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 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 2003
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:56:34
============================================================
Article 21693
From: Charles Graft
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:44:41 -0500
Subject: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
From AOL News:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers: Iraq Decision Is Bush's
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - White House lawyers have told President Bush he
would not need congressional approval to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq,
sources said Sunday night. Two senior administration officials, speaking
on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised
Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president
authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress. ``Any
decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote
will be guided by more than one factor,'' said White House spokesman Ari
Fleischer, who declined to confirm that Bush had received an opinion
from Gonzales on the matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This disturbs me. Here we seem to be being told that the President
has the power to initiate war whenever and against whomever and he
pleases. Are the last shreds of constitutional restraint gone? This is
not exactly hot pursuit, guys. The evidence that we are under attack my
Hussein and need an immediate response without the time to bring in
Congress is flimsy at best.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
"Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by
jackasses." -- H. L. Menken
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21694
From: Charles Graft
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:04:07 -0500
Subject: Re: My latest Lazarus impression...
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Clay Steiner wrote:
> "Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@comcast.spamthis.net > wrote in message
> news:h4j2mu01et8eug4405ss6t9ee0hit7ieqj@4ax.com...
>
> Well, now _you_ have. <g>
>
> And thanks for doing so -- I haven't seen a new post appear here for 2-3
> days, and was beginning to wonder if I bungled my Outlook settings. Guess I
> chose a slow week.
>
> Clay/Cpl Ted
Things are a lot slower than they used to be in the *P days. Missing a
few days then meant that you would be many hours in catching u. . . .
Welcome back, Clay.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
"Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."
-- H. L. Menken
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21695
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:37:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I expect this group to tell me if the following are wrong.
1. We have no coalition of allies if we go ahead with an attack on Iraq.
2. Saudi Arabia has told us to leave Saddam Hussein alone. OWTTE
3. What passes for solid intelligence sources out of Iraq say that the
Iraqi people are VOLUTEERING to serve as human shields for Saddam.
4. Despite evidence that Saddam builds/has built/wants to build "weapons of
mass destruction" links between the Iraqi government and terrorism are
tenuous.
5. The Russians seem poised to support Iraq.
I've probably missed a bunch of stuff and gotten some of it wrong. These
are all reasons why I feel we should continue with the current stalemate in
Iraq.
Just because he's Commander-in-Chief, George W. doesn't have to shoot first
and tell Congress later. Seems that there was an earlier Republican
President that got in trouble for doing that. (Yes, and some other things
he claimed weren't illegal if the President did them.) I don't know what
he's being told in the intelligence briefing and I really don't want the
responsibility. If the counsel's office is out making these kinds of noises
in public, I don't think the news is as bad as they would like it to be.
IF Saddam was really ready to cause trouble, and we had solid or reliable
"intel." Wouldn't we be carpet bombing Baghdad? Or at least already on the
ground in Kuwait?
Too many ifs for me.
YES CHARLIE, the whole issue of Congress being the branch that declares war
not the executive bugs me. (In case I clear as mud in my ramblings.)
--
Later,
`rita
http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3D69B239.59EBAC15@aol.com...
> From AOL News:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
> Lawyers: Iraq Decision Is Bush's
>
> CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - White House lawyers have told President Bush he
> would not need congressional approval to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq,
> sources said Sunday night. Two senior administration officials, speaking
> on condition of anonymity, said White House counsel Al Gonzales advised
> Bush earlier this month that the Constitution gives the president
> authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress. ``Any
> decision the president may make on a hypothetical congressional vote
> will be guided by more than one factor,'' said White House spokesman Ari
> Fleischer, who declined to confirm that Bush had received an opinion
> from Gonzales on the matter.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
>
> This disturbs me. Here we seem to be being told that the President
> has the power to initiate war whenever and against whomever and he
> pleases. Are the last shreds of constitutional restraint gone? This is
> not exactly hot pursuit, guys. The evidence that we are under attack my
> Hussein and need an immediate response without the time to bring in
> Congress is flimsy at best.
>
> --
> <<Big Charlie>>
>
> "Democracy is a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by
> jackasses." -- H. L. Menken
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21696
From: William Dennis"
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:32:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Activate Deflector Screens
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Real life resembles Star Trek more and more every day.
