dorms were full) with about 600 people. The food is.... varied. Some
nights it's actually pretty good and some nights it's abysmal. My roommate and
I have a microwave, toaster oven, and refrigerator between us, though, so we
do pretty well. (Before acquiring the microwave we discovered that one can, if
determined, make macaroni and cheese with a coffee maker.)
Classes are all right. Calculus is difficult but I'm making progress; I was
astonished to find I had the highest score in my class on the first mid-term.
English is easy but required, so I'm trying to enjoy the reading (so far we've
read several essays on consumerism). The sizes have ranged from 25-70, and the
only class with more than 35 people is choir (I'm not pursuing music in
particular, but enjoy singing).
That's all I can think of to say for the moment but I'm sure I'll have more.
Bob Lawson
One last thing; my email address is rclawson@calpoly.edu. I lost the bluepoet
one when I let my domain name expire (unintentionally) and it now belongs to
some company in, I think, Korea.
> Bob: Welcome back. Another survivor from the 'Prodigy'
> years <G>. Don't be a stranger (you'd be surprised at how many
> of the 'old gang' are back posting again.)
> . . . . So tell us something of dorm life. Any
> 'roommate-from-hell' stories to share? (Hopefully, not.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20364
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 21:16:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3beb4116.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> Cops today _know_ this happens. That's why they insist on paying something
> for the coffee, etc., because _they_ know that, being human, it can happen
> to them if they let it.
>
But David's cops /did/ pay something.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20365
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 21:19:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BEB5ADC.8BE36164@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> Bottom line in my view: arguing about giving a cop a cup of coffee is
> equivalent to searching for fly-specking among the ground pepper.
Have to disagree with you, here, David. That's why I grind my pepper
fresh.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20366
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 18:44:52 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3BEB5ADC.8BE36164@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
>
> > Bottom line in my view: arguing about giving a cop a cup of coffee is
> > equivalent to searching for fly-specking among the ground pepper.
>
> Have to disagree with you, here, David. That's why I grind my pepper
> fresh.
LOL! Very good practice, Gordon. Remind me to tell you about the 'fly
speck' NLRB prosecution, one day.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20367
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 21:48:05 -0500
Subject: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I find the following piece by Seymour Hersh to be rather disturbing, and
not primarily for the evidence that Rumsfeld is being less than candid
with the press. We have far more serious things to worry about.
http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?011112fa_FACT
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20368
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2001 19:45:49 -0800
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> I find the following piece by Seymour Hersh to be rather disturbing, and
> not primarily for the evidence that Rumsfeld is being less than candid
> with the press. We have far more serious things to worry about.
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?011112fa_FACT
You're supposed to be disturbed, Gordon. Seymour wants you to be. Seymour
is also full of shit. Imagine this: he thinks he's written an 'expose' in
mentioning that pathfinders went in first before the Rangers dropped. Wow!
That's why they have pathfinders, why they've had them since they started
having 'test' parachute companies in 1941 at Ft. Benning before there was
an 'airborne.' That's what pathfinders do. That's why they get to wear a
little gold emblem on their sleeve of their dress uniforms. It's a torch.
They find the path, and they light the way. Some times they get killed
doing it, if it really, truly turns out to be a 'goat fuck' as Seymour's
sources claimed this one was. I used to have one of those on my uniform. I
was very proud of it; but I was young and foolish then. Not for too long. I
got to go do other things, instead.
I'm also amazed that Seymour thinks we have so many huge gunships (is it
AC-130s? I've been out of touch for many years -- it used to be a varient
of the C-47 called "Puff the Magic Dragon" in my time) in our inventory;
and I'll note a some replies to his post on the New Yorker's site have like
problems believing the truth of that. Or at least that's what he claims his
'sources' told him we have. Wonder who they were? Civilians in the Pentagon
repeating fifth-hand latrine rumors of discontent up above? Seymour's
"schtick" is to roll back the status quo to day minus one, to a time that
doesn't support any sort of response to the tower attack; he doesn't want a
war at any cost, having an unoriginal mindset right out of the sixties, so
you really can't give him credit as any kind of unbiased reporter.
But read him if he gives you pleasure. Or if he amuses you as he 'amuses'
me.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20369
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 00:39:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BECA2EC.B2024FA0@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> Or at least that's what he claims his
> 'sources' told him we have. Wonder who they were? Civilians in the Pentagon
> repeating fifth-hand latrine rumors of discontent up above?
I believe Hersh said in an interview that his sources included Delta
Force members. Do you think that this possibility is "unlikely", "highly
unlikely", or "couldn't possibly be true"?
> Seymour's
> "schtick" is to roll back the status quo to day minus one, to a time that
> doesn't support any sort of response to the tower attack; he doesn't want a
> war at any cost, having an unoriginal mindset right out of the sixties, so
> you really can't give him credit as any kind of unbiased reporter.
I don't know if there are any "unbiased" reporters - I just hope the
biases cancel out.
Here is what disturbs me. First, that raids might be being staged for
home consumption on TV. Better that we have no TV coverage. Honest war
footage would probably weaken the public's resolve (as it has before),
and if the public is to turn against this action, it should be for solid
reasons, not emotionalism. And dishonest footage is, well, dishonest.
Second, that the Taliban should be able to stage what sounds like an
ambush, seemingly knowing that the first raid was at best a faint. But
this is perhaps simply a result of the obvious telegraphing of our
intention in the second raid. Which brings me to, third, that the Delta
Force is, apparently, being used in a way that negates its very strengths
by an out-of-touch military bureaucracy.
Suppose that you wanted to attack U.S. military forces, killing enough of
them so that the U.S. public folds out of a game it thinks is too
expensive. What better place to conduct that battle than in Afghanistan?
You assume that the U.S. military, based on its past behavior, will first
bomb you back into the stone age before committing any ground troops.
But guess what? Your territory is /already/ in the stone age, or at any
rate only a short distance away. So you wait and bide your time while
the bombs are falling, and then attack in force whenever U.S. ground
troops are set down. (BTW, you would do this as long as al-Qaida is in
Afghanistan, even if "you" happen, by some great surprise, to live in
Iraq.)
My reservations about our current approach in Afghanistan are both moral
and practical. First, the moral, just to get it out of the way, since I
don't plan to dwell on it in any replies to this post. If we have
evidence against bin Laden we should be showing it to the world, not just
Tony Blair. Will good evidence convince every Muslim? Of course not.
But it would create a greater range of opinion, helping to weaken
whatever long-term support bin Laden might get. And if all we have is
the sort of evidence that led us to blow up a pharmaceutical plant in
Sudan, then we are in deep shit. This evidence should have been made
public before our forces were committed, with the hope that some useful
negotiation might have followed. Very early on, it appeared that the
Taliban might have been willing to give up bin Laden to a neutral third
party in exchange for diplomatic recognition.
But, now, that option is pretty much foreclosed and our forces are
already committed. So we are left with the practical problems of how to
proceed. Question one: are we not now doing exactly what bin Laden would
have predicted we would do? If yes, question two: why does he want us to
do this? Or do you think that bin Laden had no plan for after 9/11?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20370
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 06:29:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3BECA2EC.B2024FA0@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
>
> > Or at least that's what he claims his
> > 'sources' told him we have. Wonder who they were? Civilians in the Pentagon
> > repeating fifth-hand latrine rumors of discontent up above?
>
> I believe Hersh said in an interview that his sources included Delta
> Force members. Do you think that this possibility is "unlikely", "highly
> unlikely", or "couldn't possibly be true"?
Well, there is the fourth possibility that occurs to me that should be
considered: actual Delta Force members knowingly assigned and engaged in yanking
his chain in such a way to discredit him, handing him obvious disinformation
patently flawed to anyone who takes the trouble to know anything about such
things--and, therefore, readily discreditible. But I really wouldn't know. ;-)
["We" wouldn't do that, would "we"?]
> > Seymour's
> > "schtick" is to roll back the status quo to day minus one, to a time that
> > doesn't support any sort of response to the tower attack; he doesn't want a
> > war at any cost, having an unoriginal mindset right out of the sixties, so
> > you really can't give him credit as any kind of unbiased reporter.
>
> I don't know if there are any "unbiased" reporters - I just hope the
> biases cancel out.
>
> Here is what disturbs me. First, that raids might be being staged for
> home consumption on TV. Better that we have no TV coverage.
There's the media-engendered push for instant gratification, parodied in that
Dave Hackworth distributed piece I stuck up "Off-Topic" and "long" on AFH, for
starters--the one pertaining to what if Normandy happened today. That's a fact
the Executive Branch and we have to confront.
Raids that are 'staged' -- although I wouldn't use that word exactly -- aren't
something new. In World War II for example, to defuse criticism that 'nothing
was being done,' Roosevelt in 1942 ordered the Makin Island raid by the Marines'
2d Raider Battalion, under Lt. Col. Carlson ("Carlson's Raiders") and the
Doolittle Raid that bombed Toyoko. Both were inconsequential, militarily, and,
some Monday morning quarterbacks say, the raids themselves created problems
further down the road. Nevertheless the affect on civilian morale was thought
beneficial. It's a little of damned if you do, damned if you don't. The British
raid on Dieppe was said to be a 'true' disaster; however, a bit was learned in
any event. And necessary training and blooding of the troops accomplished in all
cases.
Simple fact is: people get shot on these things, some get captured, some killed,
regardless how close or not close to a 'clusterf*ck' (the term from my
generation--we had no particular affinity for goats) they are. Even Carlson's
raid was not an alloyed success; a handfull, eight I think it was, Marines
didn't manage to paddle their rubber boats back to the submarines through the
surf around Makin, were captured, transported to Truk, iirc, and then later,
ceremonially beheaded, contrary to the usages of land warfare, for which, not
too incidentally, some Imperial Japanese Navy high officers hanged until they
were 'dead, dead, dead' after the war. But all the three 'staged' raids taught
lessons that were valuable later down the roads to Toyoko and Berlin. And they
were useful to civilian home front morale.
> Honest war
> footage would probably weaken the public's resolve (as it has before),
> and if the public is to turn against this action, it should be for solid
> reasons, not emotionalism.
It depends on what you call 'honest.' Are we talking graphic blood, dead bodies,
and yet another replay of the "Five o-clock Follies," actions staged for the
benefit of the press corps during Vietnam? I got so sick of the staged crap I
watched after I came home during Vietnam I refused after a time to ever look at
it. Idiots blindly spraying M-16s over barricades for the benefit of cameras is
one image of that war that stayed with me much longer than the much more
infamous ones, e.g., an ARVN intelligence officer putting a round in the ear of
a captured VC officer in civilian clothing. Does anyone today ever wonder why
that ARVN officer wasn't court-martialled and executed for the 'horrible murder'
everyone thinks it was because of how the press covered that execution? There's
a simple answer: it wasn't an unlawful killing. Guerrillas who wear civilian
clothing without some marking to distinguish themselves as combatants may be
summarily executed if captured. Period. Not even a drumhead courts-martial
required. What was honest, pray tell, about how the press handled that one, if
you're old enough to remember it?
> And dishonest footage is, well, dishonest.
What's dishonest about taking night vision camera photos of a drop and a brief
few seconds at the objective, once the ground was secured? The press need raw
meat. They got it. Would you rather we had really 'staged' something 'honest'
for the press's entertainment like the actual events portrayed in Zanuck's "The
Longest Day" when a company the '04 came down in the middle of Ste. Marie
Eglise, well-lighted by a burning church, and got butchered before they hit the
ground? Remember "Red" Buttons hanging from that steeple? It actually happened
to a very real guy who *honestly* lived through it and actually got to be a
civilian again about two years later. We could have sent a team of photographers
and Geraldo Rivera in first for 'honesty' if that is what was required. With
their camera lights, they'd have filled the illuminating role of the burning
church nicely, and made sure the Taliban had wonderful light to pick the
paratroopers out of the air. That would have made a really wonderful home-front
state of morale. I'd have led the mob to hang the general who approved that
public-relations decision. Instead, the Army gave the press some very safe
footage of some very real soldiers who didn't die as a result. They wisely
decided to leave the 'honest' sensational footage to Hollywood, to be made in
safety where the actors get to go have a beer afterwards, after the war. Maybe
Seymour Hirsh can get a job as a screenwriter then.
I can do without "honest" reporting this time around, thank you. Actually, this
brings to mind Verhoaxer's parody in Troopers ... was that reporter after the
'honest' reporting you want? Despite Verhoaxer's ignorance of virtually
everything military in that movie, it was pretty clear that honest reporter got
troopers killed. I'll say it again, I'll pass on "honest" reporting this time
around.
> Second, that the Taliban should be able to stage what sounds like an
> ambush, seemingly knowing that the first raid was at best a faint.
What makes you think Hirsh's report is accurate with respect to the 'ambush' or
the casualties supposedly suffered? It's been demonstrated he is inaccurate in
other details reported by his "sources." What's the Latin for "false in part,
false in all," I forget, and don't have an old copy of my legal dictionary
around anymore; but I think you can find the fancy phrase. And what is this
compulsion in the press to command and second guess every operation to the most
minute details? Maybe they can take over the 'squad leader in the sky' syndrom
that so afflicted our Army 'leadership' during the later stages of Vietnam. Does
anyone really think we're going to finish this thing without taking casualties?
There's a passage in Heinlein's Space Cadet in which Lt. Wong, iirc, discusses
with Matt the fact that the Patrol has perhaps guarded the peace too well too
long, civilians can no longer even conceive what war is, and he notes perhaps
this is a bad thing, because he doubts they can face it if it ever becomes
necessary. I'd suggest our media better note that lesson. We shouldn't need to
be told that 'war is harmful to children and all living creatures' or however
the slogan went in the Johnson-Goldwater campaign, again, should we?
> But
> this is perhaps simply a result of the obvious telegraphing of our
> intention in the second raid.
Obvious on Monday morning to Hirsh and you, perhaps; OTOH, perhaps if an
'ambush' occurred in fact, equally attributable to the well-known rule of
warfare: shit happens.
> Which brings me to, third, that the Delta
> Force is, apparently, being used in a way that negates its very strengths
> by an out-of-touch military bureaucracy.
Been there, done that, burnt the teeshirt along with the moth-eaten green beanie
that so delighted my youthful mind when they 'gave' it to me. There was a
three-star commanding an Army Corps at the Battle of Kasserine Pass in North
Africa who, some say, misused his troops in a manner that would boggle poor
Seymour's little mind. So, they relieved him and gave the corps to Georgie
Patton, sending the relieved officer home to retire or command a desk for the
rest of the war. Maybe he spent his waning days grumbling over his martini with
retired Admiral Kimmel. Happens every war, Gordon, I already tolt you thet
oncet, 'n I ain't a gonna tell you again, every war. There's a school of thought
that believes that Delta Force, Green Grunts, and even Airborne are wastes of
resources: they all down to their privates should be leading regular infantry
units and keeping the rest of the Army from getting killled, but that's another
issue.
> Suppose that you wanted to attack U.S. military forces, killing enough of
> them so that the U.S. public folds out of a game it thinks is too
> expensive. What better place to conduct that battle than in Afghanistan?
> You assume that the U.S. military, based on its past behavior, will first
> bomb you back into the stone age before committing any ground troops.
> But guess what? Your territory is /already/ in the stone age, or at any
> rate only a short distance away. So you wait and bide your time while
> the bombs are falling, and then attack in force whenever U.S. ground
> troops are set down. (BTW, you would do this as long as al-Qaida is in
> Afghanistan, even if "you" happen, by some great surprise, to live in
> Iraq.)
Seriously, you've taken the trouble to describe the harsh situation we all know
exists. What would you have us do instead, assuming we cannot bury our heads in
the sand, bomb it with nuclear devices so a layer of green glass covers it to a
depth of three or four feet? Me, you'll recall, wants to mobilize an Army Group
of oh, say about forty divisions (take about a year to train them), land at
Haiffa, move East and South from there and take the entire area over, including
Iraq, Syria, and probably Saudi Arabia if we get a cross-eyed look from that
direction. If to our great surprise we don't find all of al-Qaida in that
pig-pen, I think we'll mange to find almost all of it and deal with it.
> My reservations about our current approach in Afghanistan are both moral
> and practical. First, the moral, just to get it out of the way, since I
> don't plan to dwell on it in any replies to this post. If we have
> evidence against bin Laden we should be showing it to the world, not just
> Tony Blair.
I agree, but the evidence is already in place for I don't require evidence even
approaching the criminal legal standard to justify war. This isn't a criminal
prosecution. The Taliban and al-Qaida aren't citizens or even residents of this
country entitled to a trial, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, nor an
indictment that states a crime. They aren't party to our Constitution. All we
need is reason to believe they're in a state of war against us; and, guess what,
Osuma bin Laden is convicted of that out of his own mouth. He declared war,
months ago. End of trial. They've allied themselves with him. Hard not to 'ally'
yourself when you're an alter ego controlled by your spokesman, isn't it?
> Will good evidence convince every Muslim? Of course not.
> But it would create a greater range of opinion, helping to weaken
> whatever long-term support bin Laden might get.
An Army Group of forty divisions on the ground doesn't require a greater range
of opinion, it merely requires that you stay out of its way. Guess what I think
is the more effective argument to weaken the support, long- and short-term? And
forever? I don't want to win their 'hearts and minds.' We didn't set out to win
German hearts and minds or Japanese hearts and minds. We simply conquered them,
and then governed them until they learned to govern themselves, without
sponsoring or harboring terrorists, inside or outside of their governments. I
just want to weed them of their terrorists, for a few generations to come. Forty
divisions on the ground will do that. Pax Americana is my goal.
> And if all we have is
> the sort of evidence that led us to blow up a pharmaceutical plant in
> Sudan, then we are in deep shit. This evidence should have been made
> public before our forces were committed, with the hope that some useful
> negotiation might have followed. Very early on, it appeared that the
> Taliban might have been willing to give up bin Laden to a neutral third
> party in exchange for diplomatic recognition.
That's all irrelevant, Gordon. I don't negotiate with people who've stated an
adamant intention to kill me, nor mine. I'll take them at their words. This
asshole, most recently, is claiming access to nuclear and far more serious
biological weapons. I'll damn him with his own words. I don't reward people who
have harmed me. He's killed 6,000 of my fellow citizens. If I can I will simply
kill him and them first. We have the means (we have twice the population of 1940
and god only knows how many times the industrial and scientific capacity), the
opportunity, and the only questions is: do we have the will? I think we do, if
Dub-yah ever stops thinking this is a political campaign and bends his weak mind
around reality, asks for a declaration of war, and begins a war instead of
piddle-fucking around trying to win 'on the cheap.'
> But, now, that option is pretty much foreclosed and our forces are
> already committed. So we are left with the practical problems of how to
> proceed. Question one: are we not now doing exactly what bin Laden would
> have predicted we would do? If yes, question two: why does he want us to
> do this? Or do you think that bin Laden had no plan for after 9/11?
He's a terrorist, and a mad-man. Hitler had lots of plans, too, and a few of
them worked for a few years. As Michael Holmes would say: Null program. Time to
go kill him and his. I'm sure someone will turn up capable of creating the plans
to do so. Maybe it'll be a surprise: the guy in charge who just happens to be
from Dub-yah's home town, and of Dub-yah's age may be the one. Otherwise,
they'll ship him home too, to command a desk.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20371
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 11:29:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BED39DD.C2F7DAB5@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
....
> Well, there is the fourth possibility that occurs to me that should be
> considered: actual Delta Force members knowingly assigned and engaged in yanking
> his chain in such a way to discredit him, handing him obvious disinformation
> patently flawed to anyone who takes the trouble to know anything about such
> things--and, therefore, readily discreditible.
If so, then I think that they have miscalculated by being too subtle -
the few who take the trouble will easily be trumped by the many who will
not. And I would think that they would know that. Occam's Razor tells
me that either the sources were not as close to Delta Force as Hersh
thinks (or claims, anyway) or that the message they were trying to get
out was that major mistakes were being made. This latter possibility
should be given serious thought, even if it is an uncomfortable one.
....
> > Here is what disturbs me. First, that raids might be being staged for
> > home consumption on TV. Better that we have no TV coverage.
>
> There's the media-engendered push for instant gratification, parodied in that
> Dave Hackworth distributed piece I stuck up "Off-Topic" and "long" on AFH, for
> starters--the one pertaining to what if Normandy happened today. That's a fact
> the Executive Branch and we have to confront.
And I think that we should confront it by having no TV coverage. I'm not
sure why you think we would have the will to put 40 army divisions into
the Middle East and not have the will to do that.
> Raids that are 'staged' -- although I wouldn't use that word exactly -- aren't
> something new...And necessary training and blooding of the troops accomplished in all
> cases.
I specifically did /not/ disagree with that aspect of such raids.
> And they
> were useful to civilian home front morale.
>
> > Honest war
> > footage would probably weaken the public's resolve (as it has before),
> > and if the public is to turn against this action, it should be for solid
> > reasons, not emotionalism.
>
> It depends on what you call 'honest.'
I mean it in as purely a procedural sense as possible. Whether a given
reporter is "honest" about where he points his camera - and so helps to
define what is "typical" - is something we probably will not settle while
the clock is running. So we either have the greatest degree of access
possible for cameras or none. Sorry, but there /is/ a slippery slope
here. "Managed" access is too subject to abuse.
....
> > Second, that the Taliban should be able to stage what sounds like an
> > ambush, seemingly knowing that the first raid was at best a faint.
>
> What makes you think Hirsh's report is accurate with respect to the 'ambush' or
> the casualties supposedly suffered? It's been demonstrated he is inaccurate in
> other details reported by his "sources." What's the Latin for "false in part,
> false in all,"
Sorry, but my Latin is over 30 years old at this point, and I never took
that all-important "third year" (it conflicted with physics! Who the
hell makes high-school schedules, anyway?). I don't know that Hersh is
accurate - that's the problem. But despite Latin maxims, I'm not going
to throw out an entire report simply because it is inaccurate in one
detail. We might not ever get any information using that standard.
....
> And what is this
> compulsion in the press to command and second guess every operation to the most
> minute details?
It was not "every" operation, but one operation which /as reported/ seems
highly flawed.
> Does
> anyone really think we're going to finish this thing without taking casualties?
I doubt it. But note that Hersh reported his Delta Force sources as
saying "If four of us die, that's what we are paid for". If these highly
capable, trained, and dedicated soldiers are to die, I think it should be
according to their own doctrine and traditions. /How/ we take casualties
matters.
> There's a passage in Heinlein's Space Cadet in which Lt. Wong, iirc, discusses
> with Matt the fact that the Patrol has perhaps guarded the peace too well too
> long, civilians can no longer even conceive what war is, and he notes perhaps
> this is a bad thing, because he doubts they can face it if it ever becomes
> necessary. I'd suggest our media better note that lesson.
Note that /I/ calling for a visual media blackout, despite my
reservations about the whole enterprise.
> > But
> > this is perhaps simply a result of the obvious telegraphing of our
> > intention in the second raid.
>
> Obvious on Monday morning to Hirsh and you, perhaps; OTOH, perhaps if an
> 'ambush' occurred in fact, equally attributable to the well-known rule of
> warfare: shit happens.
David, you know far more about military tactics than I do. I am not
trying to "quarterback" anything; I am just trying to make sense of
things. Why would you "announce" a raid by a force that specializes in
stealth with a massive aerial attack? Alternatively, didn't we learn in
Somalia that intense ground resistance can be built up very quickly in
these environments?
> > Which brings me to, third, that the Delta
> > Force is, apparently, being used in a way that negates its very strengths
> > by an out-of-touch military bureaucracy.
>
> Been there, done that, burnt the teeshirt along with the moth-eaten green beanie
> that so delighted my youthful mind when they 'gave' it to me. There was a
> three-star commanding an Army Corps at the Battle of Kasserine Pass in North
> Africa who, some say, misused his troops in a manner that would boggle poor
> Seymour's little mind. So, they relieved him and gave the corps to Georgie
> Patton, sending the relieved officer home to retire or command a desk for the
> rest of the war. Maybe he spent his waning days grumbling over his martini with
> retired Admiral Kimmel. Happens every war, Gordon, I already tolt you thet
> oncet, 'n I ain't a gonna tell you again, every war. There's a school of thought
> that believes that Delta Force, Green Grunts, and even Airborne are wastes of
> resources: they all down to their privates should be leading regular infantry
> units and keeping the rest of the Army from getting killled, but that's another
> issue.
I don't follow this. First you seem to say that we have no worries here
because the military always gets it right eventually. I sure hope that
is so, David, but I also hope that I can express some skepticism without
being an "arm-chair general" or a dupe of Islamic terrorists. Then you
say that some would like to do away with special forces. I have no
expertise from which to take a position on that. But I think I do have
the expertise to say that you do not take a precision tool designed for
one purpose and use it for another without a good set of reasons. Did we
have them? Who knows?
....
> Seriously, you've taken the trouble to describe the harsh situation we all know
> exists. What would you have us do instead,
At this point? Now that my sage counsel has already been ignored?
Capture or kill bin Laden by stealth. Quickly. If this is not possible
(and I doubt that it is), attack al-Qaida in force on the ground and
defeat them completely. Quickly. It breaks my heart to think of the
casualties we would suffer, but we have all ready committed our military.
Key to this is to make it absolutely clear that we are not after Afghans,
Arabs, or Muslims as such. To date, I think that the U.S. government has
spent more resources on getting this message to us rather than to them.
But this is a /very/ difficult message to get across at present, yet
necessary for the long term as I see it.
> Me, you'll recall, wants to mobilize an Army Group
> of oh, say about forty divisions (take about a year to train them), land at
> Haiffa, move East and South from there and take the entire area over, including
> Iraq, Syria, and probably Saudi Arabia if we get a cross-eyed look from that
> direction.
And I don't think your plan will be adopted. I doubt it would work,
either, but that's a /very/ long argument.
....
> I don't require evidence even
> approaching the criminal legal standard to justify war. This isn't a criminal
> prosecution. The Taliban and al-Qaida aren't citizens or even residents of this
> country entitled to a trial, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, nor an
> indictment that states a crime. They aren't party to our Constitution. All we
> need is reason to believe they're in a state of war against us; and, guess what,
> Osuma bin Laden is convicted of that out of his own mouth. He declared war,
> months ago. End of trial.
A trial would have been very helpful, but I am not going to argue that it
was morally required. However, a declaration of war by bin Laden seems
to fall rather short of a justification for your "Plan Haifa". Then
again, it might well be true that without a trial, the need to take on a
much larger enemy will have been created.
> > Will good evidence convince every Muslim? Of course not.
> > But it would create a greater range of opinion, helping to weaken
> > whatever long-term support bin Laden might get.
>
> An Army Group of forty divisions on the ground doesn't require a greater range
> of opinion, it merely requires that you stay out of its way. Guess what I think
> is the more effective argument to weaken the support, long- and short-term? And
> forever? I don't want to win their 'hearts and minds.' We didn't set out to win
> German hearts and minds or Japanese hearts and minds.
I am very skeptical of the lessons from Germany and Japan. These are
very top-down structured cultures, and knocking out their elite was
enough to fold them up. We are now fighting an ideology wrapped in a
religion with no central point of control that spans many political
boundaries.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20372
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 10:42:36 -0800
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> We are now fighting an ideology wrapped in a
> religion with no central point of control that spans many political
> boundaries.
That's my point. Do you now understand why I want to 'mobilize a force of, oh, say, about
forty divisions ... '? That ideology wrapped in a religion is going to have to be as
tediously unwrapped from it as was the Ayran myth or Code of Bushido; and the only lasting
way I know how to do it is conquest, occupation, and 'de-Nazification.'
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20373
From: dee"
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 14:05:25 -0600
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Well, I just got home from working communications for the parade I
mentioned in an earlier post. It seemed that about 80% of the band music
was "Halls of Montezuma" (Happy Birthday, Marines!) or "America the
Beautiful." There has been a commercial running a lot lately using the
verse that ends, "America, America, God mend thine every flaw. Confirm thy
soul in self-control, thy liberty in law." Amen.
As usual, it was fun to watch the little kids. But only in Dothan woud
the Coroner ride a car in the parade. That one has always puzzled me. The
Army band from Ft. Rucker was in the parade, and will offer a Veteran's Day
concert tomorrow. Those of you who miss out on county fairs and home-town
parades, I'm sorry.
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20374
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 00:20:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> Those of you who miss out on county fairs and home-town
>parades, I'm sorry.
I miss those sorts of things. Though in our county 4-H has been
dying out terribly. I was in it at it's peak and now there's barely a
handfull of cows at the fair, hardly any exhibits. A shame. 4-H is a
wonderful thing but takes parental involvement that is no longer
available--the few remaining farmers are too busy, both husband and
wife have outside jobs in town on top of the farm work.
It has struck me at times that a big cultural difference between the
US and some other countries--Russia, in particular--can be seen in our
parades. There when they have military equipment in their parades it's
very threatening and ominous. When we had military equipment in our
county fair parade (the town had an arsenal) they were throwing candy
to the kids.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20375
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 00:27:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Thinking of BC
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:30:37 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:
>JT and Ed --
>
> The preliminary results of the decontamination team are in, and no
>infection was found. (The official results are mostly paperwork.)
>
Glad to hear it.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20376
From: dee"
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:42:58 -0600
Subject: Thank you veterans, on your day
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
The following was posted on alt.med.ems. I am reposting it here with the
permission of the original poster, Brian Humphrey, who attributes the essay
to that prolific author, "Anon." Brian says he only wrote the introductory
paragraph.
=====================================================
=====================================================
=====================================================
The Los Angeles Fire Department takes pride in its credo:
"...at all times, service above self".
There are times however, when our efforts - no matter how valiant - should
be rightfully overshadowed. One such time is this Sunday. Please join me in
taking time to ponder the following question...
=====
WHAT IS A VET?
Some veterans bear visible signs of their service: a missing
limb, a jagged scar, a certain look in their eye.
Others may carry the evidence inside them: a pin holding a
bone together, a piece of shrapnel in the leg - or perhaps another sort of
inner steel: a soul forged in the refinery of adversity.
Except in parades, however, the men and women who have kept
America safe wear no badge or emblem. You can't tell a vet just by looking.
What is a vet?
He is the cop on the beat who spent six months in Saudi Arabia
sweating two gallons a day making sure the armored personnel carriers didn't
run out of fuel.
He is the barroom loudmouth, dumber than five wooden planks, whose overgrown
frat-boy behavior is outweighed a hundred times in the cosmic scales by four
hours of exquisite bravery near the 38th parallel.
She - or he - is the nurse who fought against futility and went to sleep
sobbing every night for two solid years in Da Nang.
He is the POW who went away one person and came back another -or- didn't
come back AT ALL.
He is the Quantico drill instructor that has never seen combat - but has
saved countless lives by turning slouchy, no-account rednecks and gang
members
into Marines, and teaching them to watch each other's backs.
He is the parade - riding Legionnaire who pins on his ribbons and medals
with a prosthetic hand.
He is the career quartermaster who watches the ribbons and medals pass him
by.
He is the three anonymous heroes in The Tomb Of The Unknowns, whose presence
at the Arlington National Cemetery must forever preserve the memory of all
the
anonymous heroes whose valor dies unrecognized with them on the battlefield
or in the ocean's sunless deep.
He is the old guy bagging groceries at the supermarket - palsied now and
aggravatingly slow - who helped liberate a Nazi death camp and who wishes
all day long that his wife were still alive to hold him when the nightmares
come.
He is an ordinary and yet an extraordinary human being, a person who offered
some of his life's most vital years in the service of his country, and who
sacrificed his ambitions so others would not have to sacrifice theirs.
He is a soldier and a savior and a sword against the darkness, and he is
nothing more than the finest, greatest testimony on behalf of the finest,
greatest nation ever known.
So remember, each time you see someone who has served our country, just lean
over and say Thank You. That's all most people need, and in most cases it
will mean more than any medals they could have been awarded or were awarded.
Two little words that mean a lot, "THANK YOU".
Remember, November 11th is Veterans Day.
=====
One fine man probably summarized it best...
"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is
the
soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to
demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the
flag, and
whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the
flag."
Father Denis Edward O'Brien, USMC
=====
Stay Safe and Be Well!
Brian Humphrey
Firefighter/Paramedic
Public Information Officer
Los Angeles Fire Department
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20377
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 10:36:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BEC7626.AF33C9E5@calpoly.edu>, Bob writes...
....
> The dorm itself is so-so. They can't seem to get their act together about the
> net access; it's never at anything close to their claimed speed (384/384)
Hah! When I was in college a friend of mine and I had to get our own
grant from the Sloan Foundation just to get /timesharing access/ (ever
heard of that?) into the dorm on a 300 baud modem.
And we had to walk 5 miles through the snow to get the money! Wait a
minute... that can't be right, I went to college in southern California.
Hmmm.
> so I
> intend to file a complaint shortly along with a request for a partial refund.
Good luck, Bob!
> It's an off campus dorm (by the time I decided I wanted to go here all of the
> on-campus dorms were full) with about 600 people. The food is.... varied.