--
Bill Dennis
http://billdennis.net
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message news:3d63d454.0@news.sff.net...
> Well, it isn't deflector screens yet, but the British have developed
electric
> anti-shaped charge "shields".
>
> http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020820-86081662.htm
> --
> Filksinger
> AKA David Nasset, Sr.
> Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21697
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:08:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:37:05 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
>I expect this group to tell me if the following are wrong.
(some rearrangement of your post, 'Rita, but I don't think I've lost
any of your meaning)
>4. Despite evidence that Saddam builds/has built/wants to build "weapons of
>mass destruction" links between the Iraqi government and terrorism are
>tenuous.
You know, I hear this alot in the press and it really, really bugs me.
We (the public) have no idea what links exist between Iraq and Islamic
terrorists, or how strong they are, or how reliable the intelligence
establishing them are. But I suspect strongly that there are those in
our government who do. Yet I continually hear the pundits speak as if
they KNOW for a fact that Hussein has nothing, or very little, to do
with 9/11, or any of the other acts of Mid-East terrorism.
That said, I think Mr. Bush needs to make a better case to Congress
and the American people before we initiate an attack on Hussein. It
may not be possible, or at least not smart, to reveal what we know
(and don't know) at the current time, but it needs to come out, in
some form, eventually.
On the gripping hand, there are some key members of Congress, on both
sides of the fence, who have made some very supportive statements of
Mr. Bush's plan (if you can call it that) for "regime change" in Iraq.
I got a gut feeling that most of the congressional leadership has
indeed been briefed on what we DO know about Hussein and terrorism. I
could be wrong, but those guys do generally have access to the most
tightly guarded national secrets, for all they often deny it when the
sh** hits the fan.
>1. We have no coalition of allies if we go ahead with an attack on Iraq.
>
>2. Saudi Arabia has told us to leave Saddam Hussein alone. OWTTE
>
>5. The Russians seem poised to support Iraq.
A coalition would be nice. It is not, imho, necessary. The Saudis
are almost as much of the problem as Iraq, despite what the
administration claims about their "cooperation." Russia is making
noises in support of Iraq, or rather against our attacking Iraq, and
recently initiated some sort of trade deal with Hussein, but I tend to
think they would do no more than condemn our actions and not take a
direct role in any conflict. Speculation on my part, of course.
>3. What passes for solid intelligence sources out of Iraq say that the
>Iraqi people are VOLUTEERING to serve as human shields for Saddam.
I don't understand the significance of this point. Sure, Hussein has
supporters among his people. He has an active opposition as well.
The $64K question is how large, how effective, and how loyal is either
faction.
>I've probably missed a bunch of stuff and gotten some of it wrong. These
>are all reasons why I feel we should continue with the current stalemate in
>Iraq.
>
>Just because he's Commander-in-Chief, George W. doesn't have to shoot first
>and tell Congress later. Seems that there was an earlier Republican
>President that got in trouble for doing that. (Yes, and some other things
>he claimed weren't illegal if the President did them.) I don't know what
>he's being told in the intelligence briefing and I really don't want the
>responsibility. If the counsel's office is out making these kinds of noises
>in public, I don't think the news is as bad as they would like it to be.
>
>IF Saddam was really ready to cause trouble, and we had solid or reliable
>"intel." Wouldn't we be carpet bombing Baghdad? Or at least already on the
>ground in Kuwait?
Personally, I'd rather not wait until Saddam is "ready."
>Too many ifs for me.
>
>YES CHARLIE, the whole issue of Congress being the branch that declares war
>not the executive bugs me. (In case I clear as mud in my ramblings.)
I really, really wish that Mr. Bush had had the foresight, or cojones,
to get a declaration of war back in Sept '01. I agree that he cannot,
or should not, initiate warfare against Iraq without some sort of
Congressional action. It should be a formal declaration, but
unfortunately, the precedents of the last 50 years make that unlikely.
However, I do not understand the argument that Hussein has done
nothing to provoke a war. We were at war with him in '91. He
surrendered, sort of, under a rather precise set of conditions
involving inspections and no-fly zones. Yet he has ejected the
inspectors, fired upon allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones,
made armed incursions into the northern protection zone -- in other
words, violated just about every term of his surrender. I CAN
understand the rationale that we would be justified in reinitiating
hostilities as a continuation of the Gulf War, altho there are
probably better reasons to do so.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21698
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 28 Aug 2002 19:25:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Going Out With A Bang
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
David R. Silver wrote:
> Forgive me for being crass, Gordon and forum,
You're apologizing for being crass? I'm the one that named this thread,
after all.:)
--
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21699
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 28 Aug 2002 19:33:47 GMT
Subject: Spiderman, Spiderman
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Scientists have finally found the secret to sticking like a gecko.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=624&e=1&cid=624&u=/ap/20020827/ap_on_sc/gecko_secret
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21700
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:42:26 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
The "Human Shields" issue is the only one I'm ready to comment on further at
this time.
There are too many people around the world who seem to think that a war can
be fought without civilian casualties. When we as a country that has tried
to promote a reputation for avoiding injuring non-combatants, are seen
bombing, strafing, or otherwise going through innocents to destroy a target;
the political fallout could destroy us.
We have U.S. citizens who think that because these Iraqis will serve this
way unarmed that we should walk away from those targets or find some
"Hollywood/Star Trek/A-Team" way of doing it so that no body really gets
hurt. All it takes for support to vanish is a few pictures of dead children
or better/worse<?> video of small bodies being flung through the air by a
concussion.
Even after September 11, 2001; many of us sit in our climate controlled
homes and offices more worried about the baseball strike than terrorism. In
a couple weeks, we'll attend the memorial services -- maybe if there's
nothing else to do.
--
Later,
`rita
http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3d6cdbfb.16393831@news.sff.net...
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:37:05 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
> <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >I expect this group to tell me if the following are wrong.
> (some rearrangement of your post, 'Rita, but I don't think I've lost
> any of your meaning)
>
> >4. Despite evidence that Saddam builds/has built/wants to build "weapons
of
> >mass destruction" links between the Iraqi government and terrorism are
> >tenuous.
>
> You know, I hear this alot in the press and it really, really bugs me.
> We (the public) have no idea what links exist between Iraq and Islamic
> terrorists, or how strong they are, or how reliable the intelligence
> establishing them are. But I suspect strongly that there are those in
> our government who do. Yet I continually hear the pundits speak as if
> they KNOW for a fact that Hussein has nothing, or very little, to do
> with 9/11, or any of the other acts of Mid-East terrorism.
>
> That said, I think Mr. Bush needs to make a better case to Congress
> and the American people before we initiate an attack on Hussein. It
> may not be possible, or at least not smart, to reveal what we know
> (and don't know) at the current time, but it needs to come out, in
> some form, eventually.
>
> On the gripping hand, there are some key members of Congress, on both
> sides of the fence, who have made some very supportive statements of
> Mr. Bush's plan (if you can call it that) for "regime change" in Iraq.
> I got a gut feeling that most of the congressional leadership has
> indeed been briefed on what we DO know about Hussein and terrorism. I
> could be wrong, but those guys do generally have access to the most
> tightly guarded national secrets, for all they often deny it when the
> sh** hits the fan.
>
> >1. We have no coalition of allies if we go ahead with an attack on Iraq.
> >
> >2. Saudi Arabia has told us to leave Saddam Hussein alone. OWTTE
> >
> >5. The Russians seem poised to support Iraq.
>
> A coalition would be nice. It is not, imho, necessary. The Saudis
> are almost as much of the problem as Iraq, despite what the
> administration claims about their "cooperation." Russia is making
> noises in support of Iraq, or rather against our attacking Iraq, and
> recently initiated some sort of trade deal with Hussein, but I tend to
> think they would do no more than condemn our actions and not take a
> direct role in any conflict. Speculation on my part, of course.
>
> >3. What passes for solid intelligence sources out of Iraq say that the
> >Iraqi people are VOLUTEERING to serve as human shields for Saddam.
>
> I don't understand the significance of this point. Sure, Hussein has
> supporters among his people. He has an active opposition as well.
> The $64K question is how large, how effective, and how loyal is either
> faction.
>
> >I've probably missed a bunch of stuff and gotten some of it wrong. These
> >are all reasons why I feel we should continue with the current stalemate
in
> >Iraq.