It was ever thus. I tried to negotiate room without board. Didn't work.
> Classes are all right. Calculus is difficult but I'm making progress; I was
> astonished to find I had the highest score in my class on the first mid-term.
Congratulations! What text are you using? And is it a one, two, or
three semester sequence?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20378
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 23:01:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Thank you veterans, on your day
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Dee: Thanks for posting that piece from the LA Fire Dept.
Ed J
On Sun, 11 Nov 2001 07:42:58 -0600, "dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
>The following was posted on alt.med.ems. I am reposting it here with the
>permission of the original poster, Brian Humphrey, who attributes the essay
>to that prolific author, "Anon." Brian says he only wrote the introductory
>paragraph.
>
>=====================================================
>=====================================================
>=====================================================
>
>The Los Angeles Fire Department takes pride in its credo:
>
>"...at all times, service above self".
>
>There are times however, when our efforts - no matter how valiant - should
>be rightfully overshadowed. One such time is this Sunday. Please join me in
>taking time to ponder the following question...
>
>=====
>
>WHAT IS A VET?
>
>Some veterans bear visible signs of their service: a missing
>limb, a jagged scar, a certain look in their eye.
>
>Others may carry the evidence inside them: a pin holding a
>bone together, a piece of shrapnel in the leg - or perhaps another sort of
>inner steel: a soul forged in the refinery of adversity.
>
>Except in parades, however, the men and women who have kept
>America safe wear no badge or emblem. You can't tell a vet just by looking.
>
>What is a vet?
>
>He is the cop on the beat who spent six months in Saudi Arabia
>sweating two gallons a day making sure the armored personnel carriers didn't
>run out of fuel.
>
>He is the barroom loudmouth, dumber than five wooden planks, whose overgrown
>frat-boy behavior is outweighed a hundred times in the cosmic scales by four
>hours of exquisite bravery near the 38th parallel.
>
>She - or he - is the nurse who fought against futility and went to sleep
>sobbing every night for two solid years in Da Nang.
>
>He is the POW who went away one person and came back another -or- didn't
>come back AT ALL.
>
>He is the Quantico drill instructor that has never seen combat - but has
>saved countless lives by turning slouchy, no-account rednecks and gang
>members
>into Marines, and teaching them to watch each other's backs.
>
>He is the parade - riding Legionnaire who pins on his ribbons and medals
>with a prosthetic hand.
>
>He is the career quartermaster who watches the ribbons and medals pass him
>by.
>
>He is the three anonymous heroes in The Tomb Of The Unknowns, whose presence
>at the Arlington National Cemetery must forever preserve the memory of all
>the
>anonymous heroes whose valor dies unrecognized with them on the battlefield
>or in the ocean's sunless deep.
>
>He is the old guy bagging groceries at the supermarket - palsied now and
>aggravatingly slow - who helped liberate a Nazi death camp and who wishes
>all day long that his wife were still alive to hold him when the nightmares
>come.
>
>He is an ordinary and yet an extraordinary human being, a person who offered
>some of his life's most vital years in the service of his country, and who
>sacrificed his ambitions so others would not have to sacrifice theirs.
>
>He is a soldier and a savior and a sword against the darkness, and he is
>nothing more than the finest, greatest testimony on behalf of the finest,
>greatest nation ever known.
>
>So remember, each time you see someone who has served our country, just lean
>over and say Thank You. That's all most people need, and in most cases it
>will mean more than any medals they could have been awarded or were awarded.
>
>Two little words that mean a lot, "THANK YOU".
>
>Remember, November 11th is Veterans Day.
>
>=====
>
>One fine man probably summarized it best...
>
>"It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
>It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. It is
>the
>soldier, not the campus organizer, Who has given us the freedom to
>demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the
>flag, and
>whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the
>flag."
>
>Father Denis Edward O'Brien, USMC
>
>=====
>
>Stay Safe and Be Well!
>
>Brian Humphrey
>Firefighter/Paramedic
>Public Information Officer
>Los Angeles Fire Department
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20379
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:55:10 GMT
Subject: Jonny Shade, RIP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jonathon Shade
1996 -2001
The coolest of cats
Jonny as he was known to his friends, passed away yesterday.
For those of you that met him, he was the grey longhair.
Isis is his sister.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20380
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:11:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Jonny Shade, RIP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:55:10 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>Jonathon Shade
>1996 -2001
>The coolest of cats
>
>Jonny as he was known to his friends, passed away yesterday.
>For those of you that met him, he was the grey longhair.
>Isis is his sister.
>
>Fader
Sorry to hear it, Fader. Hugs to you and Beth.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20381
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:14:44 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David M. Silver" wrote:
>
> Shane Glaseman wrote:
>
> > Y'know, probably the biggest problem is that I live in L.A.
>
> Or, possibly, you live in a different L.A. than I've lived fifty years and yet
> live in; and believe everything you read in the Los Angeles Times and hear on
> the TV news.
Well, yes, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that because I have attitudes
and opinions that are contrary to yours, which you can "prove" are wrong
because you have a subjective, personal experience that runs counter to
the general points I made, that those attitudes and opinions are in fact
invalid and that I should just shut up when my betters are expounding.
I'm sure that because you have in fact lived in the city in question
longer than I have that you must know better -- we all know that simply
living a long time imparts knowledge... by osmosis, assuredly.
And, of course, everyone knows that the newspapers and network news
broadcasts are inaccurate -- if not outrightly biased -- in the extreme,
and we should pay no credence to them whatsoever... especially when they
report something we disagree with. We should just dismiss them outright, surely.
It's obvious I shouldn't be participating here unless I acknowledge that
the only accepted opinion is one that either agrees with all those
present... or violently disagrees with it to such a point that some of
those others here -- of course, only the most worthwhile and "learned"
members -- can devolve the discussion into a namecalling flamefest,
which is of course the only legitimate use of Usenet. That contrary
opinion, obviously, must be presented with an absence of logical content
and ignore the rules of rhetorical debate, and simply present personal
attacks, couched in the most innocent of terms, connotationally
speaking, so that the poster thereof has deniability -- "you misread
what I said; I didn't *mean* it that way."
Yep.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20382
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:49:05 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
dee wrote:
>
> Shane--
>
> I hope the limited use of all caps didn't seem to be shouting at you. I
> just wanted a way to make the emphasis easily visible, and plain text has
> its limits. I had a feeling that we did not have a disagreement so much as
> a mental picture of different situations. Please don't think I meant to
> imply that I was provoked.
Oh, not at all. In this case, I appreciated your all-cap callout, as it
showed the place where I had failed to read carefully, thus invalidating
at least part of my reply posts (necessary; I can't make a legitmate
argument if I'm not paying close attention to the worthy opposition).
> As for having a county fair, I live in a small city in an area with a
> largely agricultural economy. We call our Fair week teh "National Peanut
> Festival." (Of course, most of the nation has never heard of it.) Typical
> county fair--recipe contests, 4-H exhibits, local beauty queens, rides and
> "games of chance" on the midway, culminating in a parade. Bands and color
> guards from the area high schools and from the Army, floats, antique farm
> equipment and firetrucks, Shriners, etc. Just a typical small-town parade
> down Main Street. There is one unique(as far as I know) feature to the
> parade, that everyone looks forward to--the concrete mixer. A local
> concrete company puts a mixer full of peanuts in the parade, every year,
> and purs the peanuts out on the pavement as it rolls down the parade route.
> Kids and adults com prepared with plastic bags too scoop them up. Funny how
> much better parade peanuts taste! (There are a number of safety
> precautions, and this is the only "favor" allowed in the parade. No
> throwing candy, or anything else, for fear the kids might run out into
> danger, trying to get goodies.) Not having any children, I would not go if
> I didn't help with communications. But its lots of fun to watch the
> children. I love to watch the little ones when the big Percherons pull
> their wagon by.
Sigh. Would that it could be true here. Reminds me -- and this tells you
how complete deprived we are in the cities; I have to get this flavor
from a movie -- of that movie, "Doc Hollywood," a number of years back.
I saw it with a friend, who had a couple of "hick" comments and snickers
through the whole "squash festival" (or whatever it was) scenes. But for
me, those scenes had an unanticipated effect... there seemed to be a
voice, whispering off in the distance, "Come join us, come join us..."
Come to the fair: say hi to everyone (because you know everyone's name),
cheer the hog-calling and pie-eating contests, vow revenge when that
lady from down the street wins the best pickles contest -- again, wave
back at the high school, and the Army, and the Shriners and local beauty
queens as the pass by in the parade. Sigh. Perhaps it's provincial and
innocent, and perhaps -- as some will likely jump to point out -- even
such an event as you describe above *really isn't* as old-style Middle
America as it appears.
But it sure sounds good.
> You know, Shane, it's real hard to get a good, flaming argument going
> with you. You're just so darned reasonable and courteous. Looks like a
> discussion is the best we can do. ;-)
Well, thanks. It strikes me that new ideas and concepts can't really get
spread around for thoughtful consideration if everyone is screaming
"You're a fool!" at each other. Reminds me of a line I read somewhere,
something to the effect, "You could tell how vehemently the two
disagreed with each other; they more they argued, the more polite they
became to each other."
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20383
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:50:58 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
dee wrote:
> But only in Dothan woud the Coroner ride a car in the parade. That one has always puzzled me.
Aw, c'mon -- coroners like parades, too. I would have expected the local
undertaker(s) to be there, too. I mean, they should get out into the
sunlight at least *once* a year, right?
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20384
From: dee"
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:00:02 -0600
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Shane Glaseman" wrote:
> > > Y'know, probably the biggest problem is that I live in L.A.
"David M. Silver" wrote:
> > Or, possibly, you live in a different L.A. than I've lived fifty years
and yet
> > live in; and believe everything you read in the Los Angeles Times and
hear on
> > the TV news.
> Well, yes, I'm sure you're right. I'm sure that because I have attitudes
> and opinions that are contrary to yours, which you can "prove" are wrong
> because you have a subjective, personal experience that runs counter to
> the general points I made, that those attitudes and opinions are in fact
> invalid and that I should just shut up when my betters are expounding.
> <large snip>
Shane--
A. Yes, David did take your response to me about L.A. out of the
context of county fairs.
B. I probably live in a "different Dothan" from people of a different
generation, different social or economic group. etc., in the same way that
eyewitness accounts of the same event are often wildly different.
C. You have offered thoughtful posts, as I hope you will continue to
do. So has David. This is usually a pretty good place for discussions, not
flames, despite my kidding response to you. Nevertheless, just as in a
family, sometimes people flare up. It's not representative of H-F, nor even
of David, although he has been testier than usual of late. So have a lot of
us--I guess we trreat this ng like we do our families, and take each other
for granted, forgetting the courtesies when we are feeling stressed.
Unfortunately, since 9/11 there has been more than enough tension around.
In other words, don't go away. I hope you and David will both take a
deep breath, and either talk it out, or just agree to disagree. But keep
posting, okay?
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20385
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:24:37 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David M. Silver" wrote:
>
> Shane Glaseman wrote:
> > I don't think the cost to the business is really the issue; people could
> > argue that the cost (no matter what it was) was inconsequential in their
> > minds, compared to the the value of having those squad cars in the
> > parking lot.
> >
> > It seems to me that that "tiny favor" *does* buy the owner something
> > normal citizens are not getting -- increased police presence. If the
> > officers are spending *more* time in that parking lot, getting free
> > coffee and donuts, and discussing the whichness of what, they're
> > spending *less* time on patrol, where they belong... and where I pay
> > them to be. Yes, perhaps (in fact, certainly) you appreciate that
> > increased presence during the wee hours; am I supposed to cheer that you
> > get extra protection, and I get less?
> >
> > I'm not really objecting to a free cup of coffee, or similar minor
> > perks; were I in the same position, I'd probably do the same. I'd do the
> > same for military personnel, too. But whether or not it's done, and
> > whether or not we in the public think it's wrong, it is in fact
> > unethical -- the cost of the courtesy is irrelevant. Those charged with
> > providing law enforcement are not supposed to favor some over others.
> > Such things will always go on, and like I say, I'd be "guilty," too. In
> > such cases all parties involved need to keep a sharp eye on it, lest
> > they fall down the slippery slope of ever increasing "courtesies" and
> > returned "benefits."
>
> Actually Shane you don't pay them anymore than the gas station operator and I
> did;
That's correct, I don't. Such being the case, I'd rather that they
didn't spend extra time, or take "extra breaks," in that coffee shop or
at that garage that dishes up free coffee... or free whatever. As I
said, I don't *really* have a problem with a free cup of coffee -- what
bothers me is that time they spend there drinking it, which goes beyond
the time it actually *takes* to drink it, shooting the breeze with the
guy or gal who gave it to them, when they're supposed to be on patrol.
And has been already mentioned, even this extra time isn't that big a
deal (until they miss that serious crime that would have been prevented
had they turned that corner just before it happened, instead of being in
that parking lot) -- but these are human being we're dealing with,
humans at work... and that "slippery slope" mentioned before (and the
bane of rhetorical discussion) is not so unlikely in this scenario --
people at work, bored with the routine and each other, taking the
opportunity to break up the shift with some coffee (free or not, really)
and conversation... when they're not supposed to be doing so.
> and they are entitled to take their "Code 7" when and where they wish,
> calls permitting. Would you rather they left their patrol area if open food and
> beverage facilities aren't available, as they were not in the area I worked and
> provided them coffee for free, as they were permitted to do so, calls permitting,
> or remained in it?
You're off-track; we're talking about freebies given to police officers,
and the possible unethical ramifications in terms of special treatment
given/expected as a result. I'm saying "I'm uncomfortable with giving
them freebies." You're saying, here, "But they have to eat!" Not exactly
relevant. Yes, they're human; they gotta eat. If their assigned patrol
area is an industrial area, late at night, then, yeah, I guess I'll be a
dead-game sport and let them find a place to eat... even if it's outside
that area. Now, before you bring up a second irrelevancy, yeah, I'd also
be inclined to let them leave that patrol area if they had to use the
bathroom, too.
> Your assumptions are invalid.
Are they, now? And which assumptions would those be? The assumption that
a police officer, a normal human, would tend to take longer than is
necessary to drink that free cup of coffee and chat a bit before
returning to work? This is invalid, eh? You're really going to assert
that a police officer is going to drive to your station, get out, get
that cup of coffee, drink it quickly, say "Thank you," and hop back in
his squad car and get back to duty? Just that fast? He's not going to
chat a bit? Not going to have a second cup? No?
Or is it the assumption that that officer, after a time receiving that
freebie, is going to show you some preferential treatment, no matter how
small? Really. You point out in another post that robberies of your
station (or in your immediate area) went down during the time officers
tended to show up for that coffee. They went down because the officers
were at your station *more often than they would normally be.* That's
preferential treatment. Are you going to argue that because it
benefitted you personally that it therefore shouldn't count as
"preferential?" You have impressive statistics of the drop in crime rate
because they were nearby. I wonder what the stats re: the crime rate
show for the areas that received correspondingly lesser police presence,
due to the fact that they were having a cup o' joe with you, instead of
patrolling?
Or is it the assumption that you really didn't expect that "extra"
attention? Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't; I can't speak to your
state of mind. But I find it unlikely that you failed to consider that
you *would* benefit, whether you expected to or not, if they were there
more often.
Or was it some other assumption?
> The cops I served free coffee to
> frequently asked me where the coffee came from. I told them my manager and I
> bought it out of our pockets, which was true. Not infrequently they pressed on me
> a couple of bucks, for the "coffee fund" and threatened to stop coming by if I
> refused it.
Good for them. As I've already said, the majority of police officers are
decent, ethical human beings, trying to do a difficult job under
near-warlike conditions.
> You didn't buy a damned thing for a cup of coffee or a donut from the
> veteran street monsters...
Yes, you did. You bought increased presence at your place of business.
You said so yourself.
> ...we had patrolling Los Angeles in the late 1960s; and any
> 'slippery slope' or ever increasing 'courtesies' and returned 'benefits' arising
> out of free coffee is a figment of your imagination.
Did you, or did you not, get that lowered crime rate due to increased
presence? Either you did, and thus this is NOT a "figment of my
imagination"; or you did not, in which case your argument falls apart
(sorta -- you seem to be arguing both sides: "freebies don't compromise
ethics and I don't get anything out of it... but the crime rate went
down at my station while I 'wasn't really' compromising those
ethics.")(Uh, I originally mentioned the "slippery slope" as an
acknowledgement that 1. it's logically fallacious and really shouldn't
be used in rhetoric, and 2. I was going to use it anyway to show a
*potentiality*, not a guaranteed pattern of behavior.)
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20386
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:44:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
dee wrote:
>
> A. Yes, David did take your response to me about L.A. out of the
> context of county fairs.
>
> B. I probably live in a "different Dothan" from people of a different
> generation, different social or economic group. etc., in the same way that
> eyewitness accounts of the same event are often wildly different.
>
> C. You have offered thoughtful posts, as I hope you will continue to
> do. So has David. This is usually a pretty good place for discussions, not
> flames, despite my kidding response to you. Nevertheless, just as in a
> family, sometimes people flare up. It's not representative of H-F, nor even
> of David, although he has been testier than usual of late. So have a lot of
> us--I guess we trreat this ng like we do our families, and take each other
> for granted, forgetting the courtesies when we are feeling stressed.
> Unfortunately, since 9/11 there has been more than enough tension around.
>
> In other words, don't go away. I hope you and David will both take a
> deep breath, and either talk it out, or just agree to disagree. But keep
> posting, okay?
Ha! Thanks, Dee. It would take more than a post that I interpret as at
least mildly attacking in nature to cause me to stop posting. But thanks
for asking me to stay, anyway; it's appreciated.
I know that Mr. Silver has offered well-thought-out posts in the past,
and is "positive" in expressing his opinions (I've been lurking awhile).
What disturbed me is he responded to someone he's never "met" before in
such a negative manner; the implied assertion that I can't think for
myself was uncalled for, and didn't speak well of him, either -- "you
disagree with me, so obviously you're a fool."
I agree with you that courtesies tend to suffer when people are under
stress, and we've had quite a lot lately. But really, for my money --
one measure of a mature adult is his/her ability to maintain those
courtesies *in the face* of such stress. What worth has courtesy when
it's offered only when it's easy to do so?
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20387
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:13:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:49:05 -0800, Shane Glaseman
<Shane.Glaseman@aero.org> wrote:
>Well, thanks. It strikes me that new ideas and concepts can't really get
>spread around for thoughtful consideration if everyone is screaming
>"You're a fool!" at each other. Reminds me of a line I read somewhere,
>something to the effect, "You could tell how vehemently the two
>disagreed with each other; they more they argued, the more polite they
>became to each other."
>
Heinlein himself said OWTTE: "I never learned from a man I agreed
with." I believe it's in the Schulman interview. I keep it as a
quote on my cubicle wall and have gotten several comments from it over
the years. ;)
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20388
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:10:24 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:49:05 -0800, Shane Glaseman
> <Shane.Glaseman@aero.org> wrote:
>
> >Well, thanks. It strikes me that new ideas and concepts can't really get
> >spread around for thoughtful consideration if everyone is screaming
> >"You're a fool!" at each other. Reminds me of a line I read somewhere,
> >something to the effect, "You could tell how vehemently the two
> >disagreed with each other; they more they argued, the more polite they
> >became to each other."
> >
>
> Heinlein himself said OWTTE: "I never learned from a man I agreed
> with." I believe it's in the Schulman interview. I keep it as a
> quote on my cubicle wall and have gotten several comments from it over
> the years. ;)
>
> JT
Hi, JT.
Now that I've had time to think about it, wasn't there a sequence in
TSBTS wherein Lazarus and Ira were sitting on a glider swing (with
Maureen and Brian), discussing various OB/GYN procedures? As I recall,
they became more and more polite as they increasingly differed in outlook.
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20389
From: Jane Davitt
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:38:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Jonny Shade, RIP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I'm so sorry. Our cat Macallan came close to dying last week but managed
to pull through. I wish Jonny could have made it too. I hope his sister
copes with losing her brother; the ties between cats can be very strong.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20390
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 17:18:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Shane Glaseman wrote:
> "David M. Silver" wrote:
> >
> > Shane Glaseman wrote:
>
> > > I don't think the cost to the business is really the issue; people could
> > > argue that the cost (no matter what it was) was inconsequential in their
> > > minds, compared to the the value of having those squad cars in the
> > > parking lot.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that that "tiny favor" *does* buy the owner something
> > > normal citizens are not getting -- increased police presence. If the
> > > officers are spending *more* time in that parking lot, getting free
> > > coffee and donuts, and discussing the whichness of what, they're
> > > spending *less* time on patrol, where they belong... and where I pay
> > > them to be. Yes, perhaps (in fact, certainly) you appreciate that
> > > increased presence during the wee hours; am I supposed to cheer that you
> > > get extra protection, and I get less?
> > >
> > > I'm not really objecting to a free cup of coffee, or similar minor
> > > perks; were I in the same position, I'd probably do the same. I'd do the
> > > same for military personnel, too. But whether or not it's done, and
> > > whether or not we in the public think it's wrong, it is in fact
> > > unethical -- the cost of the courtesy is irrelevant. Those charged with
> > > providing law enforcement are not supposed to favor some over others.
> > > Such things will always go on, and like I say, I'd be "guilty," too. In
> > > such cases all parties involved need to keep a sharp eye on it, lest
> > > they fall down the slippery slope of ever increasing "courtesies" and
> > > returned "benefits."
> >
> > Actually Shane you don't pay them anymore than the gas station operator and I
> > did;
>
> That's correct, I don't. Such being the case, I'd rather that they
> didn't spend extra time, or take "extra breaks," in that coffee shop or
> at that garage that dishes up free coffee... or free whatever.
Who said anything about 'extra breaks'? I didn't. You don't think they're required to
get into the car, absent extraordinary circumstances, and drive continuously
responding to calls and on active patrol for eight (now twelve) hours, unless they are
out responding to a call, do you? It's not a question of supervisory license, either.
California law, and probably the laws of most other states, requires they take time
off of a meal, every four hours, and mandates they take at least a fifteen minute
break within each of those four hour periods. Naturally, they're going somewhere
within their patrol area, if it's there; and, if not, outside their patrol area, calls
permitting, where they can get, at a minimum, a cup of coffee. These guys -- and women
now -- aren't robots you oil and check the batteries of, a la Verhoeven movies,
they're humans. And so are their supervisors. Have you ever watched cops on patrol at
night? Of course you have. Why, do you suppose, occasionally when you drive by one,
you see one or two or even three black and whites parked at a local "Quickie Mart"?
They're buying coffee, or maybe a couple of those lousy pre-packaged two-day old
sandwiches, if their wives didn't put something in that black briefcase they all use
as a lunch bucket, these days. And just maybe, since they're all there together,
they're exchanging information on what they've observed or learned earlier in their
watch, e.g., there's a lot of new tags painted by "Sotel" all over "Sho'line Crips"
territory in Oakwood, mebbe we better keep a close eye down there tonight and the rest
of the week. Or maybe they're just bullshitting. It's their right.
And you don't think there's maybe a purpose to the idle chit-chat they have with night
attendant at the gas station or the "Quickie Mart"? Seen anything? "Yeah." What?
"There's three hookers and their pimp working the sidewalks up and down the street
between here and Venice Boulevard." Or, "somebody's selling crack under the freeway
overpass." Or, even better, "Two guys parked in the back of the lot an hour ago. After
about thirty minutes, one got out, came in, walked around through all the aisles
looking in corners, and bought a pack of cigarettes and asked me if the company was
too cheap to have another guy working here with me. Jailhouse tatoos all over his
arms. I think they're casing this station, and they're be back." Okay, we'll keep an
eye out.
> As I
> said, I don't *really* have a problem with a free cup of coffee -- what
> bothers me is that time they spend there drinking it, which goes beyond
> the time it actually *takes* to drink it, shooting the breeze with the
> guy or gal who gave it to them, when they're supposed to be on patrol.
I think you might concede you really don't know how long they're expected to be there,
unless you're in a ride-along with them -- ever been on a ride-along? -- and keeping
an eye on your stopwatch. These guys and women are trained to be 'professional' yet
you're seemingly unwilling to concede professionalism. What do you do for a living
that makes you think that way?
> And has been already mentioned, even this extra time isn't that big a
> deal (until they miss that serious crime that would have been prevented
> had they turned that corner just before it happened, instead of being in
> that parking lot) -- but these are human being we're dealing with,
> humans at work... and that "slippery slope" mentioned before (and the
> bane of rhetorical discussion) is not so unlikely in this scenario --
> people at work, bored with the routine and each other, taking the
> opportunity to break up the shift with some coffee (free or not, really)
> and conversation... when they're not supposed to be doing so.
Do you know what a cop does when he stops for a cup of coffee? He calls in his
location. He says, just like on the TV show, "Adam twelve. Show me Code 7 at 501
Glendale Boulevard, at the gas station." The dispatcher gives him a roger, and notes
it on a log that the brass reviews. If one of the three-stripe watch sergeants on
duty, listening to his watch calls, doesn't like it, he comes on and says: "Adam
twelve, El-twenty. Negative. Go take a look at the group of teenagers leaving the
dance at Belmont." Otherwise he says nothing, and permits it.
If the sergeant responsible for the watch, or at least his part of the watch doesn't
care if they stop, what's your problem? He's supposed to know what's going on with
crime on his beat and what level of patrolling is necesary to crush crime, as they put
it. You probably don't. I sure as hell don't, even if I'm part of a local neighborhood
station council.
> > and they are entitled to take their "Code 7" when and where they wish,
> > calls permitting. Would you rather they left their patrol area if open food and
> > beverage facilities aren't available, as they were not in the area I worked and
> > provided them coffee for free, as they were permitted to do so, calls permitting,
> > or remained in it?
>
> You're off-track; we're talking about freebies given to police officers,
> and the possible unethical ramifications in terms of special treatment
> given/expected as a result.
That may be what you're talking about. I'm not. I'm talking about a gas station within
the patrol beat in a high crime area of a metropolitan city keeping a pot of coffee
going all night through the graveyard watch to keep those cops on *their* beat, not
off onto the adjacent beat where they have to go to find a hot cup.
> I'm saying "I'm uncomfortable with giving
> them freebies." You're saying, here, "But they have to eat!" Not exactly
> relevant. Yes, they're human; they gotta eat. If their assigned patrol
> area is an industrial area, late at night, then, yeah, I guess I'll be a
> dead-game sport and let them find a place to eat... even if it's outside
> that area.
Well, then, "dead-game sport," lemme tell you about a dead gas station attendant, who
may very well have been dead because the cops weren't on their beat, but driving to
and fro to take their permitted meal and coffee breaks. Do you know how long it takes,
even with red lights and siren going, to dump your steaming coffee on the asphalt and
get from Vermont and Sixth, where there was a coffee shop open (the pancake house if
it's still there), to the old Standard Oil station at Glendale and Temple (across from
the library in Echo Park) at 3 AM? Ten minutes, maybe? Maybe seven? Seven was too long
for the eighteen-year-old kid I helped train before I quit, but who ignored what I
(and the station manager) told him about keeping the coffee pot going. They made him
kneel and shot him in the head. They didn't like the fact he couldn't open the bottom
safe to give them more than the Twenty-five bucks they got, because he didn't have the
keys. You don't think this is polite argument? Sorry, the dead kid probably didn't
either.
> Now, before you bring up a second irrelevancy, yeah, I'd also
> be inclined to let them leave that patrol area if they had to use the
> bathroom, too.
[You really don't want me to answer that, do you? It would curdle your sensitivities
to know what most cops I knew, including some I grew up with, would have done if it
had been up to you to grant them permission to 'use the bathroom.']
> > Your assumptions are invalid.
>
> Are they, now? And which assumptions would those be? The assumption that
> a police officer, a normal human, would tend to take longer than is
> necessary to drink that free cup of coffee and chat a bit before
> returning to work?
You never watched cops on their break respond to a call, did you? No, I don't suppose
so. Why don't you call your local station and ask about their ride-along program. Do
you know an actual cop who patrols? Maybe he can arrange it, if he thinks it's worth
the effort.
> This is invalid, eh? You're really going to assert
> that a police officer is going to drive to your station, get out, get
> that cup of coffee, drink it quickly, say "Thank you," and hop back in
> his squad car and get back to duty?
Some did exactly that, many times. And some stopped by, chatted from their car for a
bit, about "What's going on, tonight?" and declined the offer, saying, "No, we're too
busy tonight." And did some sit there and have a second cup. Yep. Why? Usually
because, "Damn, it's slow tonight." And one, who had six stripes for service on his
otherwise blank sleeve, once spent a couple ten minute drive-in breaks (he didn't
drink coffee--he drank water) asking me to consider "going to the Academy" if my
college plans didn't "work out." I thanked him for the interest.
> Just that fast? He's not going to
> chat a bit? Not going to have a second cup? No?
I think I've answered this. How long does it take you to drink two cups of coffee?
Back in the good old days when we walked uphill through snow five miles both ways,
when a styrofoam 'cup' was about six ounces, hell yes, more than a few had a second
'cup.' And on cold rainy nights, the number of cups went up so long as there were no
calls.
> Or is it the assumption that that officer, after a time receiving that
> freebie, is going to show you some preferential treatment, no matter how
> small? Really. You point out in another post that robberies of your
> station (or in your immediate area) went down during the time officers
> tended to show up for that coffee. They went down because the officers
> were at your station *more often than they would normally be.* That's
> preferential treatment.
Sez you. Me, that was my skin they were protecting and serving. There weren't any
other gas station robberies on their beat while they were on my station, either. I
guess you won't accept my word for it about what was their best placement those
evenings, so, how about this: when you die, look up the eighteen-year-old I trained
and ask him. He was a nice kid, maybe he'll be more polite and patient than I am.
> Are you going to argue that because it
> benefitted you personally that it therefore shouldn't count as
> "preferential?" You have impressive statistics of the drop in crime rate
> because they were nearby. I wonder what the stats re: the crime rate
> show for the areas that received correspondingly lesser police presence,
> due to the fact that they were having a cup o' joe with you, instead of
> patrolling?
You'll have to ask the watch beat sergeants, the watch commander, and the station
commander. I wouldn't know. The beat sergeants occasionally stopped by, the watch
commander once. The watch commander thanked me for having the pot going. He said "it
keeps my cars on their beats, instead of over in Hollywood [the next station over]."
Wadda you think they're going to say?
To be fair to you, Shawn, you should know that the cops patrolling the area in which I
worked were working out of "Central" which is downtown, then working out of a building
that was near the site of Parker Center, and this was before "Rampart" station was
built, although the station was a-building. "Hollywood" (the station then on Ivar)
responsibility started at Vermont boulevard, back then.
> Or is it the assumption that you really didn't expect that "extra"
> attention? Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't; I can't speak to your
> state of mind. But I find it unlikely that you failed to consider that
> you *would* benefit, whether you expected to or not, if they were there
> more often.
>
> Or was it some other assumption?
I expected to benefit two ways: (1) the "Central" cars (note the plural: several cars
overlap an area in Los Angeles, not one car to one beat) assigned to my area would
stay in my area; and (2) any local robbers would know that at any given time,
someone's black and white could drive up and start their legally-mandated Code 7 break
on my station. And I expected the word to get around. I tried to make sure it did.
Anyone asked, "How come I see black and whites here, once in a while, when I drive
by?" I told 'em, and why, and what my thinking was, and I smiled. I also refused to
change anything bigger than a $5 bill, and always was sure to point out that I didn't
have the bottom safe key. The bottom line was: I was never robbed.
> > The cops I served free coffee to
> > frequently asked me where the coffee came from. I told them my manager and I
> > bought it out of our pockets, which was true. Not infrequently they pressed on me
> > a couple of bucks, for the "coffee fund" and threatened to stop coming by if I
> > refused it.
>
> Good for them. As I've already said, the majority of police officers are
> decent, ethical human beings, trying to do a difficult job under
> near-warlike conditions.
>
> > You didn't buy a damned thing for a cup of coffee or a donut from the
> > veteran street monsters...
>
> Yes, you did. You bought increased presence at your place of business.
> You said so yourself.
Damned right! Exactly what I was after. They were on my station, on their beat, taking
their legally-mandated break with the knowledge of their supervisors. Next clay
pigeon?
> > ...we had patrolling Los Angeles in the late 1960s; and any
> > 'slippery slope' or ever increasing 'courtesies' and returned 'benefits' arising
> > out of free coffee is a figment of your imagination.
>
> Did you, or did you not, get that lowered crime rate due to increased
> presence? Either you did, and thus this is NOT a "figment of my
> imagination"; or you did not, in which case your argument falls apart
> (sorta -- you seem to be arguing both sides: "freebies don't compromise
> ethics and I don't get anything out of it... but the crime rate went
> down at my station while I 'wasn't really' compromising those
> ethics.")
What benefit are you talking about? The benefit of police protection? The city paid
them to keep me from being robbed! I facilitated that benefit so far as I'm concerned.