> >
> >Just because he's Commander-in-Chief, George W. doesn't have to shoot
first
> >and tell Congress later. Seems that there was an earlier Republican
> >President that got in trouble for doing that. (Yes, and some other
things
> >he claimed weren't illegal if the President did them.) I don't know what
> >he's being told in the intelligence briefing and I really don't want the
> >responsibility. If the counsel's office is out making these kinds of
noises
> >in public, I don't think the news is as bad as they would like it to be.
> >
> >IF Saddam was really ready to cause trouble, and we had solid or reliable
> >"intel." Wouldn't we be carpet bombing Baghdad? Or at least already on
the
> >ground in Kuwait?
>
> Personally, I'd rather not wait until Saddam is "ready."
>
> >Too many ifs for me.
> >
> >YES CHARLIE, the whole issue of Congress being the branch that declares
war
> >not the executive bugs me. (In case I clear as mud in my ramblings.)
>
> I really, really wish that Mr. Bush had had the foresight, or cojones,
> to get a declaration of war back in Sept '01. I agree that he cannot,
> or should not, initiate warfare against Iraq without some sort of
> Congressional action. It should be a formal declaration, but
> unfortunately, the precedents of the last 50 years make that unlikely.
>
> However, I do not understand the argument that Hussein has done
> nothing to provoke a war. We were at war with him in '91. He
> surrendered, sort of, under a rather precise set of conditions
> involving inspections and no-fly zones. Yet he has ejected the
> inspectors, fired upon allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones,
> made armed incursions into the northern protection zone -- in other
> words, violated just about every term of his surrender. I CAN
> understand the rationale that we would be justified in reinitiating
> hostilities as a continuation of the Gulf War, altho there are
> probably better reasons to do so.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21701
From: William Jennings"
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:58:37 -0500
Subject: Starship Troopers?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Items of interest at:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/0,1113,2-13_1249306,00.html
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=9aca79d72
0607328&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1026144670700&ca
ll_page=TS_World&call_pageid=968332188854&call_pagepath=News/World&col=96835
0060724
Concerning MIT's plagiarization of a comic book.
In part:
=======
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) grudgingly acknowledged on
Wednesday that it copied images from the sci-fi comic book Radix as part of
its winning bid to host a research centre that aims to make soldiers partly
invisible and allow them to clear 6-metre walls in a single bound.
========
Having never read Radix, one might wonder how influenced THEY were by
Troopers.
"Pigs is pigs." as RAH is said to have responded to comparisons of "The
Trouble With Tribbles" with "The Rolling Stones".
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21702
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 18:29:45 -0700
Subject: Nobody else posted it
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
the Beloit College Class of 2006 "Mindset" List
http://www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/releases/mindset_2006.html
--
Later,
`rita
http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21703
From: noone"
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 00:23:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Nobody else posted it
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"They have no recollection of Connie Chung or Geraldo Rivera as serious
journalists."
were they ever really?
"gunner"
--------------------------------
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3d701c0f.0@news.sff.net...
> the Beloit College Class of 2006 "Mindset" List
>
> http://www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/releases/mindset_2006.html
>
> --
> Later,
>
> `rita
> http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21704
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:38:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Space Station 3D Imax
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:28:47 -0700, Geo Rule
<georule@civilwarstlouis.com> wrote:
>
> Deb and I went to see this today. Wow. I mean WOW. And the 3D is
>the best I've ever seen.
>
Well, I finally took the time to go see the Space Station IMAX film.
The travelling ISS exhibit closes at the Maryland Science Center on
Monday so I took the morning "off" (thanks Christine!) and saw the
exhibit and the movie.
It really is an excellent movie. I think I may look it up when they
put it to DVD--even without the 3D it's recommended viewing.
If you get a chance to see it, you HAVE to take it!
I kept thinking... if I were Lance Bass, I'd be ponying up the $20
mil, too, to see this for real.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21705
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 20:14:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:42:26 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
>The "Human Shields" issue is the only one I'm ready to comment on further at
>this time.
>
>There are too many people around the world who seem to think that a war can
>be fought without civilian casualties.
Do you really think that's true? Scary thought...
I know Israel has received a lot of criticism around the world for the
civilian casualties it has inflicted (even tho it's almost impossible
to differentiate between civilians and combattants among the
Palestinians). But I wonder how much of that just reflects
anti-Israel sentiment, vs. real outrage at civilian deaths. I see
very little international censure of Palestinians' killing civilians,
even among their own people, as when they executed that widowed mother
of seven a week or so ago. I also do not recall great European
concern for civilian casualties in Bosnia, when European forces were
responsible.