Did they do something for the coffee like fix tickets for me? Hell, no. In fact they
laughed one time I told them about a ticket I got for a 'speed contest' in my '53
Austin-Healy 100-4 running down Silverlake Boulevard and told me I deserved it. I
expected them to laugh. Silverlake is the traditional place to race cars, illegally,
in that area. We all knew it. Did I expect that I'd get an offer to do me a benefit
when I mentioned it. Hell, no. In Parker's day, you'd get busted for even hinting a
ticket be fixed.
> (Uh, I originally mentioned the "slippery slope" as an
> acknowledgement that 1. it's logically fallacious and really shouldn't
> be used in rhetoric, and 2. I was going to use it anyway to show a
> *potentiality*, not a guaranteed pattern of behavior.)
I'll say it again. A cup of coffee is an ammenity. I'll repeat what the watch
commander said: "it keeps my cars on their beat, instead of over in Hollywood ... "
getting coffee, having their lunch, going to 'the bathroom,' in an opened, clean
bathroom instead of peeing on a tree in Silverlake Reservoir. I saw it as a win-win.
You see it as potentiality of corruption. I think seeing that as a potentiality is
petty and not related to realities of life, as I have experienced them. YMMV, but I'll
point out again, I have slightly more mileage on me.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20391
From: Filksinger"
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:51:07 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.165657fbea7ca5d89897c2@news.sff.net...
> In article <3beb4116.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> ...
> > Cops today _know_ this happens. That's why they insist on paying
something
> > for the coffee, etc., because _they_ know that, being human, it can
happen
> > to them if they let it.
> >
>
> But David's cops /did/ pay something.
Which is what I just said. _They_ know the risk, so they insist on paying.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20392
From: Filksinger"
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:50:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16586509975e17969897c7@news.sff.net...
> In article <3BEC7626.AF33C9E5@calpoly.edu>, Bob writes...
> ...
> > The dorm itself is so-so. They can't seem to get their act together
about the
> > net access; it's never at anything close to their claimed speed
(384/384)
>
> Hah! When I was in college a friend of mine and I had to get our own
> grant from the Sloan Foundation just to get /timesharing access/ (ever
> heard of that?) into the dorm on a 300 baud modem.
>
> And we had to walk 5 miles through the snow to get the money! Wait a
> minute... that can't be right, I went to college in southern California.
> Hmmm.
"When I Was A Boy"
By Steve McDonald
When I was a boy, our Nintendo
Was carved from an old Apple tree.
And we used garden hose to connect it
To our steam-powered color TV.
But it still beat that ancient Atari
'Cause I almost went blind, don'tcha know.
Playing Breakout and Pong on a video game
That hooked up to our radio.
And we walked 20 miles to the school house
Barefoot and uphill both ways!
Through blizzards in summer and winter
Back in the Good Ol' Days.
Back when Fortran was not even Threetran!
And the PC was only a toy!
And we did our computing by gaslights
When I was a boy.
Well, when I was a boy all our networks
Were for hauling in fish from the sea.
Our bawd rate was eight bits an hour (she was worth it!)
And our IP address was just three.
Oh, and you kids who think that world wide web
Is too slow ought to cut out your bitchin'.
'Cause when I was a boy every packet
Was delivered by carrier pigeon!
And we walked 20 miles to the school house
Barefoot and uphill both ways!
Through blizzards in summer and winter
Back in the Good Ol' Days.
Back when Fortran was not even Twotran!
And the mainframe was only a toy!
And we did our computing by torchlights
When I was a boy.
Well, when I was a boy our IS shop
Built relational tables out of wood.
And we wrappered our data in oilcloth
To preserve it the best that we could.
And we carried our bits in a bucket
And our mainframe weight nine hundred tons.
And we programmed in ones and in zeroes.
And sometimes we ran out of ones!
And we walked 20 miles to the school house
Barefoot and uphill both ways!
Through blizzards in summer and winter
Back in the Good Ol' Days.
Back when Fortran was not even Onetran!
And the abacus? Hah! Only a toy!
And we did our computing in primordial darkness
When I was a boy.
The really scary thing about this song the number of things at the end which
are nearly true for _me_.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20393
From: Filksinger"
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:33:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16571ff99f9a98d39897c6@news.sff.net...
> In article <3BED39DD.C2F7DAB5@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> ...
<snip>
> > "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> > > But
> > > this is perhaps simply a result of the obvious telegraphing of our
> > > intention in the second raid.
> >
> > Obvious on Monday morning to Hirsh and you, perhaps; OTOH, perhaps if an
> > 'ambush' occurred in fact, equally attributable to the well-known rule
of
> > warfare: shit happens.
>
> David, you know far more about military tactics than I do. I am not
> trying to "quarterback" anything; I am just trying to make sense of
> things. Why would you "announce" a raid by a force that specializes in
> stealth with a massive aerial attack?
Well, probably because we were shooting up everything in the area. If you
shoot up everything _except_ one target, then that target becomes
"obvious", too.
To put it simply, attacking from the air could cause the problem described,
but not attacking from the air can cause the problem described. Catch-22.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20394
From: Geo Rule
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:07:49 -0800
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:50:27 -0800, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>"When I Was A Boy"
>By Steve McDonald
>
>When I was a boy, our Nintendo
>Was carved from an old Apple tree.
>And we used garden hose to connect it
>To our steam-powered color TV.
>
Heh. The only thing he left out was "And we were **Thankful!**"
Yep, my first was an Apple II+ with a 300baud modem. You loaded
programs using a regular old audio cassette. No hard drive and the
floppy (wow!) cost like $800.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20395
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:56:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Jonny Shade, RIP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Thanks,
Isis seems fine so far, as is their friend Merlin.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20396
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 14:46:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:07:49 -0800, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
>Yep, my first was an Apple II+ with a 300baud modem. You loaded
>programs using a regular old audio cassette. No hard drive and the
>floppy (wow!) cost like $800.
My first (1984) was an Atari 800XL. No harddrive, of course. Had two
cartridge slots, one to hold the Basic and one to hold whatever
application you wanted to run. Bought a tape drive too, and it was
rather expense as I recall, as well as a Smith Corona daisy wheel
printer (and needed some fancy interface gizmo to get it to run--can't
remember what that was about). I think I did buy a floppy drive a
year or two later. No modem at all.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20397
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:24:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bf0877a.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> To put it simply, attacking from the air could cause the problem described,
> but not attacking from the air can cause the problem described. Catch-22.
I don't see this as a Catch 22, Filk. What Hersh reported was that the
Delta Force would have preferred a completely stealthy mission. That
implies no initial bombing of the area at all. Of course, without the
bombing, they might have suffered much heavier casualties, but that was
the point of the "That's what we're paid for".
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20398
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:26:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BED751C.D511C060@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>
> > We are now fighting an ideology wrapped in a
> > religion with no central point of control that spans many political
> > boundaries.
>
> That's my point.
Mine too, obviously. ;-)
> Do you now understand why I want to 'mobilize a force of, oh, say, about
> forty divisions ... '?
Yes, I do. I also understand why I don't. But I'm not sure that you
understand why I don't. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20399
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 10:48:17 -0800
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.165b05265e7155929897c8@news.sff.net...
> In article <3bf0877a.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> ...
> > To put it simply, attacking from the air could cause the problem
described,
> > but not attacking from the air can cause the problem described.
Catch-22.
>
> I don't see this as a Catch 22, Filk. What Hersh reported was that the
> Delta Force would have preferred a completely stealthy mission.
So what? The people who give the orders have a lot more to worry about than
what type of mission Delta Force would _like_. They have dozens of things to
consider, and Delta Force's preferences are, correctly, only a tiny part of
these considerations. Soldiers generally _don't_ get to attack under their
preferred circumstance; that's part of being a soldier.
> That
> implies no initial bombing of the area at all.
_If_ Delta Force's preferences are more important than that bombing, then
obviously we should have done it that way. Of course, if what Delta Force
prefers is considered more important than what is best for the war, or even
what is best for the survival of Delta Force, then we are in big trouble.
> Of course, without the
> bombing, they might have suffered much heavier casualties, but that was
> the point of the "That's what we're paid for".
And this is exactly what I think is screwed up about this entire idea. Since
when does any soldier get to say that his preferred method of attack is more
important than the casualties it would cause?
_If_ Delta Force's mission was more important than the bombing being
performed for other reasons in the area, and _if_ the bombing increased the
risk to Delta Force, then somebody up top screwed up. Alternately, _if_
Delta Force's mission was so unimportant that it should have been scrubbed
due to excessive danger, and _if_ the bombing introduced this excessive
danger, then somebody screwed up. And _if_ the person who made these
decisions _should have known better_ but did it anyway, _then_ he's
incompetent.
So far, I see no reason to believe any of these ifs.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20400
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:23:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:07:49 -0800, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Yep, my first was an Apple II+ with a 300baud modem. You loaded
> >programs using a regular old audio cassette. No hard drive and the
> >floppy (wow!) cost like $800.
>
> My first (1984) was an Atari 800XL. No harddrive, of course. Had two
> cartridge slots, one to hold the Basic and one to hold whatever
> application you wanted to run. Bought a tape drive too, and it was
> rather expense as I recall, as well as a Smith Corona daisy wheel
> printer (and needed some fancy interface gizmo to get it to run--can't
> remember what that was about). I think I did buy a floppy drive a
> year or two later. No modem at all.
TI99-4A. Tape drive. One cartridge slot, but the cartridge increased
the RAM (from 16 to 20 KB, IIRC), even if it was a game. Our TV was the
monitor.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20401
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:26:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Jonny Shade, RIP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Condoloences to you and Beth, Fader.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20402
From: Gordon Sollars"
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:06:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bf16aca.0@news.sff.net...
....
> So what? The people who give the orders have a lot more to worry about
than
> what type of mission Delta Force would _like_.
Please excuse my formulation of the problem. But they happen to like the
kind of mission that they were designed to carry out. Question: why should
that force be used in a way inconsistent with its mission?
....
> And this is exactly what I think is screwed up about this entire idea.
Since
> when does any soldier get to say that his preferred method of attack is
more
> important than the casualties it would cause?
They didn't mutiny and refuse the assignment, Filk. They (reportedly) said
that it was the wrong assignment /for them/. Other troops could have been
used.
You go on to spell out some "ifs" that might indicate a problem, and say you
don't see any reason to believe that they are true. There were no reasons
to support your "ifs" in the article (and perhaps you have other
information), but I think that is because it was raising a different point.
If the Delta Force is not routinely used in ways inconsistent with its
design, then this incident raises the question: was there a good reason to
do so? That is what "disturbed" me, and why I posted the URL. If such use
is routine, it raises a very different question, but one that does not tell
us anything special about potential problems in the /present/ conflict.
Whether there ought to be a Delta Force I will leave to David.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20403
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:34:04 -0800
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3bf1a832.0@news.sff.net...
> "Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:3bf16aca.0@news.sff.net...
> ...
> > So what? The people who give the orders have a lot more to worry about
> than
> > what type of mission Delta Force would _like_.
>
> Please excuse my formulation of the problem. But they happen to like the
> kind of mission that they were designed to carry out. Question: why
should
> that force be used in a way inconsistent with its mission?
Ah. I misunderstood.
Yes, if they are misusing Delta Force, they should rethink how they are
using it. However, I'm not certain they are.
They wanted to do a snatch. The conditions were bad for a snatch, true, but
the conditions would have been equally bad for a snatch no matter who they
used. Thus, their best chance of success was using the best people for a
snatch available, i.e. Delta Force.
Maybe they shouldn't have tried a snatch under those conditions. Maybe their
preparations for the snatch were ill-advised. But, given that a snatch was
what they decided to do, Delta Force was the team to use.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20404
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:52:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:10:24 -0800, Shane Glaseman
<Shane.Glaseman@aero.org> wrote:
>Now that I've had time to think about it, wasn't there a sequence in
>TSBTS wherein Lazarus and Ira were sitting on a glider swing (with
>Maureen and Brian), discussing various OB/GYN procedures? As I recall,
>they became more and more polite as they increasingly differed in outlook.
>
>Shane
Could be, but I'm no Heinlein Scholar and I've only read TSBTS once,
going on 6 years ago. Sadly, I don't retain details very well unless
I reread many times. I'll bet someone else can chime in, though. ;)
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20405
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 22:40:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT wrote:
> Sadly, I don't retain details very well unless
> I reread many times.
Don't be sorry about that! I "suffer" from the same "failing," and it's the
main reason I'm able to re-read all my old favorites so often. Imagine how
much fun it would take out of life if you remembered everything you read! 8^)
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20406
From: Geo Rule
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:22:51 -0800
Subject: Trial by Military Tribunal
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hmph. Maybe Henry Halleck isn't all *that* out of date.
See
www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/nov/13/111302554.html?fbi+AND+sneak
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20407
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:44:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> Yep, my first was an Apple II+ with a 300baud modem. You loaded
> programs using a regular old audio cassette.
You and I about match up. My first computer was an Apple ][+ w/48k RAM.
I didn't have a modem -- what would I have done with one in those
benighted days? -- but I did have a 5.25 in. floppy drive (90k storage
per disk, IIRC, but if you punched a notch in the outer envelope, you
could use both sides). My machine had a "language card" that gave me
(IIRC) Applesoft BASIC (an Apple-tailored version of Microsoft BASIC;
remember when Apple and Microsoft actually got along?) and 80-column
display, but still didn't give me a working shift key (had to embed
control characters in word-processor documents to indicate
capitalization!). Later, when I was in Korea, I bought a knock-off CP/M
(C/PM?) card for that, but I never did much with it. I still miss a
couple neat games I had for that box: a Silk Road trading/adventure game
called _Taipan_ and a multi-level arcade maze game called _SnakeByte_.
I never did the audiocassette storage bit, but my Dad, who had one of
the original Apple ][s, did. *he* had a modem, which he used to dial up
his user-group buddy (who was, ironically enough, a corporate patents
and trademarks attorney) and trade pirated software (note that he never
seemed to *use* much of that software; cracking the copy protection and
collecting files was like a hobby). I recall that one of the Apple
users' magazines (mabye _Nibble_?) published code that he and my mother
would laboriously type in, debug, and save to cassette. Eventually they
started publishing the code in an optically readable format, sort of
like a barcode down the edge of the magazine page, and my folks bought
this little reader to save them some typing (and the inevitable
corrections). As someone else mentioned, they had a (multi-thousand
dollar, IIRC) daisywheel "letter quality" (it was actually *typewriter*
quality) printer.
> No hard drive...
Of course not. NOBODY had a hard drive in those days, except for the
owners of "big iron"... and *those* hard-drives were the size of
commercial washing machines. I recall that Dad took me with him to a big
computer trade show once (he was researching PCs for his group at NASA
at the time) when Winchester hard drives were brand new (and 10 Mb was a
*BIG* one!). I was used to floppies and tape, and couldn't imagine why
anyone would even want a storage medium that you couldn't swap out!
<vbg>
> and the
> floppy (wow!) cost like $800.
Yah, my first system, with the CPU, monitor, floppy drive, printer, and
accessories, cost me something like $2500 (I bought it with what was
left of my college fund after I graduated) in 1982. But that machine
(along with a steam-powered word-processing app called SuperText II) got
me through grad school. Five years later, roughly the same amount
(admittedly not adjusted for inflation) bought me a Mac Plus with 1
*Meg* of RAM (20 times as much as the old machine!!), a 3.5 in. floppy
drive that put 800k on a disk (roughly 10 times as much as the old
drive), an ImageWriter II printer (about 3 times as fast as my old
Epson, and print quality at least 5 times as good), a built-in SCSI
port, and a 35 Mb hard drive (external, of course). Ahh, the good old
days, eh?
And as for on-campus computing, which started this delightful walk down
memory lane... when I was an undergraduate engineering student, *I* had
to stand in line at the computing center (which was in fact all the way
across campus from the dorms, though there was precious little of either
snow or hills in Houston), waiting my turn for the keypunch machines
(!). Then I had to stand in line again to turn in my deck... then
(either hours or days later, depending on timing and the fates) stand in
line *again* to get my output... which often showed that the run had
failed because of a typo on one of the cards (the year *after* I
switched from Engineering to English, the Engineering Computing Center
finally got a room full of timesharing terminals, to allow "real-time"
programming and debugging <sigh>).
So, Bob, are you sure you really want to b!tch about how slow your
*internet access* is in your *dorm room*? Trust me, it could
*definitely* be worse! <vbg>
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20408
From: Geo Rule
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:39:56 -0800
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:44:38 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>could use both sides). My machine had a "language card" that gave me
>(IIRC) Applesoft BASIC (an Apple-tailored version of Microsoft BASIC;
>remember when Apple and Microsoft actually got along?)
Yeah, my second paying computer job was writing Applesoft basic
(first was doing data entry on that Apple for a tire shop). It was
three or four programs that did data entry of names and addresses for
a diaper service. The other programs eliminated duplicates and
printed labels. Pregnant ladies could fill out entries that were used
to pick one winner a month for free diaper service. So some of them
would do dozens of entries. The program would eliminate (as best it
could) all the duplicates. The company, of course, got all the names
and addresses of ladies who were going to be needing diaper service. .
..
I wrote the programs, did the data entry, and printed the
labels. The guy who owned the computer (my aunt's first husband) made
most of the money.<g> But it seemed like a good gig at the time.
Complaining about your *broadband* dorm-room access not being
as fast as it should be is the one that makes me giggle.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20409
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 23:44:06 -0800
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> "Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3bf1a832.0@news.sff.net...
> > "Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
> > news:3bf16aca.0@news.sff.net...
> > ...
> > > So what? The people who give the orders have a lot more to worry about
> > than
> > > what type of mission Delta Force would _like_.
> >
> > Please excuse my formulation of the problem. But they happen to like the
> > kind of mission that they were designed to carry out. Question: why
> should
> > that force be used in a way inconsistent with its mission?
>
> Ah. I misunderstood.
>
> Yes, if they are misusing Delta Force, they should rethink how they are
> using it. However, I'm not certain they are.
>
> They wanted to do a snatch. The conditions were bad for a snatch, true, but
> the conditions would have been equally bad for a snatch no matter who they
> used. Thus, their best chance of success was using the best people for a
> snatch available, i.e. Delta Force.
>
> Maybe they shouldn't have tried a snatch under those conditions. Maybe their
> preparations for the snatch were ill-advised. But, given that a snatch was
> what they decided to do, Delta Force was the team to use.
Exactly, and if some 'source' in Delta Force expressed the view to Hirsh the
mission was 'beneath' their august capabilities, I think not only Filksinger
and I, but a good many others would agree there's a "headspacing" problem in
Delta Force that needs adjustment. The way it works, Gordon, is: They tell you
what you do, when you do it, and how they want it done. You say, yessir, and go
do it.
But I've reread the article again; and I'll tell you what I think: Hirsh's
source wasn't Delta. Somebody (I think Hirsh used the word "colleague" -- which
can mean anyone in the Army all the way down to the Pfc cook picking his nose
while he ladles SOS onto your messgear at 5 AM the next morning) heard
something the "colleague" was willing to attribute to a Delta Force member and,
it is likely, he characterized his own views into it on to Hirsh. It's equally
likely Hirsh further characterized it to suite his own views--after all that's
what reporters such as Hirsh who has a known bias do all the time. Think of the
little game children play whispering a message into each others' ears while
sitting in a circle and how different the message is when it gets back to its
source. Lawyers and judges call this inadmissible hearsay; and it's not allowed
in Court to prove the "truth" asserted--finally, because it's inherently
unreliable. In the Army this is called a "latrine rumor," and accorded the
weight anything passing through of a 'latrine' merits.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20410
From: Anthony Alford"
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:16:54 -0500
Subject: Libertarians win majority on Colorado city council
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Story here:
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0112/citycouncil.html
As I recall, someone here was running for office on the LP ticket last year.
I forget which state and office though. Dang memory. Guess I'll have to
look in the archives :)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20411
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:57:11 GMT
Subject: Interesting Article on Muslim attitudes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
From: http://www.msnbc.com/news/655437.asp?0dm=N14PO
***********************************
Drowning in defeatism
Exploring the roots of Muslim rage against the West
By Zafar A. Hasan
SPECIAL TO MSNBC.COM
CHICAGO, Nov. 14 — Since Sept. 11, many Americans have been asking
about the reasons for the strong anti-American sentiment in the Muslim
world. Many commentators have asserted that anti-American sentiment is
the rational result of American foreign policy injustices. But in
fact, this oversimplified sentiment reflects a powerlessness and
deeply rooted defeatism characteristic of the contemporary Muslim
mindset.
SIMPLY STATED, the Muslim world has failed to confront the
challenges of modern life. And as a result, many Muslims have lashed
out, with the strong in Muslim societies abusing the weak. In
Afghanistan under the Taliban, vulnerable subgroups like women and
ethnic minorities have faced oppressive intolerance. In Iraq,
government abuse of the general populace is overt and brutal. In
Pakistan, repeated attempts to implement democracy have been foiled by
widespread corruption: Political leaders loot the national coffers and
democracy fails. The result is that Islamic civilization is in ruins.
And for devoted Muslims, this is an excruciating reality.
AGRESSIVE ANTI-AMERICANISM
Complicating matters is the fact that Muslim failures have been
accompanied by Western success. Certain results of these diverging
paths, such as colonialism, have conditioned Muslims to believe that
the Muslim world does not control its own fate.
Instead, they believe that their destiny is controlled by the
decisions of others, an idea which exemplifies defeatism. Since Others
control their condition and that condition is bad, the Others must be
to blame.
Contemporary Muslim attitudes reflect these pathologies. The
lashing-out associated with powerlessness combines with the
blame-shifting associated with defeatism to create an aggressive
strain of anti-American sentiment. And frank discussions about the
underlying powerlessness are infrequent.
How the Muslim world became so powerless in the face of
modernity is a subject of great debate among Muslim scholars. However,
its results are readily apparent. When Gutenberg invented the printing
press, many Muslim scholars labeled printing a sin. When innovations
were made with gunpowder, these were labeled a sin. Today, certain
Muslim fundamentalist regimes ban cell phones and television.
FACING THE FUTURE
Clearly, many Islamic scholars have lost the ability to
distinguish between global trends which can be resisted and those
which cannot. They have a world view which looks to the past, not to
the future. With this kind of religious scholarship, American foreign
policy is the least of the Muslim world’s concerns.
Of course, it is true that as the world’s only superpower, the
United States impacts all of the world through actions and inaction.
While this should not lead Muslims to blame their problems on the
United States, responsible Americans should examine the intended and
unintended consequences of our policies. For example, sanctions
against Iraq have devastated innocent Iraqis for over ten years. And
let’s face it, Saddam Hussein has not missed a meal since the
sanctions began.
The main point is simply that the Muslim world has become so
focused on American foreign policy that it has forgotten about its
real problems. As a result, the Muslim world has been set up for great
disappointment. Specifically, the Bush administration is now calling
for a Palestinian state, a formal change in foreign policy. If this
happens, the Muslim world will rejoice, believing that a massive
burden has been lifted off its shoulders.
But this is not true. The establishment of a Palestinian state
will not solve the problem of illiteracy in Pakistan. Nor will it
solve the problems of the Palestinians themselves, who will still have
to address the hurdles posed by modernity.
CONFRONTING MODERNITY
This is the crux of the issue. Regardless of whether the United
States alters its foreign policy or not, Islamic civilization cannot
be restored until Muslim leaders find a way to confront the challenges
of modernity.
With strong leadership, the Muslim world can confront its
problems. Leadership can address corruption in the Muslim world.
Leadership can promote the innumerable religious scholars who can cope
with modernity. Leadership can comfort the Muslim world by explaining
that Muslims have wealth and natural resources as well as noted
scientists, jurists and educators. Leadership can coordinate these
resources and improve the Muslim condition. Most importantly,
leadership can convince Muslims that the Muslim world can do this on
its own, without relying upon or blaming anyone else.
This is an important message for a people drowning in
defeatism. It is a message of empowerment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zafar A. Hasan is an attorney in Chicago. He is a founding member and
former president of the Muslim Bar Association.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20412
From: Gordon Sollars"
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:31:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Interesting Article on Muslim attitudes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
....
> By Zafar A. Hasan
> SPECIAL TO MSNBC.COM
>
> CHICAGO, Nov. 14 - Since Sept. 11, many Americans have been asking
> about the reasons for the strong anti-American sentiment in the Muslim
> world. Many commentators have asserted that anti-American sentiment is
> the rational result of American foreign policy injustices.
Or, less contentiously, that such sentiment is a predictable result of
American foreign policy actions.
> But in
> fact, this oversimplified sentiment reflects a powerlessness and
> deeply rooted defeatism characteristic of the contemporary Muslim
> mindset.
Which does not at all mean that changing U.S. policy would have no
beneficial effect on the actions that some persons with this mindset might
undertake.
....
> Instead, they believe that their destiny is controlled by the
> decisions of others, an idea which exemplifies defeatism. Since Others
> control their condition and that condition is bad, the Others must be
> to blame.
Interestingly, IIRC, Abu-Odeh makes the same point, although specifically
about the Palestinians.
> Contemporary Muslim attitudes reflect these pathologies. The
> lashing-out associated with powerlessness combines with the
> blame-shifting associated with defeatism to create an aggressive
> strain of anti-American sentiment. And frank discussions about the
> underlying powerlessness are infrequent.
> How the Muslim world became so powerless in the face of
> modernity is a subject of great debate among Muslim scholars. However,
> its results are readily apparent. When Gutenberg invented the printing
> press, many Muslim scholars labeled printing a sin. When innovations
> were made with gunpowder, these were labeled a sin.
And yet Islamic terrorists did not attack China.
> Today, certain
> Muslim fundamentalist regimes ban cell phones and television.
And why not anti-Japanese sentiment? Japan is awash in cell phones and
television. Not to mention that the Japanese are infidels who do not accept
the Truth that there is One God. The Japanese are ideal villians from the
standpoint of Islamic fundamentalists, yet no planes have been crashed into
the Imperial Palace. Hmmm.
You know the proof that all odd numbers are prime? Three is prime, five is
prime, seven is prime, eleven is prime, thirteen is prime... What about
nine? Oh, that's just experimental error!
> With this kind of religious scholarship, American foreign
> policy is the least of the Muslim world's concerns.
/That/ might well be true.
> Of course, it is true that as the world's only superpower, the
> United States impacts all of the world through actions and inaction.
> While this should not lead Muslims to blame their problems on the
> United States, responsible Americans should examine the intended and
> unintended consequences of our policies.
Indeed we should.
....
> Specifically, the Bush administration is now calling
> for a Palestinian state, a formal change in foreign policy. If this
> happens, the Muslim world will rejoice, believing that a massive
> burden has been lifted off its shoulders.
> But this is not true. The establishment of a Palestinian state
> will not solve the problem of illiteracy in Pakistan. Nor will it
> solve the problems of the Palestinians themselves, who will still have
> to address the hurdles posed by modernity.
Worthy problems to solve, but not as important - in terms of what the U.S.
government is chartered to acheive - as reducing the chances that support
for terrorism against its citizens would increase.
....
> With strong leadership, the Muslim world can confront its
> problems. Leadership can address corruption in the Muslim world.
> Leadership can promote the innumerable religious scholars who can cope
> with modernity. Leadership can comfort the Muslim world by explaining
> that Muslims have wealth and natural resources as well as noted
> scientists, jurists and educators. Leadership can coordinate these
> resources and improve the Muslim condition. Most importantly,
> leadership can convince Muslims that the Muslim world can do this on
> its own, without relying upon or blaming anyone else.
With strong leadership, it seems that all things are possible. But how is
it possible to get strong leadership? I have no idea. In the meantime,
let's stop waving a red flag at the bull, at least until we can figure out a
way to keep him from charging the spectators.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20413
From: Charles Graft
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 15:56:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Libertarians win majority on Colorado city council
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Anthony Alford wrote:
> Story here:
> http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0112/citycouncil.html
>
> As I recall, someone here was running for office on the LP ticket last year.
> I forget which state and office though. Dang memory. Guess I'll have to
> look in the archives :)
It was Clay Steiner. If you want his E-mail address, I can dig it out.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20414
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 17:46:01 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Oy.
First, as you may remember (and anyone else who is still hanging on to
this thread), my initial argument was that police officers are,
generally speaking, far more professional than most of the populace
gives them credit for -- all the words you give in your follow-up
implying that I believe otherwise are, therefore, irrelevant and not
subject to discussion here.
Second, as I've also said, I know quite a few officers of varying ranks
and positions. I've been on ride-alongs. You have examples that support
your points. I have some that support mine. Surely you realize that your
personal experience is not a reflection of the world in general?
Third, the original debate *was* whether or not your providing coffee
for free, and their accepting same, was or was not an admittedly minor
ethical breach:
> > Yes, you did. You bought increased presence at your place of business.
> > You said so yourself.
>
> Damned right! Exactly what I was after. They were on my station, on their beat, taking
> their legally-mandated break with the knowledge of their supervisors.
I know. You were after preferential treatment, and did what was
necessary to get it. Why do you not see that this is an ethical breach?
(The point about "legally mandated break" is irrelevant -- they spent
*more* time than would be normal at *your* station.)
> > You're off-track; we're talking about freebies given to police officers,
> > and the possible unethical ramifications in terms of special treatment
> > given/expected as a result.
>
> That may be what you're talking about. I'm not.
Not now, no. But that was the original argument. If you want to argue
something else, start a new thread and maybe I'll participate. But for
this one, I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on-topic.
> > They went down because the officers
> > were at your station *more often than they would normally be.* That's
> > preferential treatment.
>
> Sez you. Me, that was my skin they were protecting and serving.
Oh, believe me, I understand this point quite well. But the thought
occurs... whose skin *wasn't* being protected while they were protecting yours?
> > Are you going to argue that because it
> > benefitted you personally that it therefore shouldn't count as
> > "preferential?" You have impressive statistics of the drop in crime rate
> > because they were nearby. I wonder what the stats re: the crime rate
> > show for the areas that received correspondingly lesser police presence,
> > due to the fact that they were having a cup o' joe with you, instead of
> > patrolling?
>
> You'll have to ask the watch beat sergeants, the watch commander, and the station
> commander. I wouldn't know.
That's the point. When they were there protecting *you*, who *wasn't*
being protected?
> What benefit are you talking about? The benefit of police protection? The city paid
> them to keep me from being robbed!
No, sir. The city paid them to keep *anyone* from being robbed. And
please, don't try to tell me that no one else was in the same kind of
potential danger in that vicinity. You don't know that, you can't prove it.
> Seven [minutes] was too long
> for the eighteen-year-old kid I helped train before I quit, but who ignored what I
> (and the station manager) told him about keeping the coffee pot going. They made him
> kneel and shot him in the head. They didn't like the fact he couldn't open the bottom
> safe to give them more than the Twenty-five bucks they got, because he didn't have the
> keys. You don't think this is polite argument? Sorry, the dead kid probably didn't
> either.
I'm sincerely sorry that young man was murdered. But are you really
asserting that this tragedy occurred because the officers on that beat
were somewhere out of their patrol area getting a cup of coffee on their
"legally mandated" break, because they couldn't get that cup they used
to because this new kid hadn't heeded you? Or was it *really* that they
weren't at that service station *as often as they used to be because
that FREE cup of coffee was no longer there?*
I find it far more likely that the latter reason is the true one. And,
in all sincerity, I don't blame them a bit -- it was a free cup of
coffee, no big deal, an "amenity" as you say. It caused them to come in
more often and/or stay a bit longer. The preferential treatment you
enjoyed was likely completely unconscious on their part (but NOT on
yours); they likely never intended to be preferential, and I do not
assert that it diminishes their professionalism in any way. Even the
most concientious among us can commit even a major ethical breach and
not have it define us -- shades of gray, and the world is what it is and
not what we wish it to be.
The point I'm trying to make -- and perhaps the lack of clarity is my
fault -- is that YOU committed an ethical breach as well, and because it
benefitted you personally, you seem to be of the opinion that it is NOT
such a breach.
It is. You can play semantics with "amenity" and "freebie" all you want.
You can call my (misrepresented) argument petty if it pleases you to do
so. However, the fact remains that you're in a "me first" mode and feel
that that justifies whatever minor (by your definition) deviations you undertake.
Perhaps you're right; you aren't the one who got shot in the head.
But I find this attitude of "whatever it takes to save my skin" a bit nauseating.
Shane (note spelling)
Oh, by the way -- sentences of yours such as this:
> What do you do for a living that makes you think that way?
.... are called "loaded sentences"; they're designed to anger me, push me
into an emotional (and thus likely ill-reasoned) response, enabling you
to counterattack easily and to great effect.
I'm aware of them. You can stop using them now.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20415
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:05:00 GMT
Subject: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<gloat>
I passed my 70-240, "Accelerated Windows 2000...." exam this
afternoon. Turns out I picked the right study aids and my experience
with it in the lab and classes was enough.