Of course, anti-American sentiment could cause a similar reaction in
any invasion of Iraq. There are many who hate us enough to condemn
anything we do, altho perhaps not to the same extent as Israel because
of the anti-semitism involved in the latter.
>When we as a country that has tried
>to promote a reputation for avoiding injuring non-combatants, are seen
>bombing, strafing, or otherwise going through innocents to destroy a target;
>the political fallout could destroy us.
"Destroy us" seems a bit over-stated. Granted, it could erode popular
support at home, which would in turn hurt any sustained military
effort. I do not think the potential for world condemnation should
stop us from doing what it right in the long run. Nevertheless, it is
a factor that must be brought into the debate.
>We have U.S. citizens who think that because these Iraqis will serve this
>way unarmed that we should walk away from those targets or find some
>"Hollywood/Star Trek/A-Team" way of doing it so that no body really gets
>hurt. All it takes for support to vanish is a few pictures of dead children
>or better/worse<?> video of small bodies being flung through the air by a
>concussion.
I agree that Americans seem to have become accustomed to the idea that
all warfare can be conducted from 30,000' asl. That we do not, or
should not, get into dirty little ground wars. I think the concern in
the US will be greater when it's Americans returning in body bags, but
still your point is valid.
>Even after September 11, 2001; many of us sit in our climate controlled
>homes and offices more worried about the baseball strike than terrorism. In
>a couple weeks, we'll attend the memorial services -- maybe if there's
>nothing else to do.
I also agree that Americans seem to have a rather short attention
span. It is incomprehensible to me that the outrage at 9/11 has
wanned, and that it has never seemed to extend much beyond a handful
of al-Qaida honchos. Too much willingness to ignore the larger
threat, even as Americans and others are repeatedly murdered in the
Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, and of course Israel, and as al-Qaida
connections are discovered in cells thruout the world, esp Europe, and
even in this country.
The "average" American doesn't seem to pay much attention to anything
in the news that doesn't impact them directly. Of course, that might
mean they will not concern themselves greatly with a military
operation against Iraq either, provided it doesn't last too long. I
wonder if there would have been any significant protest against the
war in VietNam if there had been no draft. Even then, we had been
there for over 10 years before the anti-war effort gained any
momentum. But I'm rambling now.
To digress even farther, I happened to watch the movie about Douglas
MacArthur (the one with Gregory Peck) the other night. I was struck
by the part about the Japanese surrender and his establishment of a
new government in Japan. For all his faults, what a debt we owe
MacArthur for the shape of the world today, because of the wisdom of
his decisions in those critical years. Can you imagine any military
commander being given that sort of authority today? Of course, it was
much harder to administer any sort of major operation from Washington
back then--you sort of had to leave it to the men "on the ground" to
make their own decisions.
I find myself wondering whether we're capable of successfully
establishing a new, democratic regime in Iraq if we do decide to
depose Hussein. The jury is still out on Afghanistan, altho I remain
hopeful.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21706
From: RPostelnek"
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 21:00:02 -0500
Subject:
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21707
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 18:57:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Nobody else posted it
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Some of the earlier lists are even more frightening. I'm not sure about
Geraldo, but I can remember admiring Mrs. Povich's work before they put her
in news magazines doing "reenactments."
--
Later,
`rita
http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
"noone" <no_one@home> wrote in message news:3d70451e.0@news.sff.net...
> "They have no recollection of Connie Chung or Geraldo Rivera as serious
> journalists."
>
> were they ever really?
> "gunner"
> --------------------------------
>
> "Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3d701c0f.0@news.sff.net...
> > the Beloit College Class of 2006 "Mindset" List
> >
> > http://www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/releases/mindset_2006.html
> >
> > --
> > Later,
> >
> > `rita
> > http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21708
From: Lorrita Morgan"
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 19:30:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Out of Control?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai,
Just this week we get Germany refusing to share evidence relating to
September 11 unless the death penalty option is removed from the "20th
Hijacker's" trial. So yes, I believe that there are people of education and
what passes for reason who think that a war can be and should be fought
without involving any noncombatants. And not just because I read Tom
Clancy, Randy Alcorn, Frank Peretti, Stephen King, Harry Turtledove, Harry
Harrison, and a host of other writers of speculative fiction.