For those that don't know, it's part of the Microsoft certification
process and covers basically all the basic to intermediate knowledge
of their workstation, server, and directory products. It's a
scheduled four hour exam and I finished in a little under three hours.
Being a fast reader and not second-guessing myself came in handy. <G>
So now I'm an MCP 2000, and I can take my time with the rest of the
exams to be an MCSE 2000.
<end gloat>
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20416
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:05:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 20:39:56 -0800, Geo Rule
<georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote:
> Complaining about your *broadband* dorm-room access not being
>as fast as it should be is the one that makes me giggle.
>
Ah, someday Bob will be sounding off to his kids about how he used to
have to type everything and that computers didn't used to all sound
like Majel Barrett Roddenberry. ;)
For the record, the first PC I used was an 8K Commodore PET with tape
drive (we had them at school, which eventually "traded up" to Apple
][e s . First I owned was a VIC-20 with 16K.
Ah, I remember typing in PEEKs and POKEs from the magazine articles.
Later. my big achievement was hacking a word processor's code with a
binary editor to have my name in the title bar. I was never much of a
programmer. <VBG>
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20417
From: Geo Rule
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:12:49 -0800
Subject: Re: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:05:00 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
><gloat>
>I passed my 70-240, "Accelerated Windows 2000...." exam this
>afternoon. Turns out I picked the right study aids and my experience
>with it in the lab and classes was enough.
>
>For those that don't know, it's part of the Microsoft certification
>process and covers basically all the basic to intermediate knowledge
>of their workstation, server, and directory products. It's a
>scheduled four hour exam and I finished in a little under three hours.
>Being a fast reader and not second-guessing myself came in handy. <G>
>
>So now I'm an MCP 2000, and I can take my time with the rest of the
>exams to be an MCSE 2000.
>
><end gloat>
>
>JT
That's great, JT! Congrats.
If this is the gloat thread, I'd like to point out that Civil War
buffs should run right out and buy the current issue of North & South
(available at your better bookstores) and read "Sultana --A Case for
Sabotage" by D.H. Rule. Rumor has it her husband helped with the
research.<g>
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20418
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 00:08:42 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Shane Glaseman wrote:
> [snip, "Oy" first and second as self-serving and irrelevant]
>
> Third, the original debate *was* whether or not your providing coffee
> for free, and their accepting same, was or was not an admittedly minor
> ethical breach:
>
> > > Yes, you did. You bought increased presence at your place of business.
> > > You said so yourself.
> >
> > Damned right! Exactly what I was after. They were on my station, on their beat, taking
> > their legally-mandated break with the knowledge of their supervisors.
>
> I know. You were after preferential treatment, and did what was
> necessary to get it. Why do you not see that this is an ethical breach?
No. How can I? The alternative is they spent less time on their beat due to circumstances
beyond their control, protecting no one, out of timely touch to respond to some calls.
You've turned both reason and ethics on its head. Tell me what principal of ethic you're
talking about? Cite your authority.
> (The point about "legally mandated break" is irrelevant -- they spent
> *more* time than would be normal at *your* station.)
So, that's an incident of where they took their break anywhere ... you would have it they
spent it elsewhere off *their* area of patrol, out of timely touch to respond adequately to
some calls. Let me point out again, that when they resumed that practice, a boy died, who
might not otherwise have. Now tell me how a legally mandated break has no value in reason
to prove or disprove a contention or fact -- that's what 'irrelevant' in argument means,
not whatever you choose to claim to suit yourself.
> > > You're off-track; we're talking about freebies given to police officers,
> > > and the possible unethical ramifications in terms of special treatment
> > > given/expected as a result.
> >
> > That may be what you're talking about. I'm not.
>
> Not now, no. But that was the original argument. If you want to argue
> something else, start a new thread and maybe I'll participate. But for
> this one, I'd appreciate it if you'd stay on-topic.
Gee, Shane, I'da thought it was self-evidence to anyone that if you give a cop big bribes,
and he takes them, either you're about to get busted in a sting, or he's gonna give you
favors until you stop giving him bribes. Is that your main point? Then why are you
bothering to maintain it against three cent cups of coffee? Do you think your argument is
that pure as to admit no exception?
> > > They went down because the officers
> > > were at your station *more often than they would normally be.* That's
> > > preferential treatment.
> >
> > Sez you. Me, that was my skin they were protecting and serving.
>
> Oh, believe me, I understand this point quite well. But the thought
> occurs... whose skin *wasn't* being protected while they were protecting yours?
Answer this: off their beat, completely outside Central's patrol area, who exactly do you
think they were protecting, by their absence, or otherwise? The citizens they were assigned
to be protecting were on their own beat, not some citizens already being adequately
protected by the patrolling of another station. I've pointed this out before, but I'll
repeat it for the last time, so kindly read it. Move your lips if you find it easier. There
was no facility open that they cared to or were allowed to patronize that served them
coffee on their beat (their own patrol area) that I was drawing them from. The nearest
facility they preferred to use was not only off their beat, it was outside their command's
patrol area completely. The next nearest was even farther. They were entitled by laws
passed by the same legislature they enforced to take those 'legally mandated breaks' you
think irrelevant. Their choice regarding whether they took them on or off their beat was
approved, absent some intervening call, both legally and by their supervision. My actions
kept them on their beat, in the middle of their assignment. That's enough for me.
> > > Are you going to argue that because it
> > > benefitted you personally that it therefore shouldn't count as
> > > "preferential?" You have impressive statistics of the drop in crime rate
> > > because they were nearby. I wonder what the stats re: the crime rate
> > > show for the areas that received correspondingly lesser police presence,
> > > due to the fact that they were having a cup o' joe with you, instead of
> > > patrolling?
> >
> > You'll have to ask the watch beat sergeants, the watch commander, and the station
> > commander. I wouldn't know.
>
> That's the point. When they were there protecting *you*, who *wasn't*
> being protected?
You should know that I consider unethical selective snipping to omit answering factual
arguments you'd rather avoid. Why do you do it here? Because you'd rather reiterate your
own opinion than read that of the watch commander who thanked me for doing what I did?
Whose opinion do you think most people heed, yours or his? He didn't think, obviously,
someone was being left unprotected. Nor did he think providing the coffee unethical. Why do
you suppose he was concerned about their having to leave their beats to seek their
legally-mandated refreshment and repose? Would it possibly have been what is the obvious to
anyone reading this: he was concerned about their response time to an emergency call -- you
know, those calls where they get there, just maybe, in the nick of time to keep someone
angry about a small armed robbery take from putting a bullet in a kid's head?
> > What benefit are you talking about? The benefit of police protection? The city paid
> > them to keep me from being robbed!
>
> No, sir. The city paid them to keep *anyone* from being robbed.
No, they paid them to keep who they were assigned to protect from being robbed. On their
beat! They assigned other people to protect other beats, not them.
> And
> please, don't try to tell me that no one else was in the same kind of
> potential danger in that vicinity. You don't know that, you can't prove it.
You sound childish, naw-naw-naw ... all I can prove is there were no reported armed
robberies of commercial establishments while a car was on break, on my station, drinking
coffee I made, on that beat. There were other calls. When they came, they dumped their
coffee, and responded immediately, often Code 3, just as they'd have done had they been
having coffee down at Sixth and Wilshire, off their beat in Hollywood Station's area, or at
Fletcher and Riverside Drive, off their beat in Northeast Station's area (the next two
closest places they could get coffee they were permitted to patronize). I know they got
there quicker, on average, than from locations off their beats. You keep raising the
'potential' of danger somewhere, somehow ... as if there was something the police might
have done had they somehow seen it. Do you have the silly notion that in several square
miles of patrol beat any patrol is going to turn the corner just at the right time even one
percent of the time when potential danger is merely present, to say nothing of actually
occurring? After two or three in the morning? Dream on ... my station was right in the
center of their beat, on a major street, and immediately accessible to a freeway on ramp
that took them anywhere they needed to be on their beat as quickly or faster on average as
access anywhere else could do. It satisfied them, it satisfied their sergeants, and their
watch commander. Your lay opinion is less than qualified. I'll take theirs, not yours.
> > Seven [minutes] was too long
> > for the eighteen-year-old kid I helped train before I quit, but who ignored what I
> > (and the station manager) told him about keeping the coffee pot going. They made him
> > kneel and shot him in the head. They didn't like the fact he couldn't open the bottom
> > safe to give them more than the Twenty-five bucks they got, because he didn't have the
> > keys. You don't think this is polite argument? Sorry, the dead kid probably didn't
> > either.
>
> I'm sincerely sorry that young man was murdered.
I'm sure his family would be grateful to you for your expression of support of his ethical
purity in not keeping that pot going, if that is what it was. What an addition to his
eulogy that would have been!
> But are you really
> asserting that this tragedy occurred because the officers on that beat
> were somewhere out of their patrol area getting a cup of coffee on their
> "legally mandated" break, because they couldn't get that cup they used
> to because this new kid hadn't heeded you? Or was it *really* that they
> weren't at that service station *as often as they used to be because
> that FREE cup of coffee was no longer there?*
Both. Which part don't you understand in the argument? Someone saw the robbery in progress
and called. They didn't get there on time. But they apprehended one fleeing who testified
against his partner who pulled the trigger. They'd decided to knock over the station
because they'd noticed there weren't black and whites stopping anymore. The FREE cup of
coffee cost a nickel retail most places those days -- it cost a dime in the fancy joints --
it really cost around three cents, including gas, or electricity, and overhead. I know. I
worked one of those joints too, and in those days owners of coffee joints actually used to
teach their help a little more than "hold the mustard, hold the relish." I suppose because
growers undoubtedly occasionally mistreated their help who picked the beans thereby keeping
coffee in those years at that low price you'd allege I acted unethically by purchasing it.
Think of the purity of your position. Three cents equals a value greater than one
eighteen-year-old man. That I call nauseating!
I've been trying to remember for a couple days, it wasn't Crane's Maggie: A Girl of the
Street, but maybe something by Frank Norris, in which a young lady working in a bakery is
convinced by a temperance fanatic to quit her job because it made and sold pastries
flavored with rum -- surely unethical to a fanatic, and eventually winds up destitute, on
the street, and then dead. It's a fiction, of course; at least I hope it was, but the
notions of ethics you have very closely approach that idiot temperance worker. Go read what
they tell Rod Walker about his use of logic once more.
> I find it far more likely that the latter reason is the true one. And,
> in all sincerity, I don't blame them a bit -- it was a free cup of
> coffee, no big deal, an "amenity" as you say. It caused them to come in
> more often and/or stay a bit longer.
Yeah, we know. You've already told us you're a "dead-game sport."
> The preferential treatment you
> enjoyed was likely completely unconscious on their part (but NOT on
> yours); they likely never intended to be preferential, and I do not
> assert that it diminishes their professionalism in any way.
You really think cops are that ignorant? You claim you know cops and have ridden along with
cops. Go make your point to one of those cops. Tell him if he took one of those free cups
of coffee his preferential treatment of me you would consider his ethical dereliction to be
"unconscious." Then laugh, quickly, and tell him it's all a joke. I wouldn't want you to
suffer unduly or be rendered unconscious yourself if he's had a bad night, maybe calling
the body wagon to come get a shopkeeper who's been shot dead. Horrors, the shopkeeper may
have even given the cop an apple once.
> Even the
> most concientious among us can commit even a major ethical breach and
> not have it define us -- shades of gray, and the world is what it is and
> not what we wish it to be.
>
> The point I'm trying to make -- and perhaps the lack of clarity is my
> fault -- is that YOU committed an ethical breach as well, and because it
> benefitted you personally, you seem to be of the opinion that it is NOT
> such a breach.
You're correct about my opinion. Remind me not to select you to judge a dog show. You
evidence wooden logic suitable to nothing sentient I can think of. Warn me if you decide,
ever, to run for or seek any judicial office, so I can alert our community.
> It is. You can play semantics with "amenity" and "freebie" all you want.
> You can call my (misrepresented) argument petty if it pleases you to do
> so. However, the fact remains that you're in a "me first" mode and feel
> that that justifies whatever minor (by your definition) deviations you undertake.
>
> Perhaps you're right; you aren't the one who got shot in the head.
>
> But I find this attitude of "whatever it takes to save my skin" a bit nauseating.
I'm neither surprised nor at all concerned with what you "find." Have a long interesting
life, Mr. Glaseman. I don't think I'll trouble your mind with reality again.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20419
From: noone"
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 04:32:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sorry i haven't been back to keep track of this, been a bit busy in the real
world. thanks for the correction, it was disch that spider was quoting. like
spider i don't see "swaggering leather boys" in the book nor do i see any
thing about homosexuality overt or covert, in the book, it's something less
than a non issue. (as for "swaggering leather boys" some of us wear leather
for good practical reason. there's nothing like it for protecting your own
hide when you lay a motorcycle down and if you ride you will, sooner or
later, lay one down.) i've looked through the rest of this thread and while
the discussion wandered far afield it looks lively and interesting, just
what i'd expect from this crowd. and finally, i didn't realise there was a
house rule against mentioning "pxnshxn's" name lest he be invoked. it seems
a reasonable rule to me and i'll remember and observe it in the future.
thanks again geo and best regards.
"gunner"
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:affvsto5hl1g34jmo266jg7caobl0g00a9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:25:08 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:15:16 -0000, "noone" <no_one@home> wrote:
> >
> >>was that alexi panshin? i seem to remember a comment on that in spider
> >>robinson's "rah, rah, r.a.h." essay, i haven't read, and do not plan to
read
> >>panshin's book.
> >>"gunner"
> >>
> >
> > It wasn't Panshin. It may have been Panshin quoting someone
> >else, however.
> >
>
> Nope, not even Panshin quoting someone else. Spider credits
> Thomas Disch for detecting the homosexual themes of ST in the
> "swaggering leather boys" (of which Spider notes he can find no one
> actually wearing leather in the book).
>
>
>
> Geo Rule
>
> www.civilwarstlouis.com
> ****
> Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
> the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
> Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
> the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20420
From: Anthony Alford"
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:13:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Libertarians win majority on Colorado city council
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
That's right. Doesn't he live in Colorado, as well? Well, he probably
already knows about it by now.
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BF42C12.63DAB55F@aol.com...
> It was Clay Steiner. If you want his E-mail address, I can dig it
out.
> --
> <<Big Charlie>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20421
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:43:27 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sigh. I suppose I could continue commenting on your apparent inability
to stay on-topic -- even your own -- or on irrelevant and truly "out
there" examples which really don't support anything we've been talking
about, or your purposeful "misunderstanding" of certain points (I hope
they're purposeful; if they're not, "ignorant" is not a word that should
be applied to *me* here), or, finally, on your loose understanding of
"ethics" or the useful application of rhetoric -- but all would
apparently be wasted.
While it might have been fun to continue the debate, wherein one or the
other or both of us might have made at least a slight step toward
acknowledging the other's viewpoint (and I am not without fault in
this), it is things like this:
> Move your lips if you find it easier.
.... that have convinced me that your approach to debate is infantile
and, in the final analysis, not worth my time. People really would be
more impressed with your opinions -- whether they agree with them or not
-- if you could actually argue the point(s) and not resort to childishness.
> Have a long interesting life, Mr. Glaseman.
Thank you. And the same to you.
> I don't think I'll trouble your mind with reality again.
Your privilege, of course.
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20422
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:08:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BF55040.2F763E60@aero.org>, Shane Glaseman writes...
> Sigh. I suppose I could continue commenting on your apparent inability
> to stay on-topic -- even your own -- or on irrelevant and truly "out
> there" examples which really don't support anything we've been talking
> about, or your purposeful "misunderstanding" of certain points (I hope
> they're purposeful; if they're not, "ignorant" is not a word that should
> be applied to *me* here), or, finally, on your loose understanding of
> "ethics" or the useful application of rhetoric -- but all would
> apparently be wasted.
I think that David was arguing that his pot of coffee kept police
officers right where they should be - in their patrol area. It is true
that he benefited from this, but I don't see why that makes his
understanding of ethics "loose". From a strict Kantian standpoint, it
might mean that his action was not morally praiseworthy, tainted by self
interest as it was. However, the coffee did not, and was not meant to,
induce the officers to ignore their duty. So perhaps even Kant would
have been mollified.
I can think of one case off the top of my head, the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, in which the law distinguishes between small payments to
an official (called "facilitating payments") to do his job - which are
legally allowed by the Act - and payments /not/ to do his job - which are
not. The pot of coffee seems a good deal milder than a facilitating (or
"grease") payment. Of course, the moral compass embedded in the law is
certainly not infallible, but I am not sure what ethical principle you
want to invoke here.
> While it might have been fun to continue the debate, wherein one or the
> other or both of us might have made at least a slight step toward
> acknowledging the other's viewpoint (and I am not without fault in
> this), it is things like this:
Yes, well, I've taken David to task for this myself. But when you're
right, you're right, and I can't (so far, anyway) see where he is wrong
on this one. Comfort yourself (if you like) with the story of the great
chess grand master Aron Nimzovich who, upon realizing that he was in a
lost position in a game with a hated rival, leapt to his feet and
shouted, "To think that I have to lose to an idiot like you!" (Not that
I think David is an idiot, mind you, I just like this story. I've been
in Nimzovich's position a few times. ;-) )
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20423
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:08:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Trial by Military Tribunal
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo: Thanks for posting a link to that thoughtful article.
I liked the part: <snip>
" President Franklin Roosevelt had suspected
World War II saboteurs secretly tried by military commission, and
six were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding. An enemy
who sneaked onto U.S. soil "for the purposes of waging war by
destruction of life or property" was a combatant who could be tried
in a military court, the Supreme Court ruled. "
<snip>
The above would seem cover those terrorists who came into this
country to crash airliners into the WTC to kill innocent citizens at
work.
Ed J
>
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001 19:22:51 -0800, Geo Rule
<georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote:
>
> Hmph. Maybe Henry Halleck isn't all *that* out of date.
>
>See
>
>
>www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/nov/13/111302554.html?fbi+AND+sneak
>
>Geo Rule
>
>http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
>****
>Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
>the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
>Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20424
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:20:41 -0500
Subject: Re: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: Congrats on passing that test. Hard work and study are rarely
reward enough - one major hurdle towards that cert (MCSE2000) is a
'Good Show' as the Brits would say.
Ed J
(Does this mean I can you ask you the Win2000 questions that my
past two instructors were unable to answer? ;-)
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:05:00 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
><gloat>
>I passed my 70-240, "Accelerated Windows 2000...." exam this
>afternoon. Turns out I picked the right study aids and my experience
>with it in the lab and classes was enough.
>
>For those that don't know, it's part of the Microsoft certification
>process and covers basically all the basic to intermediate knowledge
>of their workstation, server, and directory products. It's a
>scheduled four hour exam and I finished in a little under three hours.
>Being a fast reader and not second-guessing myself came in handy. <G>
>
>So now I'm an MCP 2000, and I can take my time with the rest of the
>exams to be an MCSE 2000.
>
><end gloat>
>
>JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20425
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:33:28 -0500
Subject: Re: Trial by Military Tribunal
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <bovavts0i0slmpa36454heg5653maslm2u@4ax.com>, Ed Johnson
writes...
> Geo: Thanks for posting a link to that thoughtful article.
> I liked the part: <snip>
> " President Franklin Roosevelt had suspected
> World War II saboteurs secretly tried by military commission, and
> six were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding. An enemy
> who sneaked onto U.S. soil "for the purposes of waging war by
> destruction of life or property" was a combatant who could be tried
> in a military court, the Supreme Court ruled. "
> <snip>
> The above would seem cover those terrorists who came into this
> country to crash airliners into the WTC to kill innocent citizens at
> work.
I will ultimately defer to David, of course, but I have heard that there
are Supreme Court decisions since FDR's time that cast doubt on whether
this represents the law today.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20426
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:57:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE,
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BF55040.2F763E60@aero.org>, Shane Glaseman writes...
>> Sigh. I suppose I could continue commenting on your apparent inability
>> to stay on-topic -- even your own -- or on irrelevant and truly "out
>> there" examples which really don't support anything we've been talking
>> about, or your purposeful "misunderstanding" of certain points (I hope
>> they're purposeful; if they're not, "ignorant" is not a word that should
>> be applied to *me* here), or, finally, on your loose understanding of
>> "ethics" or the useful application of rhetoric -- but all would
>> apparently be wasted.
>I think that David was arguing that his pot of coffee kept police
>officers right where they should be - in their patrol area. It is true
>that he benefited from this, but I don't see why that makes his
>understanding of ethics "loose". From a strict Kantian standpoint, it
>might mean that his action was not morally praiseworthy, tainted by
self
>interest as it was.
The problem here is likely that I didn’t define "ethics" in terms of my
usage of the word. Unfortunately, my usage is purely subjective. While
such a definition would likely fall closely to some past philospher’s
definition of same, the fact that I haven’t studied such philosophers
for a very long time (and not in any depth, in any case) means that I
can’t point to such an authority as Mr. Silver asked I do, and support
my position in that manner. On the other hand, I don’t see how, if I’m
arguing *my* ethical sense, I must needs justify them by any authority
other than myself. It seems to me that anyone arguing the ethics of any
situation is doing so from a purely subjective viewpoint – I would
assert (and probably be genteely attacked for) that all ethics are
subject to individual interpretation, extenuating circumstances,
context, etc. I *could* do some additional study and research and find
an "acceptable" authority for my particular interpretation of ethics…
the immediate result of which would be someone else referencing a
different authority, "invalidating" my reference. Futile.
I don’t know enough about formalized ethical constructs, or Kant, to be
able to comment on that part of your post. However, I’m more than
willing to learn something new, if you have time and inclination. I’m
especially curious about the last part of your paragraph, above; "his
action [might not be] morally praiseworthy…" How can an action be at the
same time ethical *and* immoral? Is this possible under Kant’s
definitions of the two words? Have I misassumed that "not morally
praiseworthy" is the same as saying "immoral?" For myself, "ethics" and
"morals" are essentially the same, covered by (this probably sounds
naïve) "internal rules for correct behavior." The only difference
between the two lies in where they come from.
But back to the point: Although Mr. Silver seemed to want me to accept
that the pot of coffee was maintained to keep the officers in their
assigned patrol zone, it was pointed out by both sides that it was
really there to keep them near to his business establishment, to protect
him, personally. Keeping them in their assigned patrol zone was an
additional, secondary benefit.
Since the officers are paid to patrol the entire area (routes and times
and attention to be determined by them, surely), and since they’ve been
induced to deviate from this patrol (no matter how minor or inexpensive
the inducement), then it follows that those citizens who would have
benefitted from the initially intended patrol route and times are now
not benefitting due to the change in those routes and times.
Add to that the fact that the individual offering the inducement is
consciously doing so to gain added protection to which he is not
entitled as compared to his fellow citizens (a previous robbery or
attack would have justified temporary heightened presence of the
officers at his establishment, but that’s all), and I say you have an
unethical act.
It doesn’t matter that the inducement was minor or inexpensive.
It doesn’t matter that the ethical breach was "small."
It doesn’t matter what happened to the next person to hold Mr. Silver’s job.
It doesn’t matter that the rest of the patrol zone was largely
uninhabited at the hours in question.
It doesn’t matter if the officers were aware of this breach, or what
their reaction would have been had it been pointed out to them.
It doesn’t matter that that pot of coffee kept the officers in their
patrol area – that’s *not* my point.
An individual has caused something to happen that is to his benefit, and
to the detriment of his fellow citizens, by suborning – however slightly
and however minor it is considered to be by one and all – a public official.
> However, the coffee did not, and was not meant to, induce the officers to ignore their duty.
Nor did I say it was meant to do so. What is *was* meant to do was to
*redirect their attention* to their duty.
It was a dangerous area. Mr. Silver didn’t want to be robbed, injured,
or killed. I don’t blame him, and am glad he was not. I will concede
that preventing crimes against his person was more important than
preventing crimes against property in the same patrol area (though, one,
I doubt all the interested parties in that patrol area would agree, and
two, there is no certainty that other crimes to person that could have
been prevented were not, due to this redirection of attention). I don’t
assert – and don’t believe – that the officers in question were anything
less than dedicated professionals. I pointed out myself that even
consciously undertaken breaches of ethics – even major breaches – do not
define a person.
We’re to the point where even I feel like an idiot – this is such a
minor, unimportant thing, especially in light of the specific
circumstances. It saved lives (or a life, anyway), perhaps. It protected
property and livelihood. No one who was potentially affected *cares* if
those officers stayed a bit longer, or stopped by a bit more often, for
a lousy damn cup of coffee and a short chat. I get it, I get it.
But… the fact that an unethical act had beneficial results DOES NOT MEAN
IT WAS NOT UNETHICAL.
Is it a crime to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving children?
Yes, it is. Should one be punished for it? Of course not.
(*Should* it be a crime? That’s a whole ‘nother story, and irrelevant here.)
*This* was my point. Perhaps I’ve been unclear up to this point. The act
– however minor, however unimportant, no matter that it resulted in good
– was unethical.
Who cares?
No one, dammit. Not even me. What *I* care about is that it seems to be
so damn easy to circumvent what one knows to be true by rationalization,
misdirection, self-deception, and, unfortunately in this case, personal
attack.
> I can think of one case off the top of my head, the Foreign Corrupt
> Practices Act, in which the law distinguishes between small payments to
> an official (called "facilitating payments") to do his job - which are
> legally allowed by the Act - and payments /not/ to do his job - which are
> not.
So what this Act says is that it’s okay to bribe a public official to do
his job (or do it better – "better" defined by the briber), but it’s
*not* okay to bribe him to *not* do his job? Am I the only one who has
a problem with this?
> The pot of coffee seems a good deal milder than a facilitating (or "grease") payment.
But I was never arguing degree – to me, that’s irrelevant (from an
objective standpoint, anyway).
> Of course, the moral compass embedded in the law is certainly not infallible…
Ya think? (sorry, don’t mean to be a smartass J)
> … but I am not sure what ethical principle you want to invoke here.
Neither am I, but I’d be willing to receive instruction so I could make
an informed choice.
> Comfort yourself (if you like) with the story of the great
> chess grand master Aron Nimzovich who, upon realizing that he was in a
> lost position in a game with a hated rival, leapt to his feet and
> shouted, "To think that I have to lose to an idiot like you!" (Not that
> I think David is an idiot, mind you, I just like this story. I've been
> in Nimzovich's position a few times. ;-) )
Thanks for relating the story, but I’d like to say, just to be clear,
that I don’t think Mr. Silver an idiot, either. He has his points and
beliefs, and he would defend them. I disagree with them, and would
defend that. I would debate with him again on other topics, but would
ask that he at least try to keep the namecalling and similar tactics out
of the discussion.
Thanks, Gordon!
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20427
From: Shane Glaseman
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 15:04:57 -0800
Subject: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In recent posts I have inadvertantly snipped attributions. My apologies;
I will endeavor to correct this.
Shane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20428
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 19:39:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Untrustworthy cops (was: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?")
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BF599BE.BB74E973@aero.org>, Shane Glaseman writes...
....
> The problem here is likely that I didn’t define "ethics" in terms of my
> usage of the word.
That's OK; we almost never give definitions until after we realize we re
failing to communicate.
....
> I don’t see how, if I’m
> arguing *my* ethical sense, I must needs justify them by any authority
> other than myself.
David asked for an authority; I asked what principle you were using.
Generally, we expect good authorities to use good principles, but
ultimately it is the principles that matter in ethics.
> It seems to me that anyone arguing the ethics of any
> situation is doing so from a purely subjective viewpoint – I would
> assert (and probably be genteely attacked for) that all ethics are
> subject to individual interpretation, extenuating circumstances,
> context, etc.
Your view is fairly common. I happen to take the view that morality is
objective, but the metaphysical status of moral claims turns out not to
make much of a difference in moral discussions.
....
> I’m
> especially curious about the last part of your paragraph, above; "his
> action [might not be] morally praiseworthy…" How can an action be at the
> same time ethical *and* immoral?
Like you, I don't distinguish between "ethical" and "moral". The
difference is that one word has a Greek root, the other a Latin. So how
can an action be moral and immoral? Well, you yourself argue that
stealing bread for a starving child is wrong but should not be punished.
> Is this possible under Kant’s
> definitions of the two words? Have I misassumed that "not morally
> praiseworthy" is the same as saying "immoral?"
Yes. David's action, if taken with only his own interest in mind, might
fail to be an action /he/ ought to be praised for. That does not
necessarily mean that anything wrong was done.
....
> But back to the point: Although Mr. Silver seemed to want me to accept
> that the pot of coffee was maintained to keep the officers in their
> assigned patrol zone, it was pointed out by both sides that it was
> really there to keep them near to his business establishment, to protect
> him, personally. Keeping them in their assigned patrol zone was an
> additional, secondary benefit.
But a benefit to /all/ in the patrol area, if the officers would
otherwise have left that area for their break. Why don't others in the
community owe David for keeping the officers close at hand?
> Since the officers are paid to patrol the entire area (routes and times
> and attention to be determined by them, surely), and since they’ve been
> induced to deviate from this patrol (no matter how minor or inexpensive
> the inducement), then it follows that those citizens who would have
> benefitted from the initially intended patrol route and times are now
> not benefitting due to the change in those routes and times.
I don't see how you can claim this, as long at the next nearest cup of
coffee is further from the the centroid of the patrol area than David's
location.
> Add to that the fact that the individual offering the inducement is
> consciously doing so to gain added protection to which he is not
> entitled as compared to his fellow citizens (a previous robbery or
> attack would have justified temporary heightened presence of the
> officers at his establishment, but that’s all), and I say you have an
> unethical act.
I don't see why, if the officers would otherwise have left the area.
....
> It doesn’t matter what happened to the next person to hold Mr. Silver’s job.
> It doesn't matter that the rest of the patrol zone was largely
> uninhabited at the hours in question.
I don't see why not. That there was a crime in that location is the best
evidence possible that it was more dangerous than other locations in the
area without crimes. Do you think that "equal protection" means that
everyone gets the same protection? Why shouldn't those that are more at
risk get more protection? Are we trying to equalize protection or the
chance that a person will be the victim of a crime?
....
> It doesn’t matter that that pot of coffee kept the officers in their
> patrol area – that’s *not* my point.
But it seems to be a very relevant point.
> An individual has caused something to happen that is to his benefit, and
> to the detriment of his fellow citizens, by suborning – however slightly
> and however minor it is considered to be by one and all – a public official.
But it is not to their detriment, since the officers are kept closer to
the patrol area. Of course, the ideal situation is for the cops to be
right where they are needed, but no one knows how to do that. And, on
the evidence, the cops /should/ spend more time in David's location,
unless you want to argue that "equal protection" means spending equal
time in each part of the patrol area. Do you?
Now, if there were /two/ all-night gas stations, and David offered an
inducement to the officers to favor /his/ location over the other, then,
all others things equal, we might say that David was bribing them.
....
> But… the fact that an unethical act had beneficial results DOES NOT MEAN
> IT WAS NOT UNETHICAL.
What if the benefits outweigh the costs?
....
> > I can think of one case off the top of my head, the Foreign Corrupt
> > Practices Act, in which the law distinguishes between small payments to
> > an official (called "facilitating payments") to do his job - which are
> > legally allowed by the Act - and payments /not/ to do his job - which are
> > not.
>
> So what this Act says is that it’s okay to bribe a public official to do
Oops. "Asserting your conclusion." You haven't shown that it is a
"bribe", yet.
> his job (or do it better – "better" defined by the briber), but it’s
> *not* okay to bribe him to *not* do his job? Am I the only one who has
> a problem with this?
Perhaps not. But the law recognizes that your widgets might sit on a
loading dock in Bangkok for a long time, otherwise. What is good about
that?
> > The pot of coffee seems a good deal milder than a facilitating (or "grease") payment.
>
> But I was never arguing degree – to me, that’s irrelevant (from an
> objective standpoint, anyway).
I thought you said ethics was subjective. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20429
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 01:03:24 GMT
Subject: Re: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:20:41 -0500, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
> (Does this mean I can you ask you the Win2000 questions that my
>past two instructors were unable to answer? ;-)
>
You can always ask...just don't expect that I can answer them either.
<VBG>
And congrats to Deb and her researcher. <G> Publishing is always
nice.
I found out that I'm only one exam away from certifying as an MCSE
2000, I hadn't checked after they 'reinstated' the WinNT credits.
I'll probably test in February--I'm taking the holidays off. ;)
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20430
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:03:25 GMT
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Torture that might be effective:
http://members.sigecom.net/theclan/Taliban.html
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20431
From: Catherine Hampton
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:43:09 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:03:25 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>Torture that might be effective:
>
>http://members.sigecom.net/theclan/Taliban.html
ROFLROFLROFL!!!
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20432
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 14:54:12 -0800
Subject: Re: More Torture
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> Torture that might be effective:
>
> http://members.sigecom.net/theclan/Taliban.html
>
By the way, the man in the picture is Rowan Atkinson, star
of the BBC comedy series Black Adder.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20433
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:13:51 -0400
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Shane Glaseman wrote:
> In recent posts I have inadvertantly snipped attributions. My apologies;
> I will endeavor to correct this.