Some of these deluded people are in positions of power and decision makers.
They shout the loudest and longest in the negative when ever logic rears her
head.
We have been focused mainly on the old "Silk Road" and not looking at the
rest of the world. We're playing the race/religion profile and not looking
at the homegrown jerks who might be even more deadly. We haven't looked at
some of the groups to the south that scare me because if that sieve we call
a border with Mexico can't stop braceros then how will it stop "Shining
Path" or its offspring/clones. The border to the north isn't much better
and Canada has some interesting groups that I wouldn't want to see down
here.
So what do we do? I think we try to get to know our neighbors, first.
Then, we expand to joining groups like political parties, PTAs, fraternal
organizations, etc. and keep our ears open. Learn true logic -- ask
yourself what they're selling and how. (Reread "If This Goes On..."
especially the discussion on semantics.) Make an acquaintance of a
different ethnic/social/religious background -- you should have one or two
things in common. Maybe this doesn't change the way you view the world, but
you may become more aware of how others see the world.
--
Later,
`rita
http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3d7268fd.8756388@news.sff.net...
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:42:26 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
> <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >The "Human Shields" issue is the only one I'm ready to comment on further
at
> >this time.
> >
> >There are too many people around the world who seem to think that a war
can
> >be fought without civilian casualties.
>
> Do you really think that's true? Scary thought...
>
> I know Israel has received a lot of criticism around the world for the
> civilian casualties it has inflicted (even tho it's almost impossible
> to differentiate between civilians and combattants among the
> Palestinians). But I wonder how much of that just reflects
> anti-Israel sentiment, vs. real outrage at civilian deaths. I see
> very little international censure of Palestinians' killing civilians,
> even among their own people, as when they executed that widowed mother
> of seven a week or so ago. I also do not recall great European
> concern for civilian casualties in Bosnia, when European forces were
> responsible.
>
> Of course, anti-American sentiment could cause a similar reaction in
> any invasion of Iraq. There are many who hate us enough to condemn
> anything we do, altho perhaps not to the same extent as Israel because
> of the anti-semitism involved in the latter.
>
> >When we as a country that has tried
> >to promote a reputation for avoiding injuring non-combatants, are seen
> >bombing, strafing, or otherwise going through innocents to destroy a
target;
> >the political fallout could destroy us.
>
> "Destroy us" seems a bit over-stated. Granted, it could erode popular
> support at home, which would in turn hurt any sustained military
> effort. I do not think the potential for world condemnation should
> stop us from doing what it right in the long run. Nevertheless, it is
> a factor that must be brought into the debate.
>
> >We have U.S. citizens who think that because these Iraqis will serve this
> >way unarmed that we should walk away from those targets or find some
> >"Hollywood/Star Trek/A-Team" way of doing it so that no body really gets
> >hurt. All it takes for support to vanish is a few pictures of dead
children
> >or better/worse<?> video of small bodies being flung through the air by a
> >concussion.
>
> I agree that Americans seem to have become accustomed to the idea that
> all warfare can be conducted from 30,000' asl. That we do not, or
> should not, get into dirty little ground wars. I think the concern in
> the US will be greater when it's Americans returning in body bags, but
> still your point is valid.
>
> >Even after September 11, 2001; many of us sit in our climate controlled
> >homes and offices more worried about the baseball strike than terrorism.
In
> >a couple weeks, we'll attend the memorial services -- maybe if there's
> >nothing else to do.
>
> I also agree that Americans seem to have a rather short attention
> span. It is incomprehensible to me that the outrage at 9/11 has
> wanned, and that it has never seemed to extend much beyond a handful
> of al-Qaida honchos. Too much willingness to ignore the larger
> threat, even as Americans and others are repeatedly murdered in the
> Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, and of course Israel, and as al-Qaida
> connections are discovered in cells thruout the world, esp Europe, and
> even in this country.
>
> The "average" American doesn't seem to pay much attention to anything
> in the news that doesn't impact them directly. Of course, that might
> mean they will not concern themselves greatly with a military
> operation against Iraq either, provided it doesn't last too long. I
> wonder if there would have been any significant protest against the
> war in VietNam if there had been no draft. Even then, we had been
> there for over 10 years before the anti-war effort gained any
> momentum. But I'm rambling now.