I wouldn't sweat it too much. This is *conversation*, not publication or
scholarship, and we don't normally give comprehensive sourcing for our
conversations. As long as you're not actively trying to trick folks into
thinking someone else's ideas are yours, I don't see a problem. After all,
material you <snip> has, by definition, already been posted to the group,
and is there for anyone who's interested to read; your quotation is merely
a convenience, and snipping to save space is only polite. I worry a lot
more about people who try to obscure or misrepresent their opponent's
argument by selective quoting... but I see very little of that here
(especially as compared to other places on the web/usenet).
As an aside, I'm frankly flabbergasted that you and David have been able to
work up such a lather over a stinkin' cup of joe. Of all the things to
argue about! <vbg>
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20434
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 18:51:35 -0400
Subject: Are We Sure His Name Is Really "Potter"?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Well, yesterday was Mara's 11th birthday, and we celebrated by attending
the opening night of the Harry Potter movie. Here's a moment and a few
quotes from the film:
1) The 3 intrepid young heroes -- 2 boys and a girl -- escape a
life-threatening situation by leaping through a trap door, then find
themselves in a slimy, oozing mess of moving plant roots that threaten
to pull them under and smother them.
2) "I don't like this. I don't like this at all."
3) "This isn't a graveyard; it's a chessboard."
4) <spoken by a mysterious disembodied voice at a critical point in the
story> "Use the boy."
Sound familiar? If not, try these on for comparison:
1) The 3 intrepid young heroes -- 2 men and a woman -- escape a
life-threatening situation by leaping through a hatch at floor level,
then find themselves in a slimy, oozing mess of garbage populated by
slithering creatures that threaten to pull them under and drown them.
2) "I have a bad feeling about this."
3) "That's not a moon; it's a space station."
4) <spoken by a mysterious disembodied voice at a critical point in the
story> "Use the Force."
;^)
Oh, BTW: Harry "Potter" is raised by his aunt and uncle, doesn't get
along well with the uncle, doesn't know the true story of his lost
parents at first, and eventually runs away from home to join forces with
a semi-hidden society of people who knew from his birth that he was
special. Harry _Skywalker_, anyone? <vbg>
-JovBill
PS: Loved the movie. Now I have to read the books... but of course,
first I have to read _The Hobbit_ and _The Fellowship of the Ring_
before December 19!
PPS: Does anybody know when ESPN plans to start airing Quidditch
matches? ;^)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20435
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:03:02 -0400
Subject: Question for Gamers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All you gamers out there:
Someone gave Mara a Playstation (PSone) console for her birthday, and
I'm looking for some game recommendations. Other than her parents'
preference for avoiding anything too gory, scary, or overtly sexy, she
doesn't have a particular style or type of game as a favorite. He top
pick so far is _Tony Hawk Pro Skater_, but that's probably just because
it was the first game she played (at her babysitter's house). She loves
_Super Mario_ on her GameBoy. Of course, it's not available for the Sony
box, but that's the best clue I have for the sort of thing she likes.
Also, several stores around here sell used games. That seems like the
way to go to me, but I wonder if any of you have caveats to offer about
used game console software?
While we're at it, *I'd* like some recommendations for PSone games in
the following categories:
* Car racing (realistic road racing [i.e., F1 or sports cars], not oval
or fantasy racing)
* Baseball strategy
* Football strategy.
TIA...
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20436
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:17:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT wrote:
> Ah, someday Bob will be sounding off to his kids about how he used to
> have to type everything and that computers didn't used to all sound
> like Majel Barrett Roddenberry. ;)
You think Bob (never mind his kids) even knows who M. J. Roddenberry is,
old man? <vbg>
And we probably can't even imagine today what technology it is Bob's
kids will be b!tching to him about that will prompt *him* to sound off
about the "good old days." Tempus fugit! <sigh>
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20437
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:19:14 -0400
Subject: Hit "Send"; See Error; Shout "Damn!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> ...You think Bob (never mind his kids) even knows who M. J.
> Roddenberry...
M. *B.* Roddenberry, of course <sigh>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20438
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 01:36:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Hit "Send"; See Error; Shout "Damn!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:19:14 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>Bill Dauphin wrote:
>
>> ...You think Bob (never mind his kids) even knows who M. J.
>> Roddenberry...
>
>M. *B.* Roddenberry, of course <sigh>
>
See, if you could TALK to the computer, you'd eliminate those typos.
<VBG>
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20439
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 01:36:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Question for Gamers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:03:02 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>While we're at it, *I'd* like some recommendations for PSone games in
>the following categories:
>
>* Car racing (realistic road racing [i.e., F1 or sports cars], not oval
>or fantasy racing)
>* Baseball strategy
>* Football strategy.
>
>TIA...
>
>-JovBill
Well, you could always get the Atari or Activision "Museum"
collections of the 80s arcade games. The Dukes of Hazzard second game
(there were two, I've never played the first) is a fun racing game,
although I'm not very good at it.
I got a PSOne last year and played it heavily for a few months and
then just haven't had time. Quite frankly, I can't get the hang of
the d@mn buttons for everything. I want joystick-based games! <sigh>
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20440
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 02:44:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 21:48:05 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>I find the following piece by Seymour Hersh to be rather disturbing, and
>not primarily for the evidence that Rumsfeld is being less than candid
>with the press. We have far more serious things to worry about.
>
>http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?011112fa_FACT
The following editorial appeared in our paper this morning. I found
in on-line at
http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3acd2408.b15,.html
It does seem to add some additional information.
********************
This one just doesn't quite add up
By E. THOMAS McCLANAHAN - The Kansas City Star
Date: 11/16/01 22:00
I'm still trying to make sense of Seymour Hersh's recent account of
the Oct. 20 commando raid in Afghanistan. Defense officials called the
operation a success and even videotaped Rangers parachuting onto a
Taliban-held airport.
But Hersh, writing in the Nov. 12 issue of The New Yorker magazine,
said one facet of the plan was a "near-disaster." Contrary to the
Pentagon's account, he said 12 U.S. troops were wounded by enemy fire,
three seriously.
Here's what happened: On the same morning that the Rangers dropped
onto the airport, a Taliban compound 60 miles away was raided by
members of the Army's Delta Force counterterrorist detachment. Hersh's
story said they were surprised by Taliban fighters firing rifles,
rocket-propelled grenades and perhaps mortars.
Defense spokesmen have acknowledged that some Rangers were injured
during the drop on the airfield and some were hurt at the Taliban
compound, probably while blasting open doors. But officials insisted
no casualties resulted from enemy fire.
Hersh won a Pulitzer prize as the first to report the My Lai massacre
during the Vietnam War, but some aspects of his recent New Yorker
piece don't add up; his overall conclusions are troubling.
His story said a "blocking force" of 200 Rangers was inserted near the
Taliban compound. Question: With that many U.S. troops nearby, how did
enemy fighters evade the Americans' night-vision capability?
Where was U.S. air support? Normally, a Delta Force raid would be
backed up by AC-130 gunships called Specters -- planes with infrared
devices that can spot heat sources such as vehicles and troops. If a
Specter was on-station, its crew should should have spotted the enemy.
But Hersh's story said gunships appeared only after the firefight
erupted -- contrary to standard operating procedure.
"In this type of operation, Specters would be there; they're part of
the package," said D.M. Giangreco, a military writer and co-author of
Delta: America's Elite Counterterrorist Force. "The story is so
screwy, who knows what happened? I have doubts that Delta was involved
at all."
In a telephone interview last week, Hersh offered additional details.
He said a U.S. diversionary attack -- not mentioned in his story --
was staged about two kilometers from the compound where Delta troopers
were ambushed. I asked whether the Rangers he described as a blocking
force had actually been part of the diversion. Hersh wasn't sure: "I
guess so," he said.
Yet he stood by his main assertion that the Delta team suffered combat
casualties. And last week, retired Gen. Wesley Clark said he, too,
heard U.S. troops met unexpected resistance. In an interview with the
St. Petersburg Times, Clark said he learned from British military
sources that 12 members of the U.S. team at the compound were wounded
by enemy fire.
Some of Hersh's account rings true. It's not hard to imagine the top
brass micromanaging the war's first publicly acknowledged ground
operation. But too many details are fuzzy, and Clark's corroboration
is third hand.
It may be years before we know the facts about this operation, as well
as others the Pentagon has kept secret. But former Special Forces
officers Michael Vickers, an analyst at the Washington-based Center
for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the truth probably lay
closer to the Pentagon version.
"There seems to be no evidence of heavy casualties," Vickers said. "I
don't think the article is credible."
Another aspect of Hersh's account deserves comment. Before Rangers
executed their videotaped drop at the Taliban airport, an advance team
confirmed the area was largely clear of enemy fighters. Hersh's
sources suggested the drop was a mere "television show," or at best, a
confidence-building exercise.
Maybe, but if Delta troopers at the Taliban compound had required
reinforcement, the airport could have been a crucial asset. And the
operation as a whole sent a message: American forces can hit anywhere.
Aside from the elusiveness of the facts asserted by Hersh, the most
troubling aspect of the article is its implied conclusion: If a plan
proceeds without a hitch (the Ranger drop at the airfield), then it's
meaningless -- but if the enemy does something unexpected (the
firefight at the compound), then the U.S. military is incompetent.
Even if you don't take every Pentagon statement at face value (I
don't), this is an unreasonable standard. Events may be going our way
in Afghanistan now, but later phases of this war will involve higher
stakes and military reverses. Hersh has portrayed an operation with
zero killed in action as a virtual fiasco. That kind of standard,
applied to future operations, is a recipe for complete military
paralysis.
E. Thomas McClanahan is a member of the Editorial Board. His next
column is scheduled to appear on Tuesday. To reach him, call (816)
234-4480 or send e-mail to mcclanahan@kcstar.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20441
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 02:53:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Question for Gamers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:03:02 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>All you gamers out there:
>
>Someone gave Mara a Playstation (PSone) console for her birthday, and
>I'm looking for some game recommendations.
We have a PSone (that actually ran until a couple days ago when Hannah
broke the gizmo that seats the disks). She LOVES the Spyro the Dragon
games--there are three of them. Theres also a cute game called Sheep,
which we have for the computer, but I know it comes on a PlayStation
disk too. She also likes JetMoto and Gex.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20442
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:02:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Caution: Flame War Material - Afghanistan
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bf71fff.2857465@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
....
> The following editorial appeared in our paper this morning. I found
> in on-line at
> http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/opinion.pat,opinion/3acd2408.b15,.html
>
> It does seem to add some additional information.
Thanks, Jai.
....
> Where was U.S. air support? Normally, a Delta Force raid would be
> backed up by AC-130 gunships called Specters
In fact, Hersh stated:
"The mission was /initiated/ by sixteen AC-130 gunships, which poured
thousands of rounds into the surrounding area but deliberately left the
Mullah's house unscathed." [my emphasis]
So this statement
> But Hersh's story said gunships appeared only after the firefight
> erupted -- contrary to standard operating procedure.
by McClanahan is an obviously inaccurate portrayal of Hersh's story.
....
> Aside from the elusiveness of the facts asserted by Hersh, the most
> troubling aspect of the article is its implied conclusion: If a plan
> proceeds without a hitch (the Ranger drop at the airfield), then it's
> meaningless -- but if the enemy does something unexpected (the
> firefight at the compound), then the U.S. military is incompetent.
Here McClanahan is being disingenuous or stupid. Hersh was not arguing
that a legitimate plan without a hitch is meaningless, but /at most/ that
a staged show is meaningless. Whether or not is was a staged show is
another matter.
In fact, as I posted later in reply to David, I wouldn't say that a
staged show was necessarily meaningless, and neither does Hersh's
"informed source". Rather, the source was objecting to the event being
filmed for TV.
> Even if you don't take every Pentagon statement at face value (I
> don't), this is an unreasonable standard.
But McClanahan hasn't come close to showing that it was Hersh's standard.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20443
From: Catherine Hampton
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 21:17:26 -0800
Subject: Re: Are We Sure His Name Is Really "Potter"?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 18:51:35 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>PPS: Does anybody know when ESPN plans to start airing Quidditch
>matches? ;^)
Yeah -- not soon enough, dammit! :P~
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.devsite.org/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
The SpamBouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20444
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 23:05:13 -0800
Subject: Re: Are We Sure His Name Is Really "Potter"?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> Oh, BTW: Harry "Potter" is raised by his aunt and uncle, doesn't get
> along well with the uncle, doesn't know the true story of his lost
> parents at first, and eventually runs away from home to join forces with
> a semi-hidden society of people who knew from his birth that he was
> special. Harry _Skywalker_, anyone? <vbg>
>
>
Hmm, I wonder if J.K. Rowling is also a fan of "The Hidden Fortress?"
<grin>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20445
From: Bob
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 02:32:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Hey all
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I most certainly do!!! How could I forget the voice of sweet, sweet,
technology... mmmmmm... glucose and technology... and replicators!
Bob
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> JT wrote:
>
> > Ah, someday Bob will be sounding off to his kids about how he used to
> > have to type everything and that computers didn't used to all sound
> > like Majel Barrett Roddenberry. ;)
>
> You think Bob (never mind his kids) even knows who M. J. Roddenberry is,
> old man? <vbg>
>
> And we probably can't even imagine today what technology it is Bob's
> kids will be b!tching to him about that will prompt *him* to sound off
> about the "good old days." Tempus fugit! <sigh>
>
> -JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20446
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 12:51:53 -0500
Subject: Re: History of Islamic Extremism
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai: Thanks for reprinting that: it helps put some perspective on
'where they are coming from' in.re.: the Saudis and their origins in
that region.
J. Robert Franks: Welcome to the Heinlein Forum. It is good to
see new pixels aroung here <g>.
Ed J
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 17:43:20 GMT, jrfranks@USA.NET (J. Robert
Franks) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Oct 2001 03:43:18 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
>Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>
>[snip] Abdul Wahhab interpreted this call as a
>>need to return to the "fundamentals"; Islamic life as it existed in
>>the first days of Islam in the 8th century BCE.
>>
>shouldn't that be the 8th century CE (or A.D.)?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20447
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:52:17 -0500
Subject: Re: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: Is there anyway on a Windows 2000 Pro workstation to totally
bypass the Windows login? I have some 'old dogs' who do not easily
learn 'new tricks' and who get confused during log in. They are
used to logging in to our Novell network, somehow the additional
login throws them a curve. (Sad but true.)
Ed J
On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 01:03:24 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:20:41 -0500, Ed Johnson
><eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>> (Does this mean I can you ask you the Win2000 questions that my
>>past two instructors were unable to answer? ;-)
>>
>You can always ask...just don't expect that I can answer them either.
><VBG>
>
>And congrats to Deb and her researcher. <G> Publishing is always
>nice.
>
>I found out that I'm only one exam away from certifying as an MCSE
>2000, I hadn't checked after they 'reinstated' the WinNT credits.
>I'll probably test in February--I'm taking the holidays off. ;)
>
>JT
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20448
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:12:25 -0500
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JovBill: I hadn't wanted to add any 'logs' to fire of the
Cops/coffee discussion earlier, but here goes <g>. I had a friend
who worked a local convenience store (a "7-11" store) from 10 PM to
8 AM. His boss, the owner, used to give free coffee and half price
for cigarettes for uniformed policemen! (I don't know what
cigarettes cost in 1977.) Police from that town and from six nearby
towns frequented that store. They usually came over before or after
their shifts. Plus the local town patrolman could swing by during
their patrols as this store was on a well traveled road. It added
up to frequent visits through the night hours. This was the late
1970's and this store was held up a couple of time in the years
after a new owner stopped this practice.
I used to work the 4 PM to Midnight shift and I frequently
stopped in that store after work to BS with my buddy. He was an
ardent Heinlein fan and we enjoyed playing "Kriegspiel" and other
board war games. You get to meet a number of really nice cops when
so many of them stop in for their smokes or to pick up coffee for
their watch commanders.
I never once thought that these policemen were being unethical.
There were damn'd few '24 hour' convenience stores within a 10 mile
radius of that place.
Ed J
>As an aside, I'm frankly flabbergasted that you and David have been able to
>work up such a lather over a stinkin' cup of joe. Of all the things to
>argue about! <vbg>
>
>-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20449
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:17:32 GMT
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> I never once thought that these policemen were being unethical.
>There were damn'd few '24 hour' convenience stores within a 10 mile
>radius of that place.
The restaurant/truckstop I worked at during college gave half-price
meal to the cops (who usually sat in back at our table and if we were
busy served themselves). Every sheriff's deputy and highway patrol in
the county (about 5 total--rural MN) was there at bar-closing time
having a meal every night--no coincidence. Anyone who gave trouble in
the bar as it was closing got quite a shock when that many cops were
instantly on hand. Maybe they should have been more spread out at
bar-closing time, but the county was more than 60 miles across and
there was no way they could have been everywhere--it did put them at
the busiest spot and in the middle of the county, so I never had a
problem with it.
OTOH, I did some videotaping for the Los Angeles County Sheriff in
1982 and got quite an ear-full at one of their seminars while having
dinner at one of their tables (mostly about drugs and drug use). I
wouldn't even put a free cup of coffee, freely offered, in an
ethically doubtful catagory. I still ponder the conversation I heard,
though. No conclusions other that cops don't go in a special,
extra-lawabiding catagory of Americans. When I saw kids I knew in high
school become county sheriff's deputies-kids whose background and
temperament I knew--I knew there was no special aura of moral or
ethical superiority among our law enforcement people.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20450
From: Dean White"
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 15:47:03 -0600
Subject: Re: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Far as I know, No.
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:444gvtkf02sl3psiunukc5evgpdirhqruo@4ax.com...
> JT: Is there anyway on a Windows 2000 Pro workstation to totally
> bypass the Windows login? I have some 'old dogs' who do not easily
> learn 'new tricks' and who get confused during log in. They are
> used to logging in to our Novell network, somehow the additional
> login throws them a curve. (Sad but true.)
>
> Ed J
>
--
Dean White
www.DeanWhite.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20451
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 19:20:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Trial by Military Tribunal
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I guess Paul Harvey is still up to date, as he featured this little tidbit
in his broadcst on Saturday.
Good Day!
Ed Johnson wrote in message ...
>Geo: Thanks for posting a link to that thoughtful article.
> I liked the part: <snip>
>" President Franklin Roosevelt had suspected
>World War II saboteurs secretly tried by military commission, and
>six were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding. An enemy
>who sneaked onto U.S. soil "for the purposes of waging war by
>destruction of life or property" was a combatant who could be tried
>in a military court, the Supreme Court ruled. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20452
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 23:06:46 -0800
Subject: Re: Trial by Military Tribunal
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <bovavts0i0slmpa36454heg5653maslm2u@4ax.com>, Ed Johnson
> writes...
> > Geo: Thanks for posting a link to that thoughtful article.
> > I liked the part: <snip>
> > " President Franklin Roosevelt had suspected
> > World War II saboteurs secretly tried by military commission, and
> > six were executed. The Supreme Court upheld the proceeding. An enemy
> > who sneaked onto U.S. soil "for the purposes of waging war by
> > destruction of life or property" was a combatant who could be tried
> > in a military court, the Supreme Court ruled. "
> > <snip>
> > The above would seem cover those terrorists who came into this
> > country to crash airliners into the WTC to kill innocent citizens at
> > work.
>
> I will ultimately defer to David, of course, but I have heard that there
> are Supreme Court decisions since FDR's time that cast doubt on whether
> this represents the law today.
There was a pretty good article on point in the LA Times this morning,
Sunday, November 18, 2001, at page A5, discussing the issue, including the
questions Gordon raises. See,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000092175nov18.story
for the very limited period of time this newspaper permits that article to
remain accessible via the internet without charge. Particularly note the
reference to the book Rehnquist has written and result Rehnquist views as
likely to a Constitutional challenge during time of war (or during
Rehnquist's continued tenure as Chief Justice) in the last three
paragraphs.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20453
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 00:47:19 -0800
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> OTOH, I did some videotaping for the Los Angeles County Sheriff in
> 1982 and got quite an ear-full at one of their seminars while having
> dinner at one of their tables (mostly about drugs and drug use). I
> wouldn't even put a free cup of coffee, freely offered, in an
> ethically doubtful catagory. I still ponder the conversation I heard,
> though. No conclusions other that cops don't go in a special,
> extra-lawabiding catagory of Americans. When I saw kids I knew in high
> school become county sheriff's deputies-kids whose background and
> temperament I knew--I knew there was no special aura of moral or
> ethical superiority among our law enforcement people.
That dinner would have been only a few years before the sergeant assigned
to the Sheriff's narcotics unit got caught with all that money, and to
keep out of prison for the rest of his life, testified against a whole
slew of other officers assigned to his narcotics unit in the US
Attorney's prosecution of them. Iirc, there were prosecutions of several
officers alleged to be seriously corrupt -- some, however, were acquitted
due to what turned out to be jury doubts about the former sergeant's
credibility, lots of resignations regardless of the acquittals, and a
general housecleaning in that division by the Sheriff.
One of the legacies of the "war against narcotics," in a world where so
much loose cash becomes available and the corrupt seem to collect in
eddies of like-minded people.
With respect to high-school classmates who became cops of one sort or
another, I had the same qualms about some as you evidentally did. Several
joined the various police agencies locally. Concerning them, I felt none
were what I would call 'dishonest,' but as you note, most were of
middling honesty or ordinary in the regard. I was, however, unusually
concerned when I heard one had been accepted, as I knew him to be a bully
and, not unexpectedly, a coward as well. He lasted about four years on
the job before he "quit," after, among other things, it became evident
that no one wanted to partner with him. Remember Wambaugh's "Roscoe
Rules" and you have him pretty closely described. There must be enough of
them that it becomes a mission for good cops to get rid of them. The
police forces do try to weed them out. I'm very proud of those boys I
once knew who went on the job, 'soldiered on,' and stayed until
retirement. They've all retired (at various grades of sergeant or
lieutenant) except one now. He's hanging on past thirty, hoping they'll
give him all of downtown Robbery-Homicide (he's commanded one of the
three shifts for years now) and a captaincy when his boss retires, or if
his boss gets kicked upstairs to whatever the LAPD now calls Chief of
Dectectives. Be good to see that happen, if it does.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20454
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:18:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Hit "Send"; See Error; Shout "Damn!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2001 19:19:14 -0400, Bill Dauphin
> <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Dauphin wrote:
> >
> >> ...You think Bob (never mind his kids) even knows who M. J.
> >> Roddenberry...
> >
> >M. *B.* Roddenberry, of course <sigh>
> >
>
> See, if you could TALK to the computer, you'd eliminate those typos.
> <VBG>
Doubtful. Sure, you wouldn't get tyops, but I bet Bill still would've
said "M. J."
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20455
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:26:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Are We Sure His Name Is Really "Potter"?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> PS: Loved the movie. Now I have to read the books... but of course,
> first I have to read _The Hobbit_ and _The Fellowship of the Ring_
> before December 19!
The books are good. A friend loaned them, and I read all four in less than
a week.
But do get busy on Tolkien first. Do you read Foxtrot? There was a fun
Potter vs. LOTR thread going in there last week.
The movie sounds like fun, although you're a braver man than I to see it
opening night!
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20456
From: filksinger@earthlink.net
Date: 19 Nov 2001 18:50:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Are We Sure His Name Is Really
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Opening night? I saw it opening morning.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20457
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 19:52:15 GMT
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>That dinner would have been only a few years before the sergeant assigned
>to the Sheriff's narcotics unit got caught with all that money, and to
>keep out of prison for the rest of his life, testified against a whole
>slew of other officers
Golly--hadn't heard about that. They weren't making major
money/narcotics confessions in front of me, but I can see by extension
how the cheerful conversations about the good pot and such would lead
to bigger, worse things for some. Crack in the armor, so to speak.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20458
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:37:41 -0500
Subject: Re: Are We Sure His Name Is Really
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
filksinger@earthlink.net wrote:
> Opening night? I saw it opening morning.
At lunch I found out that one of my coworkers moonlights at a theater.
She took her boss and his kids to an advance screening Thursday night.
I think I have a new best friend, at least until _Fellowship_ comes out.
<G>
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20459
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:38:42 -0500
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> Golly--hadn't heard about that. They weren't making major
> money/narcotics confessions in front of me, but I can see by extension
> how the cheerful conversations about the good pot and such would lead
> to bigger, worse things for some. Crack in the armor, so to speak.
Groan!
Somebody needs some smack upside the head. <G>
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20460
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:55:40 GMT
Subject: Re: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:52:17 -0500, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>JT: Is there anyway on a Windows 2000 Pro workstation to totally
>bypass the Windows login? I have some 'old dogs' who do not easily
>learn 'new tricks' and who get confused during log in. They are
>used to logging in to our Novell network, somehow the additional
>login throws them a curve. (Sad but true.)
>
Depends on your security requirements. There are registry keys
available to designate a user account and password that log in
automatically when the machine is booted, or if a user logs off. It
can be bypassed at boot time so that others can use the machine (hold
the shift key down as reboot or logoff takes place).
That information is available via MS TechNet. The values would be in
the HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon subkey,
the values are (I think) DefaultUserName and DefaultPassword.
I just looked it up. Q article Q234562, I forgot an additional value
of DefaultDomainName. If they're workgrouped, it's a lot easier.
Hope it helps!
--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20461
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 20:40:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Are We Sure His Name Is Really "Potter"?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Eli Hestermann wrote:
> But do get busy on Tolkien first.
Yah, should've read those back in high school when *all* of my friends were
walking around with maps of Middle Earth in their binders. Always the
contrarian, I guess; I stuck to hard SF.
> Do you read Foxtrot? There was a fun
> Potter vs. LOTR thread going in there last week.
I've gotten out of the habit of reading the comics, but Mara looooooooooves
_Foxtrot_, and she read me some of those strips. She's starting to develop her
own characters now, and drawing her own strip (it's called _Josephriana_). I
believe she has a career ahead of her as a cartoonist, if she decides to go
that way. She's worried about how raw he drawing is, but I showed her a
collection of Garry Trudeau's original _Doonesbury_ strips from his Yale days.
Her drawing is already almost as good as his was back then, and look how far
he's gone with it.
> The movie sounds like fun, although you're a braver man than I to see it
> opening night!
Well, since it fell exactly on Mara's birthday, I was doomed from the start.
Actually, though, it was surprisingly sane... much more so than the opening
night of _Monsters, Inc._, which we also attended. I think since everybody
*knew* _HP:TSS_ would be sold out, the folks who hadn't bought advance tickets
just didn't bother to come. Every seat in the theater was filled by the time
the show started, but the lobby, concession stands, etc., were all pretty
manageable.
BTW, _Monsters, Inc._ is excellent. Between that and _Shrek_, the Academy
could hardly have picked a better year to start giving out a "Best Animated
Feature" Oscar (not since the early heyday of Disney, that is).
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20462
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 02:31:49 GMT
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 16:38:42 -0500, Eli Hestermann
<Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
>
>> Golly--hadn't heard about that. They weren't making major
>> money/narcotics confessions in front of me, but I can see by extension
>> how the cheerful conversations about the good pot and such would lead
>> to bigger, worse things for some. Crack in the armor, so to speak.
>
>Groan!
>
>Somebody needs some smack upside the head. <G>
Will you two quick horse-ing around?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20463
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:54:41 GMT
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Somebody needs some smack upside the head. <G>
Arg! I don't pun. Really. A lot of folks here will attest to that,
Geo in particular. Totally unintentional--took me a bit to figure out
after seeing your response.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20464
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 01:13:37 -0800
Subject: Re: Are We Sure His Name Is Really "Potter"?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BF9A677.6793347C@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Eli Hestermann wrote:
>
> > But do get busy on Tolkien first.
>
> Yah, should've read those back in high school when *all* of my friends
were
<snip>
High School! Late bloomers all of them. We did The Hobbit, etc. in 7th
grade and were reading the truly weird T.J. Bass et al in our high school
years. (strange that Bass is the only name I remember from a stack of
"underground" paperbacks tller than I am.)
<more snips>
> BTW, _Monsters, Inc._ is excellent. Between that and _Shrek_, the Academy
> could hardly have picked a better year to start giving out a "Best
Animated
> Feature" Oscar (not since the early heyday of Disney, that is).
>
> -JovBill
Glad to hear that "Monsters, Inc." stands up to its reviews and hype. Our
children are taking his parents and me to it on Thanksgiving Day.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA. (Too busy for words)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20465
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:40:21 -0500
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> >Somebody needs some smack upside the head. <G>
>
> Arg! I don't pun. Really. A lot of folks here will attest to that,
> Geo in particular. Totally unintentional--took me a bit to figure out
> after seeing your response.
Deb, it was the "so to speak" that convinced me you were punning. I'll
take your word that you weren't trying to snow us.
<g,d&r>
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20466
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 17:17:01 -0800
Subject: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I have heard people here say that ethics and morals, as they understand
them, are the same. Of course, in at least some cases, this isn't true,
since professional ethics may not actually involve morality at all.
I define ethics as rules intended to produce moral results. As such, they
may be subject to change over time, as different rules either start
producing new results, or are shown to be inadequate, ineffective, give
incorrect results from the beginning, become obsolete, or are replaced with
better rules.
For example, the Hippocratic Oath would be an ethic, intended to produce
moral doctors. However, there will be circumstances where following this
Oath would result in harm overall, making following it arguably immoral.
Thus, it is an ethic that, like all ethics, is not fully sufficient in
itself to produce moral results. Such rules are always insufficient.
Anybody else have a different interpretation? (Stupid question.:)
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20467
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:46:12 -0500
Subject: Re: minor brag
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 21:55:40 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>
>Hope it helps!
>--JT
JT: I'll let you know (if I can figure it out <g>).
Ed J
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 14:52:17 -0500, Ed Johnson
><eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>>JT: Is there anyway on a Windows 2000 Pro workstation to totally
>>bypass the Windows login? I have some 'old dogs' who do not easily
>>learn 'new tricks' and who get confused during log in. They are
>>used to logging in to our Novell network, somehow the additional
>>login throws them a curve. (Sad but true.)
>>
>Depends on your security requirements. There are registry keys
>available to designate a user account and password that log in
>automatically when the machine is booted, or if a user logs off. It
>can be bypassed at boot time so that others can use the machine (hold
>the shift key down as reboot or logoff takes place).
>
>That information is available via MS TechNet. The values would be in
>the HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon subkey,
>the values are (I think) DefaultUserName and DefaultPassword.
>
>I just looked it up. Q article Q234562, I forgot an additional value
>of DefaultDomainName. If they're workgrouped, it's a lot easier.
>
>Hope it helps!
>--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20468
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 22:11:38 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bfb003c.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> I have heard people here say that ethics and morals, as they understand
> them, are the same.
Yes.
> Of course, in at least some cases, this isn't true,
> since professional ethics may not actually involve morality at all.
How much "science" is there in "Christian Science"? Would the world be
different if the phrase were "professional morality" rather than
"professional ethics"?
> I define ethics as rules intended to produce moral results.
If you have a need to use a word in a special way, go for it! The real
issue is whether your new term captures an interesting or useful idea,
not what the label is.
> As such, they
> may be subject to change over time, as different rules either start
> producing new results, or are shown to be inadequate, ineffective, give
> incorrect results from the beginning, become obsolete, or are replaced with
> better rules.
>
> For example, the Hippocratic Oath would be an ethic, intended to produce
> moral doctors. However, there will be circumstances where following this
> Oath would result in harm overall, making following it arguably immoral.
Well you could just as easily say there are cases in which following the
Oath is "not good" or "is not right", and skip the word "moral"
altogether. Again, the labels are not critical.
What I think you are saying is that we follow certain rules with an eye
toward ensuring moral outcomes, but these rules are not (always)
sufficient to do this. I think that is correct. Also, you want to call
these rules an "ethics". Also fine by me.
I think any reasonable view of morality must agree with you on this. It
is easily to see that consequentialist theories agree. Any rule that you
would follow /might/ fail to bring about good results in some case.
(You can bring in rule utilitarianism as a possible exception here if you
like, but I don't think it works.) But deontologist theories also have
to agree, I think. Kant says that we should only act on those rules that
we can will to be general laws (laws applying to everyone). But surely
we could be mistaken about whether a given rule actually has this
property. IOW, Kant doesn't give us the rules for morality directly, but
rather a way to test a rule to see if it is moral. But as conditions
change or we get new knowledge, etc., we could see that a rule we thought
passed the test did not.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20469
From: Geo Rule
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 20:16:36 -0800
Subject: Re: My posts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:54:41 GMT, debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek
Rule) wrote:
>
>>Somebody needs some smack upside the head. <G>
>
> Arg! I don't pun. Really. A lot of folks here will attest to that,
>Geo in particular. Totally unintentional--took me a bit to figure out
>after seeing your response.
>
Yup. Had to be punintentional.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20470
From: dee"
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 23:44:00 -0600
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bfb003c.0@news.sff.net...