>
> To digress even farther, I happened to watch the movie about Douglas
> MacArthur (the one with Gregory Peck) the other night. I was struck
> by the part about the Japanese surrender and his establishment of a
> new government in Japan. For all his faults, what a debt we owe
> MacArthur for the shape of the world today, because of the wisdom of
> his decisions in those critical years. Can you imagine any military
> commander being given that sort of authority today? Of course, it was
> much harder to administer any sort of major operation from Washington
> back then--you sort of had to leave it to the men "on the ground" to
> make their own decisions.
>
> I find myself wondering whether we're capable of successfully
> establishing a new, democratic regime in Iraq if we do decide to
> depose Hussein. The jury is still out on Afghanistan, altho I remain
> hopeful.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21709
From: noone"
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:00:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Nobody else posted it
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
geraldo has been a poseur all along, a "performer", not a reporter. i'm a
former marine and i watched some of his vacation in afghanistan. somehow
wherever he claimed to be in the "combat zone" the same broken down t-55
tank with the bearings gone on one idler bogie seemed to be right there
behind him along with the same scruffy gang of afghans. as for his "i'm
packing heat" (a pistol) traditionally and by military law correspondents
are not combatants and do not carry arms. as for connie, i will give her
credit for being rather more creditable than geraldo and i do have something
of a soft spot for her husband. a friend of mine's daughter has tourettes
syndrome and maury put on a show about it which she was on and maury did
treat the kids sympathetically. (if you saw and remember the show "nikki"
was the girl in the black t-shirt with long black hair in the center of the
group, she's grown up some since then, into a strikingly lovely, talented
and intelligent young woman.)
"gunner"
(by the way 'rita, none of the above is meant to slam you. you are also an
intelligent young woman and have a right to your opinions just as i have to
mine.)
--------------------------------------
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3d741709.0@news.sff.net...
> Some of the earlier lists are even more frightening. I'm not sure about
> Geraldo, but I can remember admiring Mrs. Povich's work before they put
her
> in news magazines doing "reenactments."
>
> --
> Later,
>
> `rita
> http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
> "noone" <no_one@home> wrote in message news:3d70451e.0@news.sff.net...
> > "They have no recollection of Connie Chung or Geraldo Rivera as serious
> > journalists."
> >
> > were they ever really?
> > "gunner"
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > "Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:3d701c0f.0@news.sff.net...
> > > the Beloit College Class of 2006 "Mindset" List
> > >
> > > http://www.beloit.edu/~pubaff/releases/mindset_2006.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > Later,
> > >
> > > `rita
> > > http://pages.prodigy.net/lorrita-m/index.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21710
From: filksinger@earthling.net
Date: 3 Sep 2002 16:24:34 GMT
Subject: Harry Potter's Female Fans
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Normally, I'd just chuckle at this and ignore it, but this one really hits
my funny bone. It may also explain Harry Potter's popularity with young
girls.:)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/toys/B00005NEBW/qid%3D1030224308/sr%3D2-2/ref%3Dsr%5F2%5F2/102-4729042-7959361
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21711
From: Eli Hestermann
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:16:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Harry Potter's Female Fans
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
LMAO!
My favorite customer review was from "poola13 from Ohio", who isn't even
curious why both the 12- and 17-year old like to play with it.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21712
From: Gordon G. Sollars
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:43:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Harry Potter's Female Fans
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3D74EE71.7FBFC1@dfci.harvard.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
> LMAO!
>
> My favorite customer review was from "poola13 from Ohio", who isn't even
> curious why both the 12- and 17-year old like to play with it.
Well, I read "poola13" as having a bit of fun. But, then, in Ohio... who
knows?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 21713
From: Ed Johnson
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 22:03:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Harry Potter's Female Fans
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Eli: I can't believe those 'reviews' were submitted with a
straight face. Where was the "TFIC" ??
Ed J
On Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:16:34 -0400, Eli Hestermann
<Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote:
>LMAO!
>
>My favorite customer review was from "poola13 from Ohio", who isn't even
>curious why both the 12- and 17-year old like to play with it.
------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
Archive of: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by: webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 03:56:34
First article in this archive: 21693
Last article in this archive: 21713
Oldest article in this archive: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:44:41 -0500
Newest article in this archive: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 00:29:22 -0400