> I have heard people here say that ethics and morals, as they
understand
> them, are the same. Of course, in at least some cases, this isn't true,
> since professional ethics may not actually involve morality at all.
>
> I define ethics as rules intended to produce moral results.
> <snip>
> Anybody else have a different interpretation? (Stupid question.:)
Filk--
As I understand the two terms, they are _very_ closely related, but not
identical. I am not sure I really understand the distinction, though, even
after looking at dictionary definitions.
I would say that morals are both more personal, and more internal.
Ethics are a standard of behavior. E.g. "Love thy neighbor" is a matter of
morality; "Thou shalt not steal" is an ethical precept.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20471
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:03:36 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bfb3fc7.0@news.sff.net>, dee writes...
....
> I would say that morals are both more personal, and more internal.
> Ethics are a standard of behavior. E.g. "Love thy neighbor" is a matter of
> morality; "Thou shalt not steal" is an ethical precept.
And yet people who reason about these ethical precepts are routinely
called (and call themselves) "moral philosophers".
Note that a "moral philosopher" is not necessarily a /moral/ philosopher.
;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20472
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:25:47 GMT
Subject: Happy Bird Day
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
May your Bird be succulent & delicious
& have a nice nap after it.
Happy Thanksgiving all,
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20473
From: Geo Rule
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 22:09:24 -0800
Subject: Re: Happy Bird Day
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:25:47 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>May your Bird be succulent & delicious
>
>& have a nice nap after it.
>
>Happy Thanksgiving all,
>
>Fader
You know your Turkey-Day festivities are not off to a good start
when you arrive at Auntie's for dinner and are met with "The first
time the turkey caught fire wasn't that bad. . ."
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20474
From: kevin mcgillicuddy"
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 08:25:51 -0600
Subject: Re: Happy Bird Day
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote in message
news:9tprvtk6e376t8q21udn6rbn3scef3c9nh@4ax.com...
<snip>
> You know your Turkey-Day festivities are not off to a good start
> when you arrive at Auntie's for dinner and are met with "The first
> time the turkey caught fire wasn't that bad. . ."
>
> Geo Rule
>
One year we all arrived at my sister's house to find a raw, pink turkey on a
platter in the center of the table. Seems she hadn't hadn't properly set
the timer on the oven. We still get some miles kidding her about the "Sushi
Turkey."
McKevin
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20475
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 16:55:51 GMT
Subject: How many US Muslims are there?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I just read this article and thought it was interesting enough to
share.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/662338.asp?pne=11947
****************************
Counting U.S. Muslims proves hard
By Bill Broadway
THE WASHINGTON POST
Nov. 24--With a spotlight cast on American Muslims since Sept. 11, one
seemingly simple question has defied a clear answer and become the
focus of a politically charged dispute: What is the size of the U.S.
Muslim population?
FOUR MAJOR Muslim organizations released a study in April that
estimated the population at 6 million to 7 million. Based in part on
that report, most media organizations, as well as the White House and
the State Department, have said in recent weeks that there are at
least 6 million Muslims in the country.
EFFORT TO "MARGINALIZE"?
But two studies released last month, including one commissioned
by the American Jewish Committee, concluded that the total is much
lower: no more than 3.4 million and perhaps as few as 1.5 million.
Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations, one of the sponsors of the April report,
condemned the AJC-sponsored study, calling it part of an effort by the
Jewish community to "marginalize" Islam in the United States.
"Why are they worried about our numbers? What’s it triggering?" Awad
asked. "We have never misrepresented our figures and have never been
interested in competing with any other faith or ethnic community."
David A. Harris, the AJC’s executive director, said his
organization had long suspected that the U.S. Muslim community was
inflating its population figures. With the attention brought to Islam
by the terrorist attacks and the "wildly divergent" figures quoted in
the media, Harris said the AJC decided it was time to commission an
analysis.
"It’s not about numbers; it’s about truth and accuracy,"
Harris said. "If a group born yesterday suddenly says it has 8 million
members, that has societal consequences. If it’s true, God bless them.
If not true, do we go with the manufactured number?"
Religious denominations, like all interest groups, can gain or
lose political clout based on perceptions of their size, said J.
Gordon Melton, director of the Institute for the Study of American
Religion in Santa Barbara, Calif. In the case of the U.S. Muslim
community, Melton said, its efforts to influence policy in the Middle
East would get a boost if it were viewed as being larger than the
country’s Jewish population, which is estimated at 6 million.
"It’s a political question: How does it sway votes?" he said.
Awad said the council’s interest in U.S. Muslim population
estimates has more to do with its desire to have a voice on domestic
issues such as health care, education, crime and drug abuse.
The conflicting studies are not simply a case of sponsors with
different political agendas, however. The gap in the numbers also
illustrates the problems that demographers have long faced when trying
to count religious populations.
Definitive numbers don’t exist in part because the U.S. Census,
the most extensive survey of American society, is prohibited from
asking about religious affiliation. Religious groups, when
contributing population figures for reference books, most often rely
on self-reported membership figures from houses of worship.
Even then, numbers often are not comparable. Some denominations
count anyone on the rolls, including babies, while others consider
only baptized adults.
NO MEMBERSHIP LISTS
Islam presents a particular challenge, because mosques
typically do not maintain membership lists.
The April report co-sponsored by CAIR, titled "The Mosque in
America: A National Portrait," was the Muslim portion of the largest
U.S. denominational survey ever, a project coordinated by the Hartford
Institute for Religious Research.
Researchers called the nation’s 1,209 known mosques and
interviewed leaders at 416 of them. Respondents were asked to estimate
the number of people involved in their mosque in any way. The average
response was 1,625 participants. Multiplying that figure by the 1,209
mosques, lead researcher Ihsan Bagby determined there were 2 million
"mosqued Muslims" in the United States.
Bagby, a professor of international relations at Shaw
University in Raleigh, N.C., multiplied that number by three to
account for people who identify themselves as Muslims but might not
participate in mosque activities. He calls this multiplier an educated
guess based on years of observation of the Islamic community.
Paul M. Perl, a research assistant at the Center for Applied
Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, analyzed the data
for Bagby and wrote a preliminary draft of the report. But Perl said
he did not see the final version before publication, including Bagby’s
population estimate of 6 million to 7 million.
"I don’t think there is an easy way to go from the number of
people at mosques to a total population figure," Perl said. He also
said the average figure Bagby used on mosque participation might have
been too high, noting that two imams in the survey estimated that
their mosques had 50,000 participants.
Carl S. Dudley, co-director of the Hartford denominational
project, said it is not uncommon for religious groups to multiply
worship attendance figures by three, five or even seven to obtain an
estimate of total adherents. "The whole thing is a little slippery,"
he said.
CAIR’s Awad, asked why his group settled on an estimate of 7
million in its press statements rather than Bagby’s range of 6 million
to 7 million, said the organization had used 6 million for six years.
"If we still used the number six," he said, “people would say,
"Haven’t we grown?"
The American Jewish Committee believed the number was wrong, so
it hired Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the
National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
DUELING METHODS
Smith analyzed 45 documents and papers, including public
opinion surveys, worship attendance studies and immigration
statistics. He concluded that his "best survey estimate" of American
Muslims was 1.9 million but allowed for a range of 1.5 million to 3.4
million.
The AJC’s Harris said his group knew it would be criticized for
commissioning Smith to do the study. Smith was known to be skeptical
about the figure of 6 million U.S. Muslims; last year, he told the Los
Angeles Times that the number was "completely invalid" and that Muslim
groups were "inventing an estimate."
But Harris said: "If Smith had said, ‘Oops, I made a mistake.
The estimate is 10 million,’ we would have published it."
Smith said he had been looking at the Muslim population issue
since 1995 and planned to publish a report by the end of the year even
before the AJC approached him.
On Oct. 24, a day after the AJC published Smith’s report, the
Graduate Center of the City University of New York released its
American Religious Identification Survey 2001.
The university study was based on a random telephone survey.
Members of more than 50,000 households--a sample 25 to 50 times larger
than in most national surveys--were asked, "What is your religion, if
any?"
Researchers adjusted the figures to account for such factors as
nonparticipation by immigrants who did not speak English or who were
afraid to respond because they were from countries where publicizing
one’s religion can result in reprisals.
Projecting the numbers in the sample to the overall U.S.
population, the study’s authors put the number of Muslims at 2.8
million.
David B. Barrett, a demographer whose staff provides annual
U.S. and world religion estimates for Encyclopaedia Britannica and 20
other yearbooks, last year estimated the U.S. Muslim population at 4.1
million.
Barrett said he has reservations about each of the other three
studies. He said he was "not all that impressed" by Smith’s study
because it relied on old material. He said household telephone
surveys, even one as large as CUNY’s, miss people without telephones
and do not account for teenagers who have different beliefs from their
parents. The mosque study, he said, relies too heavily on
self-reported figures.
Barrett said his own method is to analyze population data from
a variety of sources, including United Nations reports. For U.S.
Muslims, many of whom are immigrants, he looks at the percentage of
Sunnis, Shiites and other sects in their country of origin and
projects that onto the immigrant population here.
The large gaps between the various estimates suggest that more
research needs to be done and that demographers would benefit from
sharing data and variables specific to the Muslim community, said
Bryan T. Froehle, executive director of the Georgetown research
center, which was hired to analyze the mosque figures in Bagby’s
report.
What their study does is force us to look more sharply, to
think of other ways to get at this issue,” Bagby said of the CUNY
report. "I just wish it wasn’t a political hot potato."
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20476
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:17:32 -0500
Subject: Re: How many US Muslims are there?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bffcdcb.7583881@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
....
> What their study does is force us to look more sharply, to
> think of other ways to get at this issue,” Bagby said of the CUNY
> report. "I just wish it wasn’t a political hot potato."
Almost no one would give a rat's hindquarters about the number if the
issue were not political. But even if the U.S. were 51% Jewish or 51%
Islamic, it wouldn't change the nature of the proper foreign policy for
the U.S. to follow.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20477
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 11:53:15 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger-
This exact concept came up in an episode of _The Practice_ a couple
weeks back. The firm was representing an insurance company in an
accident case. A settlement was at hand when a physician from the
insurance company found evidence of a potential aneurism in the victim's
MRI. The victim's own physicians had missed it, so he would not be
receiving surgery for the potentially life threatening condition. The
dilemma: do they reveal the info to the victim and save his life, but in
the process break faith with the client. The attorney who chose to do
so recognized that he was violating professional ethics, but felt
morally compelled to save the life.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20478
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:03:25 GMT
Subject: Re: How many US Muslims are there?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:17:32 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>But even if the U.S. were 51% Jewish or 51%
>Islamic, it wouldn't change the nature of the proper foreign policy for
>the U.S. to follow.
Well that's a statement of the obvious, isn't it?
But the article is still interesting.
Or maybe that's just the anthropologist in me speaking.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20479
From: Gordon Sollars"
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:18:52 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
....
> The
> dilemma: do they reveal the info to the victim and save his life, but in
> the process break faith with the client. The attorney who chose to do
> so recognized that he was violating professional ethics, but felt
> morally compelled to save the life.
OK. But the dilemma could just as easily have been between any two moral
principles, not just between one from a set labeled "professional ethics"
and the other not. It is not the "professional" character of the situation
that makes for the problem. I think what Filk is highlighting in particular
is the problem we face in following any set of rules that aim to produce
moral outcomes: the rules might fall short.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20480
From: Gordon Sollars"
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 15:31:15 -0500
Subject: Re: How many US Muslims are there?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3c029148.22531856@news.sff.net...
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:17:32 -0500, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >But even if the U.S. were 51% Jewish or 51%
> >Islamic, it wouldn't change the nature of the proper foreign policy for
> >the U.S. to follow.
>
> Well that's a statement of the obvious, isn't it?
Well, I would have /thought/ so, before some of the discussion here. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20481
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 14:22:00 -0700
Subject: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All,
On Friday we lost Petronius the Arbiter, our oldest cat who'd been with
us for fourteen years.
This would have been traumatic under any circumstances but what made it
horrible -- makes it horrible -- is that it was all done with "good
intentions."
Pete was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism in July. It took us till last
week to get him stable and strong enough that the vet pronounced him a
good candidate for radio-iodine therapy, which would have solved the
problem for the rest of his life (probably five years or so.) Despite
the hefty cost, we did not hesitate. Pete was our first "child" and in
many ways more of a person than most so called humans I know. We had
scheduled the next available therapy slot which was the 3rd of
December. Until then, because of the nature of the disease, Pete looked
like he was in the final stages of famine. (And that was when he was
doing well.)
The one problem with Pete is that he couldn't stay in the house. He
always wanted to go out -- the name might have had something to do with
this. The other problem was that -- and I'm still beating myself over
this -- when he was sick he hated wearing his collar. Since he was sick
and didn't go beyond our yard, we allowed him to go without the collar
(I don't need to be told what kind of an idiot I am. Lord knows I know
this.)
On Friday when we left to take the little one (6 year old kid) to a
movie for his birthday, at around 11 a.m., Pete was lounging underneath
our swing. When I came back after lunch and called our cats for their
afternoon snack (three others have yard privileges -- though I don't
know for how long) he didn't come. This surprised me because the
farthest from the front porch he'd got in three weeks was the mailbox.
However, I assumed he was feeling better and had gone for a walk. When
he didn't show up by the evening, we panicked and called the humane
society. They didn't have anyone by that description. The next
morning, we called the humane society again AND all the vets in a five
mile radius trying to trace a very large, hyperthyroid black cat with a
missing fang. Nothing.
We had a little party for the kid's birthday. As it was winding down
one of the vets called. The description matched that of a "stray" she
had euthanized in the morning.
We went and identified poor Pete. Some woman -- the vet won't give us
her name -- brought him in and said he was a stray and obviously
starving, he'd been in her yard for two weeks (GOD DAMN IT, a bald faced
lie) and that he was obviously injured (he had arthritis in his left
rear leg.) The vet euthanized him at 10 a.m. on Saturday even though
she "had her doubts, because he was obviously hyperthyroid and had also
obviously have to have been on medication or he'd be dead."
Despite those doubts she killed our baby at the behest of some woman who
had no business touching him and who HAD to have taken him off our wall
(the wall is at the level of the garden and he liked to sun there.)
I have my own conscience to torment me. I SHOULD have made sure he had
his tag, no matter what his opinion of it was and no matter how many
times he did the "dying cat" routine when I put it on. I SHOULD have
discouraged him from lying on the wall. I should... And all my guilt
won't bring him back.
However, I'm sure this self-righteous idiot honestly believed we were
abusing the poor cat. After all he was so skinny. And I'm sure she
thought she was doing "the right thing."
And thus she deprived us of our first born "child", our best friend who
pulled us through a hundred slumps and whom we pulled from the brink of
death ten times (he had horrible teeth, so he got other infections
easily), the friend and companion who was adored by our kids.
I think this ties in somewhere to the ethics discussion. I'm not sure
where. I'm heart sick because I violated my promise to Pete that I
would keep him safe. I'm afraid he died hating me and I'm afraid I
deserve it. I don't really like myself right now. The last words we
spoke to him were "we're going to get you all better again" because we'd
just booked his treatment. Damn.
Yet I'm sure this person thinks she acted morally, even exemplary. I
just hope to God if there is one, that she'll one day know the same sort
of injustice she inflicted on poor Pete. And that probably proves I'm
not a good person, but I don't care.
Thanks for listening.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20482
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 00:00:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3C02B278.7050808@sff.net>, Sarah A. Hoyt writes...
> All,
>
> On Friday we lost Petronius the Arbiter, our oldest cat who'd been with
> us for fourteen years.
What a tragic, terrible mistake! Please accept my deepest sympathies.
It will not be a comfort to you now, but 14 years is a fine span of time,
longer in fact than several of my feline friends have been with me.
Someday, remembrance of many events of that time will provide you with a
rich supply of smiles and laughs.
Further, you must recognize that you had good reasons, reasons that Pete
cared about, for making the decisions that you did. The world we live in
has the power to upset even the best of our decisions, nor can we ever
really be sure what would have happened otherwise.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20483
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:59:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sarah, first let me tell you how deeply sorry I am for your loss. That
said...
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> I'm heart sick because I violated my promise to Pete that I
> would keep him safe.
You did nothing of the sort! You loved him for 14 years and, by your own
description, rescued him from the brink of death 10 times (once more often,
I note, than his traditional allotment). In the end, you made reasonable,
loving decisions based on your knowledge of his desires and needs. The fact
that things turned out badly -- in a way you couldn't possibly have
foreseen -- *in no way* converts those decisions into some sort of breach
of faith. Sh!t happens, you know, and you *must not* hold yourself
responsible for every little turd of it.
> I'm afraid he died hating me...
Surely not. Unless the vet horribly botched the euthanasia, he never knew
what was happening to him. Given his history of illness, a vet's office was
probably no harbinger of doom in his mind, though he must have been puzzled
by the fact that it was a stranger who took him there. If he was hating
anyone, it was her; if he was thinking of you at all, it was with love and
longing.
> ...and I'm afraid I
> deserve it. I don't really like myself right now.
THIS is a feeling you must rid yourself of immediately. You loved him and
you did your best for him; you do his memory no honor, and you do your
family and other cats no service, with this self-reproach. In short, give
yourself a break. While you're at it, you might give the "culprit" a tiny
break, too:
> Yet I'm sure this person thinks she acted morally, even exemplary.
Assuming there's no underlying spite or animosity you haven't mentioned[1],
she probably does think just that. You might too, if the shoe were on the
other foot: Keep in mind that any of us might have mistaken Pete's symptoms
for starvation and abuse, without the special knowledge you had... and any
of us might feel justified in "rescuing" an abused cat and taking it to the
vet (though I doubt many of us on this Forum would be so quick to demand
such an animal be put down).
If I were in your shoes and felt like being angry at someone, the person
I'd be angry at would be the vet: How dare she summarily put down an animal
on the request of someone who was neither the animal's owner nor a shelter
employee nor an animal control officer? Pete's would-be rescuer had no
right to request the euthanasia, but it's just barely understandable why
she did; the vet had *absolutely no right* to act so precipitously...
particularly when she, by her own admission, at least suspected the true
reason for Pete's condition.
But while I would probably *want* to be angry if I were in your shoes, I
would sit down and chant an om and try hard not to be: No amount of anger
will bring Pete back, but it will do great harm to your spirit. A few
months ago I mentioned on the Forum that my daughter had been diagnosed
with a brain tumor. She's since been through a (successful) 14 hour surgery
and three rounds of chemotherapy (with ~13 rounds, plus 5 weeks of
radiotherapy, still to go). My wife and I are frightened, of course, and
we're tempted to be angry at the world... but being angry at the world
won't help anything. We're also having to make decisions, day in and day
out, that might in retrospect turn out to have been tragically wrong (G*d
forbid!). We *can't* set ourselves up for a lifetime of reproach and
regret; we have to make the best choices we can, in faith and love and
confidence, and not look back. And so should you. Pete loves you for
everything you did for him; don't waste another minute on despair or
regret.
I'm not a big one for quoting song lyrics (or at least, I haven't been
since I graduated from high school <g>), but ever since Mara got sick, the
opening lines of Jewel's "Hands" have been stuck in my head:
"If I could tell the world just one thing
It would be that we're all OK
And not to worry 'cause worry is wasteful
And useless in times like these.
"I won't be made useless
I won't be idle with despair..."
I try each day to avoid being made useless or idle with despair, despite
all temptation. Please join me.
Whew... sorry for the sermon. Your story obviously touched a chord with me,
eh? I hope my thoughts were helpful; if not, please forgive me for rambling
so.
-JovBill
[1] I make room for the possibility that this woman has some grudge against
you that you didn't mention, and that she did this deliberately out of
spite. If that's the case, you can throw my little sermon out the window
and I will help you hold open the gates of H#ll for her.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20484
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:39:19 -0400
Subject: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All:
Back in early September I told y'all that my daughter Mara had been
diagnosed with a brain tumor, and I asked for your prayers and good
wishes. The kind responses and good thoughts we received from many of
you helped me through a very tough time, and you all have my heartfelt
thanks. After a few days, though, Mara requested privacy regarding her
illness, and in deference to her wishes I stopped posting updates to the
Forum. I promised to keep folks informed privately, and many of you
requested those updates, but in the busy weeks that followed I never got
around to putting together a distribution list for updates... for which
I beg your collective pardon.
Lately, though, Mara has gotten more comfortable discussing her case --
even mentioning it on the personal website I helped her create
(http://pw2.netcom.com/~dauphinb/brainstorm.htm) -- so I feel like I'm
on safe ground to bring you up to date. I'll start at the beginning,
just to make sure I don't skip anything:
In the late spring, Mara started having headaches. Because strep was
going around among her school friends at the time, we first suspected
that. When repeated strep tests proved negative and the headaches kept
coming, daily and with accompanying nausea, we went through bad eyeglass
prescriptions, a sinus infection, then finally migraines, as possible
causes. Just before Mara left in late July for her summer vacation with
Grandma in Florida, out neurologist confidently diagnosed migraine, but
recommended an MRI and a visit to the ophthamalogist (sp?) when we got
home, strictly as a precaution. When we did get home, in late August,
and Mara was no better despite two dosage increases in her anti-migraine
prescription, the neurologist told us to get to the eye doctor right
away (his office even called to make the appointment for me). From
there, things happened very quickly:
I picked Mara up at lunchtime on Friday, 8/31 (her third day of middle
school), and took her to the eye appointment. The doctor quickly
observed swollen optic nerves in both eyes, a sign of increased pressure
in the brain and, in consultation with the neurologist, sent us straight
to the emergency room of Connecticut Children's Medical Center (a
*GREAT* children's hospital, BTW, G*d forbid you should need to know
that) for a CT scan. By late afternoon, we were looking at a scan that
showed ventricles in the brain enlarged by excess pressure, and the mass
that was causing that pressure. By 7:00 pm, she was in surgery having an
external shunt put in to relieve the pressure (a tube stuck right into
her brain... it totally freaked me out, I must say), and by 10:00 pm we
were sitting by her bedside in the pediatric ICU. Somewhere that night
or the following day, I stopped by the house to pack up some things and
feed the cat, and that's when I asked you good folks for your prayers.
My mother-in-law arrived on Sunday (no jokes, please; she stayed with us
for almost a month, and was a great help). It took several days to
relieve the pressure and swelling in Mara's brain so she'd be ready for
surgery, and in the meantime she had an MRI, an angiogram to map the
tumor's blood supply (and at the same time block off about 80 percent of
it), and another CT scan. Finally, on Thursday (9/6) she underwent 14
hours of surgery, during which the team was able to remove 98 percent of
the tumor, causing no collateral damage to her brain in the process. Up
'til this point, the doctors had been fairly confident that the tumor
would prove to be benign, because she had none of the neurological
symptoms of a malignant brain tumor (this is also why migraine, rather
than a tumor, had been the diagnosis earlier)... but when the surgeon
debriefed us, he said the pathologist hadn't thought it looked like the
sort of (benign) tumor they expected. Once we knew what it *wasn't*, we
had an agonizing wait to learn what it was, because the pathology work
can take days to "cook." Finally, on Monday (9/10... yes, the day before
9/11), we got the word from the hospital's head of pediatric oncology
that the tumor was malignant... but also that it was unusual, and it
would take more work to pin down exactly what type of cancer it was.
That work would end up taking a couple weeks, and include a visit to the
Jimmy Fund Clinic (please remember to give the next time they pass
around that can at the movies) of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in
Boston. You may recognize Dana-Farber as being where our own Eli
Hesterman works (it's the "dfci" part of his e-mail address); Eli has
been a great help to us through all of this, giving us advice, pointing
us to resources, and even greeting us when we arrived at the Jimmy Fund
Clinic (thanks, Eli!). It was a very nervous time for us, because some
of the possible answers might have had very grim prognoses indeed. In
fact, in our ignorance, we were actually rooting for a diagnosis that,
we later learned, would have been worse than what we got.
The word we finally got was that she has an extraskeletal Ewing's
sarcoma, an extremely rare tumor in this particular location (the
oncologist told us they could only find one case in all the literature
that was a fairly close match to Mara's). Ewing's sarcoma *normally*
arises in the bones, but sometimes shows up outside (hence
"extraskeletal"). Strictly speaking, this is not a brain tumor, despite
its location. Indeed, it wasn't truly *in* the brain, but on the lining
of the brain, next to the skull. This is the good news: Because this
type of tumor cell is sensitive to chemotherapy *and* it's located
outside the blood-brain barrier (which inhibits chemicals from reaching
the brain), we can rely on chemotherapy, rather than radiation, as the
primary mode of treatment. Chemo is pretty scary, but radiation is even
scarier when the brain is involved. While Mara will still need some
radiotherapy, it will be local, rather than whole-brain, exposure, and
the site (in the back, near the base of the head) is well away from the
higher cognitive functions. In addition, Mara's age is in her favor: Our
reading suggests that children 7 and younger can lose 25 points or more
off their IQs as a result of radiotherapy; at 11, Mara has already
completed much of her cognitive development and is at much less risk.
So where are we today? We have a relatively new 48 week chemotherapy
protocol, just "off study," that offers long-term survival rates of up
to 80 percent for this type of tumor (though it's not been used on a
tumor in this location) and a radiotherapy plan that seems likely to
minimize the risk of serious side-effects. Mara has been through the
first 3 rounds of chemo -- she has a new round roughly every 3 weeks,
and is in the hospital for 3 to 5 days for each round. She was
hospitalized for a post-chemo fever after each of the first 2 rounds,
but she showed no sign of infection or serious illness in either case,
and we're learining that the post-chemo fever is just routine for some
patients (we're waiting now to see whether she'll have one after the 3rd
round, which concluded about a week ago). So far her side effects have
been minimal, and she's in great spirits. She *has* lost most of her
hair, but she's learned to be creative with hats and scarves, and any
day now she'll receive a free wig from -- of all groups -- the Hair Club
for Men <g>.
That's the whole rundown. Mara is young (but not *too* young) and
strong, and she's getting great care, and we're very, very hopeful for
the future... but please keep on praying (or whatever) for us; it helps
to know we're not alone in this.
-JovBill
PS: 2 things about Mara's website: [1] The gift wish-list page is there
for the convenience of family and very close friends; we are *NOT*
scamming for extra gifts from casual friends (OTOH, I'm sure she'd enjoy
getting e-mail or virtual cards from any of you). [2] We're working on
an update that will be posted tomorrow or the next day.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20485
From: dee"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 03:42:18 -0600
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sarah--
The story of this dreadful error makes my heart hurt for you. I wish I
could be as articulate as some, but in this case the words just won't come
to me. Bill and Gordon said it all, and very well. One thing I am very
sure of, though, is that the only thoughts Pete had about you were thougts
of his beloved friend. I know that you miss him like a big hole in your
heart, right now, and I am so sorry that it was not his time, and that you
couldn't be with him, even if it had been. But please don't imagine him in
distress, and don't blame yourself. You tried to ease his discomfort, and
fate intervened.
I know that the time will come when your memories of Pete bring
happiness instead of pain, but I also know how hard that is to believe while
you are in the midst of your grief. Be good to yourself.
--Dee
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C02B278.7050808@sff.net...
> All,
>
> On Friday we lost Petronius the Arbiter, our oldest cat who'd been with
> us for fourteen years.
>
> This would have been traumatic under any circumstances but what made it
> horrible -- makes it horrible -- is that it was all done with "good
> intentions."
>
> Pete was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism in July. It took us till last
> week to get him stable and strong enough that the vet pronounced him a
> good candidate for radio-iodine therapy, which would have solved the
> problem for the rest of his life (probably five years or so.) Despite
> the hefty cost, we did not hesitate. Pete was our first "child" and in
> many ways more of a person than most so called humans I know. We had
> scheduled the next available therapy slot which was the 3rd of
> December. Until then, because of the nature of the disease, Pete looked
> like he was in the final stages of famine. (And that was when he was
> doing well.)
>
> The one problem with Pete is that he couldn't stay in the house. He
> always wanted to go out -- the name might have had something to do with
> this. The other problem was that -- and I'm still beating myself over
> this -- when he was sick he hated wearing his collar. Since he was sick
> and didn't go beyond our yard, we allowed him to go without the collar
> (I don't need to be told what kind of an idiot I am. Lord knows I know
> this.)
>
> On Friday when we left to take the little one (6 year old kid) to a
> movie for his birthday, at around 11 a.m., Pete was lounging underneath
> our swing. When I came back after lunch and called our cats for their
> afternoon snack (three others have yard privileges -- though I don't
> know for how long) he didn't come. This surprised me because the
> farthest from the front porch he'd got in three weeks was the mailbox.
> However, I assumed he was feeling better and had gone for a walk. When
> he didn't show up by the evening, we panicked and called the humane
> society. They didn't have anyone by that description. The next
> morning, we called the humane society again AND all the vets in a five
> mile radius trying to trace a very large, hyperthyroid black cat with a
> missing fang. Nothing.
> We had a little party for the kid's birthday. As it was winding down
> one of the vets called. The description matched that of a "stray" she
> had euthanized in the morning.
> We went and identified poor Pete. Some woman -- the vet won't give us
> her name -- brought him in and said he was a stray and obviously
> starving, he'd been in her yard for two weeks (GOD DAMN IT, a bald faced
> lie) and that he was obviously injured (he had arthritis in his left
> rear leg.) The vet euthanized him at 10 a.m. on Saturday even though
> she "had her doubts, because he was obviously hyperthyroid and had also
> obviously have to have been on medication or he'd be dead."
> Despite those doubts she killed our baby at the behest of some woman who
> had no business touching him and who HAD to have taken him off our wall
> (the wall is at the level of the garden and he liked to sun there.)
>
> I have my own conscience to torment me. I SHOULD have made sure he had
> his tag, no matter what his opinion of it was and no matter how many
> times he did the "dying cat" routine when I put it on. I SHOULD have
> discouraged him from lying on the wall. I should... And all my guilt
> won't bring him back.
>
> However, I'm sure this self-righteous idiot honestly believed we were
> abusing the poor cat. After all he was so skinny. And I'm sure she
> thought she was doing "the right thing."
>
> And thus she deprived us of our first born "child", our best friend who
> pulled us through a hundred slumps and whom we pulled from the brink of
> death ten times (he had horrible teeth, so he got other infections
> easily), the friend and companion who was adored by our kids.
>
> I think this ties in somewhere to the ethics discussion. I'm not sure
> where. I'm heart sick because I violated my promise to Pete that I
> would keep him safe. I'm afraid he died hating me and I'm afraid I
> deserve it. I don't really like myself right now. The last words we
> spoke to him were "we're going to get you all better again" because we'd
> just booked his treatment. Damn.
>
> Yet I'm sure this person thinks she acted morally, even exemplary. I
> just hope to God if there is one, that she'll one day know the same sort
> of injustice she inflicted on poor Pete. And that probably proves I'm
> not a good person, but I don't care.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Sarah
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20486
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 01:58:54 -0800
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3c0295d1.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> ...
> > The
> > dilemma: do they reveal the info to the victim and save his life,
but in
> > the process break faith with the client. The attorney who chose
to do
> > so recognized that he was violating professional ethics, but felt
> > morally compelled to save the life.
>
> OK. But the dilemma could just as easily have been between any two
moral
> principles, not just between one from a set labeled "professional
ethics"
> and the other not. It is not the "professional" character of the
situation
> that makes for the problem.
Not exactly. I do not consider "ethics" to be "moral principles".
Ethics are general rules for behavior that attempt to achieve the
highest moral principles in the largest number of cases, regardless of
the morality or immorality of what the "ethic" proposes. The purpose
of the ethic is to promote morality, not define it. Thus, it may be
what seems to be generally evil in and of itself (defending the
guilty), but it promotes general morality (helps to ensure that
everyone is given a proper defense).
> I think what Filk is highlighting in particular
> is the problem we face in following any set of rules that aim to
produce
> moral outcomes: the rules might fall short.
And ethics, as I have defined them, invariably will.
For example:
"Thou shall not steal" is an ethic. It is a general rule that, if
followed at all times, will _tend_ to produce more moral results than
if not followed at all. Its failure, such as when a child will starve
to death without the theft, is not due to the conflict of moral
principles; it is due to the fact that the ethic, being a general rule
for promoting morality, and not a moral principle in and of itself,
will have individual exceptions where it will do harm.
The best ethics, of course, are those that are simple enough to
readily apply, promote morality to the highest degree, with the fewest
possible failures, and with such failures causing the least possible
moral harm.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20487
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 02:25:12 -0800
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C02B278.7050808@sff.net...
<snip>
> I think this ties in somewhere to the ethics discussion. I'm not
sure
> where.
This does tie into discussions of ethics and morality. In all ways,
you followed both to the best of your ability. I am sorry that the
outcome was not for the best, but I assure you that you are not
responsible. You did nothing wrong, and I am quite certain that Pete
did not hate you.
> I'm heart sick because I violated my promise to Pete that I
> would keep him safe.
You violated no promise. All promises include a proviso: "to the best
of my ability". If they did not, they would all be lies from the very
first. Nobody ever kept a promise that was beyond their ability to
keep, except by luck or the actions of others. That's what "the best
of my ability" means. You did your best to take care of him in all
ways. It failed, and that hurts, but doing your best is _always_ what
a promise is about.
> I'm afraid he died hating me and I'm afraid I
> deserve it.
Suppose you were sick, and someone (call him David) was taking loving
care of you. They had to leave the house for a short while, so they
sit you in a comfy chair in the front room, and, knowing you wanted
fresh air, left the front door open to let some in.
Suddenly, a brutal thug comes in the front door, finds you helpless,
and rapes and murders you. Your last thought is, "I hate David for
leaving the door open and making me comfortable!"
I don't think so.
> I don't really like myself right now. The last words we
> spoke to him were "we're going to get you all better again" because
we'd
> just booked his treatment. Damn.
I'm sure that hurts you, but how would you have felt if you put the
collar on him, and, in suffering, he tried to get it off, stabbed
himself with something dirty and sharp, and died in pain? Then, it
would be your fault for making him wear the collar, wouldn't it?
NO. It wouldn't be then, and it isn't now. This isn't your fault.
> Yet I'm sure this person thinks she acted morally, even exemplary.
I
> just hope to God if there is one, that she'll one day know the same
sort
> of injustice she inflicted on poor Pete. And that probably proves
I'm
> not a good person, but I don't care.
It proves nothing of the sort. It might prove you aren't a _perfect_
person, but that only means you are human.
Forgive yourself. This other person doesn't even know you, and is not
hurt by your desire for vengeance. If, once you forgive yourself, you
forgive them, then you do. If not, you don't.
But above all:
FORGIVE YOURSELF
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20488
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:31:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill,
Thank you for posting this. I had been wondering. I wish Mara all the
best and she'll remain in my thoughts and prayers. It's a tough thing
to be that sick when you're so young. She's a brave young lady to be
taking the hair thing so well. Tell her she should be proud of herself.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20489
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:48:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Thanks to everyone for what you said. You are all wonderful and you
understand, where most people would think we're overreacting to a pet's
death. But Pete wasn't a pet. We've had mice and other rodents and
they were pets -- not fully people. All our cats, including Pixie who
is either dumber than drier lint or a genius and just keeps us guessing,
and Randy who is -- for physiological reasons -- emotionally disturbed
are PEOPLE. They can't talk, but they let us know what they think and I
know they understand what's going on.
On the day Pete died, we told them. Since then, they've wanted cuddles
and pets every five minutes, and they've tried to be nice to us, too.
Miranda, who is not even one yet, seems more scared than sorry, but
that's expected from a teenager. I'm not antropromorphizing. They
don't act like humans, but they act sentient in their own way.
And therefore Pete was a friend, on as equal terms as possible and felt
like an old, treasured friend. He was quite capable of giving us
emotional support and he was sweet and tolerant with the kids through
their bratty times. He also watched over them and got very upset when
they cried.
Though Pete was a stray, he looked exactly like a bombay cat -- a little
miniature panther. In his prime he was around 16 lbs almost all lean
muscle. He did not suffer fools gladly and could defend himself quite
well (back then) but when Robert was in his walker, he once dragged Pete
across the kitchen linoleum by his tail (Robert was less than one and
simply didn't know what he was doing. He is NOT cruel to animals now,
on the contrary) and all Pete would do was meow pitifully while I ran
from the dining room to rescue him. Robert learned to appreciate him
later. Until Robert was five, Pete had this habit of lying under
Robert's head at night. He'd squeeze himself under there -- a living
cat pillow.
We're past the crying. We're still angry, though feeling somewhat less
murderous. We've convinced Robert (10) it wouldn't be legal -- and
possibly not moral -- for us to find the neighbor and euthanize her.
Now it remains what Dee said -- there's this awful hole in our lives
that if feels like nothing will ever fill up. I believe you someday
we'll look back and be glad we had him. Right now, it just hurts for
him not to be here. I wish for him what RAH envisioned for Petronius at
the end of The Door Into Summer. Pete had much the same personality and
I hope he is now in some happy land. Religions are unbearably coy or
callous on the subject of cats. However, while I'm not sure every
person has a soul, I'm sure Pete had one. And while I'm not sure of my
own survival after death, it's hard to believe someone like Pete would
just go out like the flame of a candle. He must be somewhere and I hope
he's happy.
Again, thank you, especially Bill for his sermon. It was needed and all
of it helped. Sorry to burden all of you with this, but I did need to
hear what you had to say.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20490
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 14:14:35 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> "Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0295d1.0@news.sff.net...
> >
> > "Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The
> > > dilemma: do they reveal the info to the victim and save his life,
> but in
> > > the process break faith with the client. The attorney who chose
> to do
> > > so recognized that he was violating professional ethics, but felt
> > > morally compelled to save the life.
> >
> > OK. But the dilemma could just as easily have been between any two
> moral
> > principles, not just between one from a set labeled "professional
> ethics"
> > and the other not. It is not the "professional" character of the
> situation
> > that makes for the problem.
>
> Not exactly. I do not consider "ethics" to be "moral principles".
> Ethics are general rules for behavior that attempt to achieve the
> highest moral principles in the largest number of cases, regardless of
> the morality or immorality of what the "ethic" proposes. The purpose
> of the ethic is to promote morality, not define it. Thus, it may be
> what seems to be generally evil in and of itself (defending the
> guilty), but it promotes general morality (helps to ensure that
> everyone is given a proper defense).
In your view, are ethics individual? I ask because in the example I gave
the conflict seemed to be not so much between ethics and morality per se,
as the individual versus the group. The group (i.e. the bar) decided
that certain behavior was expected of its members, while this individual
felt the need to break that rule.
> The best ethics, of course, are those that are simple enough to
> readily apply, promote morality to the highest degree, with the fewest
> possible failures, and with such failures causing the least possible
> moral harm.
Depending on how you define "morality", this sounds a lot like rule
utilitarianism to me.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20491
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:44:56 -0800
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3C03E61A.7171F388@dfci.harvard.edu...
<snip>
> In your view, are ethics individual? I ask because in the example I gave
> the conflict seemed to be not so much between ethics and morality per se,
> as the individual versus the group. The group (i.e. the bar) decided
> that certain behavior was expected of its members, while this individual
> felt the need to break that rule.
Ethics can be, but not all cases where an individual's morality won out over
a group ethic involves a personal ethic. Some individuals may violate an
ethic out of concern for the morality involved, without invoking another
ethic. Thus, if he had a rule that, under certain specific conditions, he
would violate his professional ethics, and this specific condition occured,
and he violated his professional ethics following this personal ethic, then
this was an individual ethic that won out over a professional one. OTOH, if
he didn't have an ethic specific to the case in point, but violated his
profesional ethic because he considered that to be more moral than the
alternative, then it wasn't an individual ethic; it was an overriding of an
ethic by a perceived moral failure of the ethic.
> Depending on how you define "morality", this sounds a lot like rule
> utilitarianism to me.
You probably have a point there. I was pretty much trying to define what
ethics were supposed to do by defining the "best" ethics.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20492
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 11:48:34 -0800
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C032701.C5B2314A@ix.netcom.com...
> All:
>
> Back in early September I told y'all that my daughter Mara had been
> diagnosed with a brain tumor, and I asked for your prayers and good
> wishes.
<snip>
Thanks for the update. I visited the webpage, and sent Mara some filk tunes
and some logic puzzles to entertain her, along with my wishes for a full
recovery, since her web page said she liked the puzzles, and I hoped she
would like the songs.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20493
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 18:23:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> All our cats, including ... Miranda, who is not even one yet,
You have a cat named Miranda? That's our cat's name, too. Mara, who was
about 5 when we took the stray kitty in, gave her the name just because it
was pretty (I still have no idea where Mara had heard it). Before long,
though, we learned that our friend hardly ever meows... so now I tell
people she's "Miranda" because she has the right to remain silent. She's
not really silent, though: She sounds like an outboard motor when she
purrs... which is pretty much any time anyone strokes her, wanton pet-slut
that she is! ;^)
> Again, thank you, especially Bill for his sermon. It was needed and all
> of it helped.
Thank heaven! I was terribly afraid it would come off just sounding like a
scolding, which isn't what I had in mind at all. But it came from the
heart, so I crossed my fingers and hit "send." I'm glad it helped.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20494
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 20:27:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> You have a cat named Miranda?
She is going to be one on December 1st. She's named for Shakespeare's
character. She's a cornish rex tortie.
> Before long,
> though, we learned that our friend hardly ever meows... so now I tell
> people she's "Miranda" because she has the right to remain silent.
:-)
Miranda NEVER shuts up. She must have a siamese SOMEWHERE in her
ancestry. I've only ever had a chatty cat before, and that's Pixie who
can say "mom" and sound just like our younger boy. But Miranda is much
chattier -- she yells at us, she praises us, she loves us to death, she
tells me her box needs cleaning -- there are infinite variations to her
meow and its expressiveness. While I was typing this, she was informing
my husband that I haven't cleaned her box today. And I mean, she got it
across that she was tattling. (It was my turn on box duty. Sigh)
> She's
> not really silent, though: She sounds like an outboard motor when she
> purrs... which is pretty much any time anyone strokes her, wanton pet-slut
> that she is! ;^)
Miranda only purrs for Robert. She was supposed to be MY baby. Ah
well. :-)
Let me reassure you your sermon really helped. I do feel better, as
much as that's possible. What hurt most of all was the fear that he'd
died hating me. We were friends. We had an understanding.
Unfortunately, while Dan (my husband) was looking for Pete at the
humane society, he came across this little (1 1/2 years) boy cat who
stayed on his mind. So today he took us to see him. He was all over
us, purring and chin butting. We're still not sure, and we're holding
back. It might be we just want to adopt to fill that big hole -- and
that won't work. So we're holding off a little longer, thinking about
it. We need a fifth cat like we need a hole in the head. On the
other hand, we've had five cats for the best part of thirteen years, we
have a 3000 square foot house and I work at home, sitting down, with a
readily available lap. And heck, no one in this house flinches at $700
dollar vet bills. The kids just get their clothes from the thrift store
(as does mommy) and we get by. Um.... I don't know. On the other hand,
he is so sweet. I mean, Pixel is a good, adorable boy, but this one was
the most affectionate cat I ever saw. And my husband says we could call
him Euclid. On the other hand... I really wouldn't want to be just
trying to salve my hurt. He's a lovely baby and he is black, but not a
thing like Pete in either build or attitude -- which is probably best,
since I wouldn't want to project Pete onto him. Still, I wouldn't want
this one euthanized because no one adopted him.
Dear Abby, I'm conflicted.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20495
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:44:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Thank you for letting us know what's up. I just sent Mara my favorite link.
(www.refdesk.com)
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3C032701.C5B2314A@ix.netcom.com...
> All:
>
> Back in early September I told y'all that my daughter Mara had been
> diagnosed with a brain tumor, and I asked for your prayers and good
> wishes. The kind responses and good thoughts we received from many of
> you helped me through a very tough time, and you all have my heartfelt
> thanks. After a few days, though, Mara requested privacy regarding her
> illness, and in deference to her wishes I stopped posting updates to the
> Forum. I promised to keep folks informed privately, and many of you
> requested those updates, but in the busy weeks that followed I never got
> around to putting together a distribution list for updates... for which
> I beg your collective pardon.
>
> Lately, though, Mara has gotten more comfortable discussing her case --
> even mentioning it on the personal website I helped her create
> (http://pw2.netcom.com/~dauphinb/brainstorm.htm) -- so I feel like I'm
> on safe ground to bring you up to date. I'll start at the beginning,
> just to make sure I don't skip anything:
>
> In the late spring, Mara started having headaches. Because strep was
> going around among her school friends at the time, we first suspected
> that. When repeated strep tests proved negative and the headaches kept
> coming, daily and with accompanying nausea, we went through bad eyeglass
> prescriptions, a sinus infection, then finally migraines, as possible
> causes. Just before Mara left in late July for her summer vacation with
> Grandma in Florida, out neurologist confidently diagnosed migraine, but
> recommended an MRI and a visit to the ophthamalogist (sp?) when we got
> home, strictly as a precaution. When we did get home, in late August,
> and Mara was no better despite two dosage increases in her anti-migraine
> prescription, the neurologist told us to get to the eye doctor right
> away (his office even called to make the appointment for me). From
> there, things happened very quickly:
>
> I picked Mara up at lunchtime on Friday, 8/31 (her third day of middle
> school), and took her to the eye appointment. The doctor quickly
> observed swollen optic nerves in both eyes, a sign of increased pressure
> in the brain and, in consultation with the neurologist, sent us straight
> to the emergency room of Connecticut Children's Medical Center (a
> *GREAT* children's hospital, BTW, G*d forbid you should need to know
> that) for a CT scan. By late afternoon, we were looking at a scan that
> showed ventricles in the brain enlarged by excess pressure, and the mass
> that was causing that pressure. By 7:00 pm, she was in surgery having an
> external shunt put in to relieve the pressure (a tube stuck right into
> her brain... it totally freaked me out, I must say), and by 10:00 pm we
> were sitting by her bedside in the pediatric ICU. Somewhere that night
> or the following day, I stopped by the house to pack up some things and
> feed the cat, and that's when I asked you good folks for your prayers.
>
> My mother-in-law arrived on Sunday (no jokes, please; she stayed with us
> for almost a month, and was a great help). It took several days to
> relieve the pressure and swelling in Mara's brain so she'd be ready for
> surgery, and in the meantime she had an MRI, an angiogram to map the
> tumor's blood supply (and at the same time block off about 80 percent of
> it), and another CT scan. Finally, on Thursday (9/6) she underwent 14
> hours of surgery, during which the team was able to remove 98 percent of
> the tumor, causing no collateral damage to her brain in the process. Up
> 'til this point, the doctors had been fairly confident that the tumor
> would prove to be benign, because she had none of the neurological
> symptoms of a malignant brain tumor (this is also why migraine, rather
> than a tumor, had been the diagnosis earlier)... but when the surgeon
> debriefed us, he said the pathologist hadn't thought it looked like the
> sort of (benign) tumor they expected. Once we knew what it *wasn't*, we
> had an agonizing wait to learn what it was, because the pathology work
> can take days to "cook." Finally, on Monday (9/10... yes, the day before
> 9/11), we got the word from the hospital's head of pediatric oncology
> that the tumor was malignant... but also that it was unusual, and it
> would take more work to pin down exactly what type of cancer it was.
>
> That work would end up taking a couple weeks, and include a visit to the
> Jimmy Fund Clinic (please remember to give the next time they pass
> around that can at the movies) of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in
> Boston. You may recognize Dana-Farber as being where our own Eli
> Hesterman works (it's the "dfci" part of his e-mail address); Eli has
> been a great help to us through all of this, giving us advice, pointing
> us to resources, and even greeting us when we arrived at the Jimmy Fund
> Clinic (thanks, Eli!). It was a very nervous time for us, because some
> of the possible answers might have had very grim prognoses indeed. In
> fact, in our ignorance, we were actually rooting for a diagnosis that,
> we later learned, would have been worse than what we got.
>
> The word we finally got was that she has an extraskeletal Ewing's
> sarcoma, an extremely rare tumor in this particular location (the
> oncologist told us they could only find one case in all the literature
> that was a fairly close match to Mara's). Ewing's sarcoma *normally*
> arises in the bones, but sometimes shows up outside (hence
> "extraskeletal"). Strictly speaking, this is not a brain tumor, despite
> its location. Indeed, it wasn't truly *in* the brain, but on the lining
> of the brain, next to the skull. This is the good news: Because this
> type of tumor cell is sensitive to chemotherapy *and* it's located
> outside the blood-brain barrier (which inhibits chemicals from reaching
> the brain), we can rely on chemotherapy, rather than radiation, as the
> primary mode of treatment. Chemo is pretty scary, but radiation is even
> scarier when the brain is involved. While Mara will still need some
> radiotherapy, it will be local, rather than whole-brain, exposure, and
> the site (in the back, near the base of the head) is well away from the
> higher cognitive functions. In addition, Mara's age is in her favor: Our
> reading suggests that children 7 and younger can lose 25 points or more
> off their IQs as a result of radiotherapy; at 11, Mara has already
> completed much of her cognitive development and is at much less risk.
>
> So where are we today? We have a relatively new 48 week chemotherapy
> protocol, just "off study," that offers long-term survival rates of up
> to 80 percent for this type of tumor (though it's not been used on a
> tumor in this location) and a radiotherapy plan that seems likely to
> minimize the risk of serious side-effects. Mara has been through the
> first 3 rounds of chemo -- she has a new round roughly every 3 weeks,
> and is in the hospital for 3 to 5 days for each round. She was
> hospitalized for a post-chemo fever after each of the first 2 rounds,
> but she showed no sign of infection or serious illness in either case,
> and we're learining that the post-chemo fever is just routine for some
> patients (we're waiting now to see whether she'll have one after the 3rd
> round, which concluded about a week ago). So far her side effects have
> been minimal, and she's in great spirits. She *has* lost most of her
> hair, but she's learned to be creative with hats and scarves, and any
> day now she'll receive a free wig from -- of all groups -- the Hair Club
> for Men <g>.
>
> That's the whole rundown. Mara is young (but not *too* young) and
> strong, and she's getting great care, and we're very, very hopeful for
> the future... but please keep on praying (or whatever) for us; it helps
> to know we're not alone in this.
>
> -JovBill
>
> PS: 2 things about Mara's website: [1] The gift wish-list page is there
> for the convenience of family and very close friends; we are *NOT*
> scamming for extra gifts from casual friends (OTOH, I'm sure she'd enjoy
> getting e-mail or virtual cards from any of you). [2] We're working on
> an update that will be posted tomorrow or the next day.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20496
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:17:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Ethics and horrible outcomes
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>understand, where most people would think we're overreacting to a pet's
>death.
Love isn't bounded by species. And people don't just come in human
shape.
Such an awful thing--I feel so bad for you. If you can, maybe you
should sue this woman, just so she'll get the message that she can't
commit murder with total impunity. At a minimum, write up the story
with photo and post it around the neighborhood.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20497
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 20:17:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>We have a relatively new 48 week chemotherapy
So much for someone so young to go through. I'm glad you posted an
update; I'd been thinking about her.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20498
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:28:33 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3c03656b.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> Not exactly. I do not consider "ethics" to be "moral principles".
> Ethics are general rules for behavior that attempt to achieve the
> highest moral principles in the largest number of cases, regardless of
> the morality or immorality of what the "ethic" proposes. The purpose
> of the ethic is to promote morality, not define it.
Well, that's what I thought I said you said. ;-)
> Thus, it may be
> what seems to be generally evil in and of itself (defending the
> guilty), but it promotes general morality (helps to ensure that
> everyone is given a proper defense).
But the rule being followed might not have been "defend the guilty", but
the principle "keep your promises", with the added assumption that
lawyers make a promise to defend their clients. So it seems that we
could have two conflicting moral principles - ethics aside. Now you
could claim that "keep you promises" is not a moral principle, but part
of an ethic. In that case, I need to know how you tell the difference.
....
> "Thou shall not steal" is an ethic. It is a general rule that, if
> followed at all times, will _tend_ to produce more moral results than
> if not followed at all.
OK, same question in a different guise: how do we know when we have a
moral result, or when one result is more moral than another?
> Its failure, such as when a child will starve
> to death without the theft, is not due to the conflict of moral
> principles;
Only because you have deemed "Thou shall not steal" not to be a moral
principle. That's a claim that needs some support.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20499
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 23:37:14 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3C03E61A.7171F388@dfci.harvard.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
....
> In your view, are ethics individual? I ask because in the example I gave
> the conflict seemed to be not so much between ethics and morality per se,
> as the individual versus the group. The group (i.e. the bar) decided
> that certain behavior was expected of its members, while this individual
> felt the need to break that rule.
I don't see "individual vs. group" as essential here. Suppose that the
individual did not feel the need. We can still ask if he /should/ have
felt the need in order for the right thing to have been done.
> > The best ethics, of course, are those that are simple enough to
> > readily apply, promote morality to the highest degree, with the fewest
> > possible failures, and with such failures causing the least possible
> > moral harm.
>
> Depending on how you define "morality", this sounds a lot like rule
> utilitarianism to me.
Yes, that seems to be where Filk is going, but as I said in an earlier
post, a Kantian still has to face the problem that what appears to be a
proper moral rule actually is not. So maybe then the Kantian would want
to have some guidelines about what rules to adopt, since we have to take
actions without always knowing everything we need to know. These
guidelines might be an "ethic" in Filk's sense.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20500
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 00:54:51 -0400
Subject: Mara Update Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Thanks to all of you've who've checked out Mara's site and/or sent her
e-mail. She might not get a chance to 'til the weekend, but rest assured,
your notes are appreciated. Your notes to me are likewise appreciated. Just
one other quick thing:
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> ...the personal website I helped her create
> (http://pw2.netcom.com/~dauphinb/brainstorm.htm) ... We're working on
> an update that will be posted tomorrow or the next day.
The latest update has now been posted, in case you're interested.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20501
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:55:30 -0800
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.166f837ec65e224b9897d2@news.sff.net...
<snip>
>
> Only because you have deemed "Thou shall not steal" not to be a moral
> principle. That's a claim that needs some support.
I have just realized that I have not properly defined "moral principle",
even to myself. So, I'll make a retraction, and, for the moment, tentatively
change my definition for an "ethic".
A moral principle is a general rule to promote morality, and is generally
applicable. Thus, "Thou shall not steal" would be a moral principle. So
might "Thou shall keep thy promises".
An ethic is a _non_-general rule to promote morality, and is applicable only
to particular situations. Thus, "Thou shall defend your client, according to
the rules of a defense attorney, even if guilty" would be an ethic, and, as
it would apply to professions, is a professional ethic. It isn't a general
rule, and therefore isn't a moral principle.
I think that is better, but I'll have to let you know if I think it works,
in the end.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20502
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:59:42 -0800
Subject: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
For your new first name:
Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
surname.
For your new surname:
Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3
letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the whole
name of the first car you drove/owned,
insert the word "of"
and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20503
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:27:00 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3c06a1c0.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> I have just realized that I have not properly defined "moral principle",
> even to myself.
Not a problem. We almost never start with definitions; rather we are
driven to them.
....
> A moral principle is a general rule to promote morality, and is generally
> applicable. Thus, "Thou shall not steal" would be a moral principle. So
> might "Thou shall keep thy promises".
>
> An ethic is a _non_-general rule to promote morality, and is applicable only
> to particular situations.
OK, so you want to continue to focus on this difference, rather than,
say, explain what "promote morality" means? I'm doubtful that this will
work out. Suppose I say that "Thou shall not steal" is /not/ a moral
principle, but an /ethic/ in your new sense. In those situations were it
does not promote morality (perhaps when it leads to a child's
starvation?), then it should not be followed.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20504
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:44:54 -0700
Subject: Euclid
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All,
Wildly off topic, but I thought you might want to know. I told you that
while looking for Pete in the shelter, my husband came upon a cat that
he bonded with. Even if he had found Pete, he wouldn't have been able
to forget Euclid. So, on Tuesday night, we were shopping for firewood
and were near the shelter and my husband said "they thought they could
locate his owner, so he's probably not there." Well, he was and they
hadn't located the owner. We went to the get acquainted room and played
with him. He was very affectionate to all of us, even the kids.
HOWEVER, he was sneezing. They said "he has an upper respiratory
infection. We'll just put him in isolation and give him antibiotics."
I thought this sounded sensible enough and decided to come back at the
end of his two weeks and, if he hadn't been adopted to go ahead and
adopt him (as a multi-cat family, we try to give others a chance.)
Well, I couldn't sleep all night. I kept thinking of what happened to
Pete. So in the morning I called the shelter and asked how he was
doing. They said the vet had looked at him and decided it would be too
much time and expense to rehabilitate him, so they were going to put him
down within the hour. (I still don't understand this. Antibiotic was
$15 and he is between 6 months and a year [still teething] though 9 1/2
pounds.)
You can understand, I think, that we really had no choice after that. I
mean, we weren't sure it was a good idea to adopt another big black cat
so soon after Pete. We still aren't. But our hand was forced. I told
them they were going to do nothing of the sort. We bought a big dog
kennel for my office powderoom (where I can keep him away from all other
cats) and took him to our wonderful vet for antibiotics. He is doing
very well and I swear he knows we saved him -- he acts so affectionate.
Does it fill the hole left by Pete? Not even close. We still cry when
we talk or write about him. But Euclid needs a lot of care right now --
being in isolation he gets lonely and can't follow me around, so I have
to go to him and love him a lot. Also, there's his dishes to do
separately, medicine to administer and his food bowl to keep full (I
swear he eats as much as all the other cats combined. We might have
adopted a panther.) And the act of being BUSY keeps me from moping too
much.
Also, of course, in a karmic sort of way I think we've done something
towards balancing the scales of good and evil. We've stood up and
sneered at death, "this life you can't have. Not yet." At least I hope so.
BTW, the people at the shelter were doing what they had to do because
they have so many animals. They were not malevolent. In fact, since
Euclid being "on euthanazia row" was no longer available for adoption,
they cheated just a little and put in their computer that I was his
owner and was reclaiming him. A slightly more hefty "fee" designed to
teach me not to let my cat run away, but heck -- well worth it. And
they thanked us for being willing to adopt him while ill. I can't say
I'd volunteer there. Since it's a "kill shelter" I'm afraid I'd end up
with fifty cats. As it was, I had to remind myself we're not made of
money to walk out without the baby Siamese and the adorable little dog.
But I'm thinking they get a check for Christmas. At least they keep the
cats for a minimum of SIX days to allow owners to reclaim them. I wish
Pete had been given that much of a chance.
Thanks for listening. As I said, wildly off topic, but I thought you
might want to know.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20505
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:52:26 -0400
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>
> For your new first name:
> Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
> surname.
BILl DAuphin --> Bilda
> For your new surname:
> Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name...
HElfrich
> ...and add the first 3
> letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
MELbourne --> Hemel
> Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
> take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them...
daupHIN
> ...and add the whole
> name of the first car you drove/owned,...
GREMLIN <sigh> -->Nihgremlin
>
> insert the word "of"
> and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
GUAFENISEN --> <drum roll>
Bilda Hemel, Nihgremlin of Guafenisen
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20506
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:57:40 -0400
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<Mara and I are doing this together>
> For your new first name:
> Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
> surname.
MARa DAuphin --> Marda
> For your new surname:
> Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3
> letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
ROoks, WESt palm beach --> Rowes
> Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
> take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the whole
> name of the first car you drove/owned,
daupHIN, COLT <well, ridden in, anyway> -->Nihcolt
> insert the word "of"
> and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
NYSTATIN
Marda Rowes, Nihcolt of Nystatin
-JovMara ;^)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20507
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 20:09:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Euclid
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> Wildly off topic
Hmmph! As if anything about cats could possibly be off-topic in *this* group!
;^)
When I saw your name and the subject line, I figured your household has
reexpanded... but I didn't guess how dramatic and karmic the story would turn
out to be. May the geometry of your home never turn non-Euclidean!
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20508
From: David M. Silver"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 01:38:42 -0800
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>
> For your new first name:
> Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
> surname.
Daver
> For your new surname:
> Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3
> letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
Flcle
> Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
> take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the whole
> name of the first car you drove/owned,
Revbiancini
> insert the word "of"
> and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
of Aspirin (how 'bout "gin" instead? That's why I needed the aspirin.)
Daver Flcle. Revbiancini of Gin
How do I pronounce "Flcle"? use a schaw? I.e., "Fl'cle"?
Oh, Lord, this way leads to madness!
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
http://www.readinggroupsonline.com/groups/heinlein.htm
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20509
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:35:31 -0700
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
--------------040201050406050000030001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Filksinger wrote:
>
>> How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>>
>> For your new first name:
>> Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
>> surname.
>
> Sarah + Hoyt -- Sarho
>
>> For your new surname:
>> Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3
>> letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
>
> Silva + Granja Sigra
>
>> Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
>> take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the whole
>> name of the first car you drove/owned,
>
Tyo + Damned if I remember the make, but it was a grand something -- you
know, grand salon, grand ol' car type of seventies name.
So I'll be Tyogrand
>
>> insert the word "of"
>> and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
>
> I'm going with David on this one. Tylenol is not a very inspiring name. I'm going with my other favorite medicine -- Bourbon.
So, I'll be
> Tyogrand Sarho Sigra of Bourbon.
Catchy. <g> Think they'll let me use it for a pen name? <VBG>
Sarah
--------------040201050406050000030001
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html><head></head><body><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3C0753A3.857772F3@verizon.net"><pre wrap="">Filksinger wrote:<br><br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name<br><br>For your new first name:<br>Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your<br>surname.<br></pre></blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Sarah + Hoyt -- Sarho</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">For your new surname:<br>Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3<br>letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.<br></pre></blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Silva + Granja Sigra</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:<br>take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the whole<br>name of the first car you drove/owned,</pre></blockquote>
</blockquote>
Tyo + Damned if I remember the make, but it was a grand something -- you
know, grand salon, grand ol' car type of seventies name.<br>
<br>
So I'll be Tyogrand<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3C0753A3.857772F3@verizon.net"><pre wrap=""><br></pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">insert the word "of"<br>and tack on the name of the last medication you took.<br></pre></blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I'm going with David on this one. Tylenol is not a very inspiring name. I'm going with my other favorite medicine -- Bourbon.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
So, I'll be <br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3C0753A3.857772F3@verizon.net"><pre wrap="">Tyogrand Sarho Sigra of Bourbon.</pre>
</blockquote>
Catchy. <g> Think they'll let me use it for a pen name? <VBG><br>
<br>
Sarah
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3C0753A3.857772F3@verizon.net"><pre wrap=""></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body></html>
--------------040201050406050000030001--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20510
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 09:41:21 -0700
Subject: Re: Euclid
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
--------------040704070305080909050801
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> May the geometry of your home never turn non-Euclidean!
Thank you, Bill, I would hate to live in a crooked house. <g>
Seriously, thank you for your good wishes for our all too rash
adoption. We have friends who keep having unplanned children. We seem
to have unplanned cats. We're going along fine and then all of a sudden
there's the pitter patter of little paws. Euclid is eating well,
sneezing less and recovering. Driving Miranda insane, though. She sits
outside the confinement ward (my office's powder room) and meows
plaintively. I don't know if she wants to meet him or is trying to tell
us to get rid of him. It could go either way. She actually likes other
cats. I'm a little worried because delicate miss is pudgy at six pounds
and Euclid looks like he's going to top out at a minimum of twelve,
thirteen. Of course, our own Pixel is about ten pounds and Miranda
rides herd on him night and day (occasionally literally rides him. On
his head. Pixel has the intelligence of drier lint, so he allows her.)
So I'm hoping Euclid will be close to as easy going.
Sarah
--------------040704070305080909050801
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html><head></head><body><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:3C06CE4E.B72C244C@ix.netcom.com"><pre wrap=""> May the geometry of your home never turn non-Euclidean!<br></pre>
</blockquote>
Thank you, Bill, I would hate to live in a <u>crooked house</u>. <g><br>
<br>
Seriously, thank you for your good wishes for our all too rash adoption.
We have friends who keep having unplanned children. We seem to have unplanned
cats. We're going along fine and then all of a sudden there's the pitter
patter of little paws. Euclid is eating well, sneezing less and recovering.
Driving Miranda insane, though. She sits outside the confinement ward (my
office's powder room) and meows plaintively. I don't know if she wants to
meet him or is trying to tell us to get rid of him. It could go either way.
She actually likes other cats. I'm a little worried because delicate miss
is pudgy at six pounds and Euclid looks like he's going to top out at a minimum
of twelve, thirteen. Of course, our own Pixel is about ten pounds and Miranda
rides herd on him night and day (occasionally literally rides him. On his
head. Pixel has the intelligence of drier lint, so he allows her.) So I'm
hoping Euclid will be close to as easy going.<br>
<br>
Sarah<br>
</body></html>
--------------040704070305080909050801--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20511
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:07:39 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3c06a1d5.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
Henceforth, you may address me as
Gorso Whpom, Sraplymouth of Clotrimazole and Betamethasone Dipropionate
(I'll bet Filk wasn't thinking about generic drugs. ;-) )
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20512
From: David Wright"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:59:37 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1671a30ab0f3c8df9897d5@news.sff.net...
> In article <3c06a1d5.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> > How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>
> Henceforth, you may address me as
>
> Gorso Whpom, Sraplymouth of Clotrimazole and Betamethasone Dipropionate
>
> (I'll bet Filk wasn't thinking about generic drugs. ;-) )
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com
Somebody needs a good 'Ors Whpom' :)
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20513
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:03:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Euclid
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Seriously, thank you for your good wishes for our all too rash
>adoption. We have friends who keep having unplanned children. We seem
>to have unplanned cats.
No such thing. When you need a cat, a cat who needs you will find
you. Someone or something planned for you and Euclid to find each
other.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20514
From: Filksinger"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:08:18 -0800
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.16708043897d79a59897d4@news.sff.net...
> In article <3c06a1c0.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> ...
> > I have just realized that I have not properly defined "moral principle",
> > even to myself.
>
> Not a problem. We almost never start with definitions; rather we are
> driven to them.
Yes, but I'd rather do it the other way.
> > A moral principle is a general rule to promote morality, and is
generally
> > applicable. Thus, "Thou shall not steal" would be a moral principle. So
> > might "Thou shall keep thy promises".
> >
> > An ethic is a _non_-general rule to promote morality, and is applicable
only
> > to particular situations.
>
> OK, so you want to continue to focus on this difference, rather than,
> say, explain what "promote morality" means? I'm doubtful that this will
> work out. Suppose I say that "Thou shall not steal" is /not/ a moral
> principle, but an /ethic/ in your new sense. In those situations were it
> does not promote morality (perhaps when it leads to a child's
> starvation?), then it should not be followed.
Ah, but I said it was a _general_ rule, not an absolute rule. "All
generalizations have exceptions, including this one." There are cases were
two moral principles conflict, for example. However, if it is a general
rule, I would call it a principle, rather than an ethic (moral principle vs.
moral ethic?).
What we need to define better is "What is moral?" I admit to rather liking
Heinlein's definition for "moral behavior", though it doesn't include
quality of life as part of the equation. Maybe it should be "moral: adj.
That which promotes survival and quality of life". Anybody else have any
good ideas?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20515
From: Filksinger"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:04:22 -0800
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1671a30ab0f3c8df9897d5@news.sff.net...
> In article <3c06a1d5.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> > How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>
> Henceforth, you may address me as
>
> Gorso Whpom, Sraplymouth of Clotrimazole and Betamethasone Dipropionate
>
> (I'll bet Filk wasn't thinking about generic drugs. ;-) )
Wanna bet? I didn't create it, and don't know who did, but half of all the
examples I've seen used generic names. Not many used chemical names, though.
Davna Ortro, Tesfury of Loperamide (or was it Ibuprophen?)
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20516
From: Filksinger"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:16:47 -0800
Subject: Re: Euclid
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3c07e59f.435650@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >Seriously, thank you for your good wishes for our all too rash
> >adoption. We have friends who keep having unplanned children. We seem
> >to have unplanned cats.
>
> No such thing. When you need a cat, a cat who needs you will find
> you. Someone or something planned for you and Euclid to find each
> other.
Cloister, God of the Cats?
<G, D, & R>
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20517
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 14:36:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Euclid
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>> Someone or something planned for you and Euclid to find each
>> other.
>
>
> Cloister, God of the Cats?
>
>
> Busbastis, a.k.a. Miranda. She lives with us and demands daily worship. I'm just having trouble believing she wanted competition. :-)
Sarah
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20518
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:55:06 GMT
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:04:22 -0800, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>Davna Ortro, Tesfury of Loperamide (or was it Ibuprophen?)
>
>Filksinger
OK, this is really SILLY, but I couldn't help myself. ;)
Johti Flhun, Nedmalibu of Pseudoephedrine
Which I suppose is better than Jar Jar. <VBG>
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20519
From: Filksinger"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 17:14:58 -0800
Subject: Green River Killer Found!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
After years of searching, the Green River killer, thought responsible for 49
deaths or disappearances in the Seattle area, has finally been found.
Apparently, they finally developed a DNA test good enough to detect his DNA
on a cigarette butt they've had in evidence for years.
http://www.king5.com/topstories/10016641_NW_113001BTSgreenriver.html
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20520
From: Filksinger"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:46:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Euclid
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3C07FBC1.5040106@sff.net...
>
> >> Someone or something planned for you and Euclid to find each
> >> other.
> >
> >
> > Cloister, God of the Cats?
> >
> >
> > Busbastis, a.k.a. Miranda. She lives with us and demands daily worship.
I'm just having trouble believing she wanted competition. :-)
"Thousands of years ago in ancient Egypt, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats
have never forgotten this."
Anonymous
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20521
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 15:09:37 -0800
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I'll play.
Lormo Grwal Nagche of Topomax (Using my Maiden <and legal> name)
Lorjo Grwal Senche of Topomax (Using my Married name)
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3c06a1d5.0@news.sff.net...
> How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>
> For your new first name:
> Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
> surname.
>
>
> For your new surname:
> Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3
> letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
>
>
> Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
> take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the
whole
> name of the first car you drove/owned,
> insert the word "of"
> and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20522
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:33:21 -0800
Subject: Re: Green River Killer Found!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I'm so glad. I hope he's the right guy and that they really have more than
DNA to connect him to the crimes. We had some cases on this side of the
Cascades blamed on "Green River" then most of them were cleared by Robert
Yates<?> arrest in Spokane last year <?>.
The FBI hasn't called me, yet. So I guess this isn't the guy who tried to
kill me in 1981. (I think <pray> he was just a wannabe and a mean drunk.)
Gary Leon Ridgway's face looks familiar maybe we just had my dad's truck
worked on by him.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3c082f11.0@news.sff.net...
> After years of searching, the Green River killer, thought responsible for
49
> deaths or disappearances in the Seattle area, has finally been found.
> Apparently, they finally developed a DNA test good enough to detect his
DNA
> on a cigarette butt they've had in evidence for years.
>
> http://www.king5.com/topstories/10016641_NW_113001BTSgreenriver.html
>
> Filksinger
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20523
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 10:42:05 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3c07f73b.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> Ah, but I said it was a _general_ rule, not an absolute rule. "All
> generalizations have exceptions, including this one." There are cases were
> two moral principles conflict, for example. However, if it is a general
> rule, I would call it a principle, rather than an ethic (moral principle vs.
> moral ethic?).
Well, now I am stuck by what you mean by a "general" rule. Earlier you
said,
> An ethic is a _non_-general rule to promote morality, and is applicable only
> to particular situations.
Consider "Thou shall not steal". One particular situation in which you
should steal is when doing so would be more in accord with what morality
requires, say as with the starving child example. So when do we have a
real general rule (moral) and when a no-general one (ethic)?
> What we need to define better is "What is moral?" I admit to rather liking
> Heinlein's definition for "moral behavior", though it doesn't include
> quality of life as part of the equation.
I confess I have forgotten it.
> Maybe it should be "moral: adj.
> That which promotes survival and quality of life". Anybody else have any
> good ideas?
Consequentialists are fine with this, but deontologists are likely to
object that moral means following certain rules, even if the outcome does
not lead to survival and better life.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20524
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 15:18:25 GMT
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Ooh! Ooh! Me too.
First name is easy: Janjo. Sounds a little too close to Jar Jar for
my tastes, but it does seem to have a proper Star Warsian sound.
Following the rules, I come up with the surname Stkin, which could be
St'kin, but that sounds a little like "stick in" Now, if I use the
first four letters of my mom's maiden name (Strong) and the first four
of my town of birth (Kingsburg), I come up with Stroking. I think I
like that better.
As for a title, my first car was a very old Buick Skylark.
So taking some poetic license, I'll be:
Janjo Stroking, Elder Skylord of Adville
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:59:42 -0800, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>
>For your new first name:
>Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
>surname.
>
>
>For your new surname:
>Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3
>letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
>
>
>Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
>take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the whole
>name of the first car you drove/owned,
>insert the word "of"
>and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20525
From: Sarah A. Hoyt"
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 12:21:08 -0700
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>
> Janjo Stroking, Elder Skylord of Adville
Now THAT's a COOL name. :-)
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20526
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 21:31:13 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: Definately better than Jar Jar Binks. <G>.
Edwjo Gephi
Nossatellite of Ibuprofen
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:55:06 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:04:22 -0800, "Filksinger"
><filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Davna Ortro, Tesfury of Loperamide (or was it Ibuprophen?)
>>
>>Filksinger
>
>OK, this is really SILLY, but I couldn't help myself. ;)
>
>Johti Flhun, Nedmalibu of Pseudoephedrine
>
>Which I suppose is better than Jar Jar. <VBG>
>
>JT
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20527
From: jrfranks@USA.NET (J. Robert Franks)
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 18:54:36 GMT
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Oh, why not?!
Johfr Huwau, Sknnash of Lipitor
--
bob
J. Robert Franks <><
Goldsboro, NC, 27530
919/734-4657
jrfranks@USA.NET
>"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
>news:3c06a1d5.0@news.sff.net...
>> How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>>
>> For your new first name:
>> Take the first 3 letters of your 1st name and the first 2 letters of your
>> surname.
>>
>>
>> For your new surname:
>> Take the first 2 letters of your mum's maiden name and add the first 3
>> letters of the nearest city or town in which you were born.
>>
>>
>> Now determine your Star Wars honorific name and title:
>> take the last 3 letters of your last name and reverse them and add the
>whole
>> name of the first car you drove/owned,
>> insert the word "of"
>> and tack on the name of the last medication you took.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20528
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:26:16 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I have a feeling I'm not going to like this...but:
WILliam
KEaton
PHillips
MILlwaukee
keaTON
FALCON
NAPROXEN
Yields:
Wil-ke Phmil, Not-Falcon of Naproxen
I guess some of us just don't belong in the Star Wars Universe!
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20529
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 18:37:37 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jake: There is something kind of mystical sounding about being the
'Not-Falcon' <G>. Dark and other-worldly, IMHO ;-)
I'm not sure what being a 'Nos-Satellite' is all about, though.
I'd rather be a Grey Lensman, that has a nice ring to it. <g>
Ed J
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:26:16 -0500, "William J. Keaton"
<wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I have a feeling I'm not going to like this...but:
>
>WILliam
>KEaton
>PHillips
>MILlwaukee
>keaTON
>FALCON
>NAPROXEN
>
>Yields:
>
>Wil-ke Phmil, Not-Falcon of Naproxen
>
>I guess some of us just don't belong in the Star Wars Universe!
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20530
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:10:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger:
I was an eye witness to the lack of penetrating power of this
type of shot. (so-called 'bird shot', many tiny pellets in a thin
plastic canister). I saw a .357 with an 8 inch barrel and magnum
powder load daze, but not other wise harm a squirrel that invaded a
home nearby. I saw the marauder blasted off of his feet, only to
shake it off and get up running again. An 'alternate' method was
used to dispatch the beastie. No sign of blood where the pellets
struck, so I guess such shot shells have little penetrating power.
Ed J
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:42:02 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> load." These were effectively shotgun-type amunition in standard
>handgun
>> calibers, so named because you didn't have to be Annie Oakley to
>kill a snake
>> with them (I mean a literal snake, not the bipedal type).
>
>Unfortunately correct. I mean the last line. You will almost certainly
>not kill a man with "snake shot", you will just irritate him a lot.
>The round has almost no range, too short to be effective in a plane,
>even, and the pellets are much too light to deter, much less actually
>stop, a human being who wants to hurt you.
>
>More effective is frangible rounds, such as the Glaser. Unfortunately,
>they appear to be of reduced effectiveness vs. human beings when
>compared to a good hollow point. Also unfortunately, possibly the best
>hollow points, the Hydra-shocks, which the FBI settled on as standard
>a few years back, actually penetrate _better_ than standard hollow
>points.
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20531
From: Gordon Sollars"
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:45:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:tf4o0u0sl5d0plefusrmg4h26a4pe1edim@4ax.com...
>
>
> Filksinger:
> I was an eye witness to the lack of penetrating power of this
> type of shot. (so-called 'bird shot', many tiny pellets in a thin
> plastic canister). I saw a .357 with an 8 inch barrel and magnum
> powder load daze, but not other wise harm a squirrel that invaded a
> home nearby. I saw the marauder blasted off of his feet, only to
> shake it off and get up running again. An 'alternate' method was
> used to dispatch the beastie.
Flame thrower?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20532
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 21:30:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Flame thrower?
No, in fact, peanut butter was a prime ingredient ;-). It
magnified the effectiveness of the same weapon greatly. (Any good
guesses?) With that as a clue, I'll continue the story below.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This "rat with a fur coat" had rampaged throughout the house
knocking over lamps, etc. etc. and surviving the effects of the
pellet blast.
It then ran through the kitchen and into a nearby laundry room and
hid behind the washing machine. The peanut butter was applied to
the muzzle of the pistol in such a way as not to impede the
projectile's rapid exit. (Same load, same pellets.) The combination
of a long arm and the long barrel of the pistol brought the peanut
butter near to where the beast was in hiding. When the squirrel
nibbled on the PB, his innards rapidly exited his exhaust vent.
Thus ended his trifling ways. The mighty hunter was too squeamish
to remove the remains, so I removed the varmints body (noting the
lack of wound attributable to the external application of bird
shot). Reminded me of Oscar (Scar) Gordon trying to dispatch a
vastly larger beastie with a weapon that would not penetrate it's
hide. Getting the mouth open proved to do the trick. (Yes, the
shooter was also a student of Heinlein.)
Ed J
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:45:26 -0500, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
>news:tf4o0u0sl5d0plefusrmg4h26a4pe1edim@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> Filksinger:
>> I was an eye witness to the lack of penetrating power of this
>> type of shot. (so-called 'bird shot', many tiny pellets in a thin
>> plastic canister). I saw a .357 with an 8 inch barrel and magnum
>> powder load daze, but not other wise harm a squirrel that invaded a
>> home nearby. I saw the marauder blasted off of his feet, only to
>> shake it off and get up running again. An 'alternate' method was
>> used to dispatch the beastie.
>
>Flame thrower?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20533
From: Filksinger"
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 19:19:36 -0800
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1672c457a40307999897d6@news.sff.net...
> In article <3c07f73b.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> ...
> > Ah, but I said it was a _general_ rule, not an absolute rule. "All
> > generalizations have exceptions, including this one." There are cases
were
> > two moral principles conflict, for example. However, if it is a general
> > rule, I would call it a principle, rather than an ethic (moral principle
vs.
> > moral ethic?).
>
> Well, now I am stuck by what you mean by a "general" rule. Earlier you
> said,
>
> > An ethic is a _non_-general rule to promote morality, and is applicable
only
> > to particular situations.
>
> Consider "Thou shall not steal". One particular situation in which you
> should steal is when doing so would be more in accord with what morality
> requires, say as with the starving child example. So when do we have a
> real general rule (moral) and when a no-general one (ethic)?
Does the rule apply to only a limited group of people? If so, it is an
ethic. If not, it would be a moral principle.
The rule "Thou shalt not steal" applies to all people, if not absolutely all
circumstances. It applies to most or all of the people, most or all of the
time. Thus, it is a moral principle.
The rule "Thou shalt tell the police what your client tells you without
permission" is not a general rule. Not everyone has clients, and, even if
they do, there is no reason why a stockbroker shouldn't tell the police, "My
client says he melted his wife." It therefore isn't a general rule that
applies to most or all people, most or all of the time.
> > What we need to define better is "What is moral?" I admit to rather
liking
> > Heinlein's definition for "moral behavior", though it doesn't include
> > quality of life as part of the equation.
>
> I confess I have forgotten it.
He defined "moral behavior" as behavior that tends towards survival. There
were levels, with each lever superceeding the level below: Survival of self,
survival of family, survival of tribe, survival of city or country, and
survival of species.
> > Maybe it should be "moral: adj.
> > That which promotes survival and quality of life". Anybody else have any
> > good ideas?
>
> Consequentialists are fine with this, but deontologists are likely to
> object that moral means following certain rules, even if the outcome does
> not lead to survival and better life.
My, what big words you use, grandma.
OK, I'll admit that I only know the second one is because of context. This
is the second message that clearly indicated that this was a subject where I
didn't even know the terms, or even the players, save by reputation. Maybe I
should just let this one go.:)
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20534
From: kevin mcgillicuddy"
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 22:14:32 -0600
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3c06a1d5.0@news.sff.net...
> How to Determine Your 'Star Wars' Name
>
<snip>
Introducing,
Danmc EdHou Yddfalcon of Beconase
(first name actually Daniel)
McKevin
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20535
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 23:25:21 -0400
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Alright, I'm certain to mark myself for all time as a filthy-minded adolescent
for noticing this... but hey, who'm I trying to fool, anyway? ;^)
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> Following the rules, I come up with the surname Stkin, which could be
> St'kin, but that sounds a little like "stick in" Now, if I use the
> first four letters of my mom's maiden name (Strong) and the first four
> of my town of birth (Kingsburg), I come up with Stroking.
So you're stuck with choosing between "Stick-in" and "Stroking"? Hmmmmmm...
<gd&rlh>
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20536
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 08:43:12 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Elihe Saden
Nnachevette of Novacaine
The name csounds almost Mid-eastern, and I like the alliteration in the
title.
Off-topic: Has anyone else had a filling with the new composite? I
can't tell it apart from the real tooth material!
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20537
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:20:16 -0500
Subject: Re: What Are Ethics?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3c0c4157.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> > > An ethic is a _non_-general rule to promote morality, and is applicable
> only
> > > to particular situations.
> >
> > Consider "Thou shall not steal". One particular situation in which you
> > should steal is when doing so would be more in accord with what morality
> > requires, say as with the starving child example. So when do we have a
> > real general rule (moral) and when a no-general one (ethic)?
>
> Does the rule apply to only a limited group of people? If so, it is an
> ethic. If not, it would be a moral principle.
OK, but originally, you had ethics as "rules intended to produce moral
results". I don't know why we would think that such rules are best
divided up by groups. Of course, an ethic could be put forward
specifically for a particular group (as with "professional ethics" you
mentioned), but why should ethics, generally, be restricted in this way?
Aren't there sensible rules for producing moral results that apply across
groups?
....
> > > What we need to define better is "What is moral?" I admit to rather
> liking
> > > Heinlein's definition for "moral behavior", though it doesn't include
> > > quality of life as part of the equation.
> >
> > I confess I have forgotten it.
>
> He defined "moral behavior" as behavior that tends towards survival.
Ah, yes, of course. I like this too, as a starting point.
> There
> were levels, with each lever superceeding the level below: Survival of self,
> survival of family, survival of tribe, survival of city or country, and
> survival of species.
He seemed to have stopped there, but in many of his stories there is, of
course, an even higher level, that of "rational beings regardless of
species". This has interesting implications, not all of which Mr.
Heinlein might have been consistent about.
> > > Maybe it should be "moral: adj.
> > > That which promotes survival and quality of life". Anybody else have any
> > > good ideas?
> >
> > Consequentialists are fine with this, but deontologists are likely to
> > object that moral means following certain rules, even if the outcome does
> > not lead to survival and better life.
>
> My, what big words you use, grandma.
Hey, I get paid to do this stuff.
> OK, I'll admit that I only know the second one is because of context.
From the Greek "deon", meaning "duty". By having levels, Mr. Heinlein is
able to get duties to others out of a moral system based on survival
(which we might at first have thought only meant "survival of self").
> This
> is the second message that clearly indicated that this was a subject where I
> didn't even know the terms, or even the players, save by reputation. Maybe I
> should just let this one go.:)
Oh, don't do that. Good insights can come from anywhere.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20538
From: Filksinger"
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:21:46 -0800
Subject: Tooth fillings
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3C0E246F.D1FACDA8@dfci.harvard.edu...
> Off-topic: Has anyone else had a filling with the new composite? I
> can't tell it apart from the real tooth material!
I just got a filling, but it is on the back of a tooth, so I can't see it. I
can feel it, just slightly, but that appears to the patch being raised a
very tiny amount above the tooth.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20539
From: Filksinger"
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:27:40 -0800
Subject: Topics of Power
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
It worked, it worked! Every list I have seen the "Star Wars Name Generator"
on yet has been taken over with post after post. One man tried to chant
"Nazi" in the hope that Godwin's Law would stop the thread, but it still
continued on for a dozen more.
I love infectious mimes.:)
"Behold the power of cheese!"
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20540
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 00:14:53 GMT
Subject: Re: Topics of Power
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 15:27:40 -0800, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>It worked, it worked! Every list I have seen the "Star Wars Name Generator"
>on yet has been taken over with post after post. One man tried to chant
>"Nazi" in the hope that Godwin's Law would stop the thread, but it still
>continued on for a dozen more.
>
>I love infectious mimes.:)
>
>"Behold the power of cheese!"
>
>Filksinger
Oh Yeah? Well, <YAWN>
So how many of you yawned upon reading the yawn...wouldn't that be a
hoot if it worked virtually, too? ;)
The really righteous thing to do would be to start a pun war in your
honour, er, blame, but I can't think of anything... I guess Yoda man!
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20541
From: Filksinger"
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2001 18:19:10 -0800
Subject: Re: Topics of Power
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3c0eb7af.24266793@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> Oh Yeah? Well, <YAWN>
>
> So how many of you yawned upon reading the yawn...wouldn't that be a
> hoot if it worked virtually, too? ;)
>
> The really righteous thing to do would be to start a pun war in your
> honour, er, blame, but I can't think of anything... I guess Yoda man!
Wookie here, this is not the Vader settle things. I was simply trying to
test Empire-cally the power of the Star Wars Name Generator Gene, and you
try to turn it into a Force.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20542
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 18:55:07 -0800
Subject: Re: Topics of Power
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
>
>
> I love infectious mimes.:)
>
> "Behold the power of cheese!"
>
> Filksinger
>
>
>
Don't you mean, "infectious memes?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20543
From: Bill Dauphin
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 23:36:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Topics of Power
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
> Filksinger wrote:
> > I love infectious mimes.:)
> Don't you mean, "infectious memes?"
That was my first reaction, too... but then I became afraid it was
really a pun I just didn't get, so I kept my yap shut! Either very
wise... or extremely cowardly, eh? (but either way, I've outed myself
now <sigh>).
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20544
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 01:00:45 -0500
Subject: Re: How To Determine Your Star Wars Name
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
kevin mcgillicuddy wrote in >
>Introducing,
>
>Danmc EdHou Yddfalcon of Beconase
> ^^^^^^
Actually, this thread has been more interesting for the cars that pop up in
the names. Always happy to see a fellow Falconeer!
Wil-ke Phmil, Not-Falcon of Naproxen
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20545
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 08:59:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Topics of Power
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> > I love infectious mimes.:)
>
> Don't you mean, "infectious memes?"
Haven't you ever seen an infectious mime? Soon everyone is running into
invisibile walls, walking against a strong wind, catching silent colds,
etc. <g,d&r>
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20546
From: Filksinger"
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 13:00:50 -0800
Subject: Re: Topics of Power
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<sprocketeer1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C0EDE0B.9050106@earthlink.net...
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I love infectious mimes.:)
<snip>
> Don't you mean, "infectious memes?"
AAAAUUUUGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20547
From: Charles Graft
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:32:57 -0500
Subject: Announcement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All--
It had been quite a month. Since November 2nd, I have been dating
Patricia, and it is going quite well. She is a 5' 10" blue eyed natural
blond, 46, a bit heavy (we have each lost about 40 lb. in the last year)
who reads for pleasure, (a requirement for me) but has not read
Heinlein. I have not given her much time to do so yet; we have been
very busy. She lives a local phone call away, something relatively rare
for me. And she is now allowing me to announce that our relationship is
serious and there is likely a marriage somewhere in the future. She has
been divorced 20 years, no kids. She is very straightforward and we
mesh so well that it is scary. So that is (part of the reason) why my
responses have been thin lately.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20548
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:41:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Announcement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Congrats, BC!
If she shows up here, we'll try not to scare her away. At least I
won't; I can't speak for the rest of the cobbers. <G>
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20549
From: Filksinger"
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:39:41 -0800
Subject: Re: Announcement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3C15D2C9.82E3EEC1@aol.com...
> All--
>
> It had been quite a month. Since November 2nd, I have been dating
> Patricia, and it is going quite well. She is a 5' 10" blue eyed natural
> blond, 46, a bit heavy (we have each lost about 40 lb. in the last year)
> who reads for pleasure, (a requirement for me) but has not read
> Heinlein. I have not given her much time to do so yet; we have been
> very busy. She lives a local phone call away, something relatively rare
> for me. And she is now allowing me to announce that our relationship is
> serious and there is likely a marriage somewhere in the future. She has
> been divorced 20 years, no kids. She is very straightforward and we
> mesh so well that it is scary. So that is (part of the reason) why my
> responses have been thin lately.
Congratulations!
If you bring her around here, I'll try to behave myself.
No, really.
Honest.
I wouldn't lie to you.
Really.
Filksinger
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20550
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 03:29:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Announcement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:32:57 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:
>I have been dating
>Patricia, and it is going quite well.
That's great to hear, BC. If she's not Internet-savvy, I hope she's
at least Internet-tolerant. <VBG>
All my best wishes.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20551
From: Charles Graft
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:36:38 -0500
Subject: Re: Announcement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT and the others who replied --
We actually met through the Internet. Specifically, she came on
match.com in part as a challenge from the person who helped her set up
her computer, so she is new at having a home computer. She works
(Medicare billing) on a computer for a living and so was a bit slow in
getting into recreational computing. We started E-mailing when I was in
Oklahoma, and got very serious very fast just after I returned. Hardly
the day passes that we don't see each other. She has met Greg and Beth,
and Teresa's family.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20552
From: William Jennings"
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:36:41 -0600
Subject: A Daisy Cutter Built for You
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
What can I say? The Muse was upon me. Exercise the little grey cells and
add more verses.
A Daisy Cutter Built For You
(to the tune of a 'Bicycle Built for Two')
Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
It gives the answer you're due
You're all crazy
Following that Saudi fool
You won't need a stylish burial
We'll provide a means most aerial
You'll feel the heat down to your feet
From a Daisy Cutter built for you
Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
Wait 'til our bombers' through
You'll be flattened
Won't be much left of you
You won't need a mausoleum
Remains? No one will see 'em
You'll look grand beneath the sand
From a Daisy Cutter built for you
Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
This is the fate of the cruel
Bin Laden, you've had it
America's sent you a jewel
Forget a fancy gravestone
We tapped your high-tech cell phone
First disconnect then hit the deck
Here's a Daisy Cutter built for you.
Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
It could have been just missiles Cruise
But you're so gutless
Down into caves went you
You won't need a funeral pyre
The air's been set afire
The cave's ablaze; so ends your days
'Cuz of a Daisy Cutter built for you."
Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
What can you terrorists do
We drop a smart bomb
You just hiss and drool
First al-Queda picks a fight
Soon your sorry butts take flight
You picked this path, now feel the wrath
Of a Daisy Cutter built for you
Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
No six dozen virgins for you
Allah's not like that
He mightily disapproves
It won't be Him you'll see
After our fiery eulogy
You sealed your fate, now Hell awaits
Helped by a Daisy Cutter built for you.
Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
America's finest are cool
Called on Osama
Challenged him to a duel
Not to seem too dour
But we won't be sending flowers
You messed with us and now your dust
From a Daisy Cutter built for you.
==========
Will from Central Texas, December 2001
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20553
From: William J. Keaton"
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 01:07:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Announcement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charles Graft wrote in message <3C15D2C9.82E3EEC1@aol.com>...
>All--
>
> It had been quite a month. Since November 2nd, I have been dating
>Patricia, and it is going quite well.
Good work Charles! Have fun and enjoy!
WJaKe
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20554
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:06:40 -0500
Subject: Re: A Daisy Cutter Built for You
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Will: Lots of applause.
Ed J
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 07:36:41 -0600, "William Jennings"
<gwilliam@sff.net> wrote:
>What can I say? The Muse was upon me. Exercise the little grey cells and
>add more verses.
>
>A Daisy Cutter Built For You
>
>(to the tune of a 'Bicycle Built for Two')
>
>Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
>It gives the answer you're due
>You're all crazy
>Following that Saudi fool
>You won't need a stylish burial
>We'll provide a means most aerial
>You'll feel the heat down to your feet
>From a Daisy Cutter built for you
>
>Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
>Wait 'til our bombers' through
>You'll be flattened
>Won't be much left of you
>You won't need a mausoleum
>Remains? No one will see 'em
>You'll look grand beneath the sand
>From a Daisy Cutter built for you
>
>Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
>This is the fate of the cruel
>Bin Laden, you've had it
>America's sent you a jewel
>Forget a fancy gravestone
>We tapped your high-tech cell phone
>First disconnect then hit the deck
>Here's a Daisy Cutter built for you.
>
>Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
>It could have been just missiles Cruise
>But you're so gutless
>Down into caves went you
>You won't need a funeral pyre
>The air's been set afire
>The cave's ablaze; so ends your days
>'Cuz of a Daisy Cutter built for you."
>
>Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
>What can you terrorists do
>We drop a smart bomb
>You just hiss and drool
>First al-Queda picks a fight
>Soon your sorry butts take flight
>You picked this path, now feel the wrath
>Of a Daisy Cutter built for you
>
>Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
>No six dozen virgins for you
>Allah's not like that
>He mightily disapproves
>It won't be Him you'll see
>After our fiery eulogy
>You sealed your fate, now Hell awaits
>Helped by a Daisy Cutter built for you.
>
>Daisy (Cutter), Daisy (Cutter)
>America's finest are cool
>Called on Osama
>Challenged him to a duel
>Not to seem too dour
>But we won't be sending flowers
>You messed with us and now your dust
>From a Daisy Cutter built for you.
>
>==========
>Will from Central Texas, December 2001
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20555
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:13:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Announcement
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charlie: Best Wishes for the future for you both.
(Good luck introducing the first Heinlein work to someone who has
not yet read him. My wife enjoyed Star Trek TOS but had never read
any SF. She truly enjoys Heinlein but still doesn't care for any
other 'hard' SF. He just writes so darn good that even someone who
doesn't like the genre, likes it when the master writes it.)
Ed J
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 04:32:57 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:
>All--
>
> It had been quite a month. Since November 2nd, I have been dating
>Patricia, and it is going quite well. She is a 5' 10" blue eyed natural
>blond, 46, a bit heavy (we have each lost about 40 lb. in the last year)
>who reads for pleasure, (a requirement for me) but has not read
>Heinlein. I have not given her much time to do so yet; we have been
>very busy. She lives a local phone call away, something relatively rare
>for me. And she is now allowing me to announce that our relationship is
>serious and there is likely a marriage somewhere in the future. She has
>been divorced 20 years, no kids. She is very straightforward and we
>mesh so well that it is scary. So that is (part of the reason) why my
>responses have been thin lately.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20556
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:58:47 GMT
Subject: It's that time of year again....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
My credit card is being charged for the "HF" membership to SFF Net.
To recap:
We buy a membership in the name of the HF. This gives a little
webspace ( http://www.sff.net/people/HF/ ) to host a FAQ and some
pictures of the group. Also, even though SFF Net is gracious enough
to allow public access to its news server, we help to defray the costs
of that access through our joint membership. TANSTAAFL.
So, the basic membership is $99.50 rounded to $100. I welcome
'pledges' to cover this cost. Minimum pledge $5, max pledge $95 (I
reserve one share for myself. <G>). Pledges are accepted by
timestamp, if you don't need to contribute the full amount you've
pledged because I've met the cost I'll tell you.
Please EMAIL me at JT @ sff.net with your pledge. Checks mailed to
me, I'll send you my address when I get the pledge.
I will say that last year was the first year I had a pledge that
didn't follow through and I was quite surprised. The person hasn't
posted much here either so maybe personal things intervened.
We're been here on SFF Net since 1/1997--it's hard to believe. The HF
has been continuously posting since 11/91 variously on Prodigy, GEnie,
AOL, and here, so we're in our ten year anniversary! I didn't realize
that until I checked the old RAHketeer Yearbook Angel put together in
1993.
Thanks for being my cobbers for all this time!
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20557
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:02:25 -0500
Subject: Re: It's that time of year again....
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jt: Put me down for $10.
Ed J
(Darn, Christmas cards have already gone out: I could have saved 34
cents <g>.)
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:58:47 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>My credit card is being charged for the "HF" membership to SFF Net.
>
>To recap:
>We buy a membership in the name of the HF. This gives a little
>webspace ( http://www.sff.net/people/HF/ ) to host a FAQ and some
>pictures of the group. Also, even though SFF Net is gracious enough
>to allow public access to its news server, we help to defray the costs
>of that access through our joint membership. TANSTAAFL.
>
>So, the basic membership is $99.50 rounded to $100. I welcome
>'pledges' to cover this cost. Minimum pledge $5, max pledge $95 (I
>reserve one share for myself. <G>). Pledges are accepted by
>timestamp, if you don't need to contribute the full amount you've
>pledged because I've met the cost I'll tell you.
>
>Please EMAIL me at JT @ sff.net with your pledge. Checks mailed to
>me, I'll send you my address when I get the pledge.
>
>I will say that last year was the first year I had a pledge that
>didn't follow through and I was quite surprised. The person hasn't
>posted much here either so maybe personal things intervened.
>
>We're been here on SFF Net since 1/1997--it's hard to believe. The HF
>has been continuously posting since 11/91 variously on Prodigy, GEnie,
>AOL, and here, so we're in our ten year anniversary! I didn't realize
>that until I checked the old RAHketeer Yearbook Angel put together in
>1993.
>
>Thanks for being my cobbers for all this time!
>
>JT
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20558
From: Charles Graft