From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #292 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Wednesday, December 1 2004 Volume 06 : Number 292 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #290 [Jason Stanley ] Re: [RS] State IQ. [Tom Neff ] [RS] Get this wool out of my eyes... [RockinRonD@aol.com] Re: [RS] (off-topic: politics) The ongoing discussion [rfoxwell@wso.willi] Re: [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #289 [Vanessa Wills Subject: [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #290 As my old boss used to say, it's like arguing with a drunk. You know Ron, I could say the same thing about you if I didn't want to be kept on the list, and have you keep putting new Shindell chords up on your web site. ;) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:26:56 -0500 From: Tom Neff Subject: Re: [RS] State IQ. Please don't quote entire Digests when you reply to messages on the list. It explodes list volume unnecessarily and makes discussions harder to read. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:48:10 EST From: RockinRonD@aol.com Subject: [RS] Get this wool out of my eyes... Hoax though it may be, doesn't the IQ chart seem scarily accurate? Maybe it's just me and my left-wing, liberal, East Coast, Bush-bashing sensibility. I do feel a modicum of sympathy for Jason though...his viewpoint is clearly in the minority here. But then again, opposing viewpoints make for, ahem, lively debate. So keep posting Jason...if you love Richard's music you can't be all that bad. :-) RockinRonD ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:53:31 -0500 From: rfoxwell@wso.williams.edu Subject: Re: [RS] (off-topic: politics) The ongoing discussion Firstly, Jason, please mark political posts with the "off-topic" flag. That will help everyone who is sick of this to avoid our posts, and reduce the amount of aggravation that some might feel. Kudos to whomever first suggested this (can't remember). Quoting Jason Stanley : > I remember watching the news while the war was going on and they found > missiles that went well over what was allowed by the > U.N. I can't find the quote so take it or leave it. Another problem > with Hans Blix and his group is it doesn't do a whole lot of good when > every time they go to look somewhere they move the stache. I am willing to > make a wager with you. 50 bucks says within 6 months the prove they had > they WMD's they were looking for, not even counting anthrax. Be very careful what you are supporting here. The weapons inspectors did not find any weapons of the sort that Bush described, and many people like yourself have responded with "of course they didn't...obviously the weapons were moved!" That is a completely bogus and unassailable argument, because it cannot be disproven. There is no logic in that claim. Your conclusion does not follow the premise, and it is an assertion rather than an argument. You could make that claim forever, smug and self-assured, even after years of fruitless searching, and nobody could gainsay you. Basically, it's a very convenient and cheap defense, devious in appearing to make a point while doing nothing of the sort. "Oh, trust me, the WMDs were there...they were just moved"...heh, well, if that's going to be your assertion here, we're finished arguing. Indeed, that's not an argument at all; no one can argue with you when all you have is shadowy assertions without fact and illusory claims that don't require evidence to sustain them. Yeah, sure, they might have moved them. "Might haves" do not prove anything. "Might haves" are NOT a basis for war. > According to the U.S. and other countries, they are 3-8 years away from > having any WMD's. If they have chem or Bio weapons now > let me know where you saw it. Um...don't nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles capable of reaching the western coast of the United States count as WMDs???? Facts on North Korea: (from a CNN.com special report...not the best source, but there are PLENTY of records of what follows, take your pick:) "During talks in China in April 2003, North Korea 'blatantly and boldly' said that Pyongyang had produced at least one nuclear weapon, a U.S. official said. In July 2003, North Korean officials inflated their claims when they told the U.S. they completed reprocessing 8000 spent fuel rods from a nuclear plant into plutonium, enough to make half a dozen nuclear bombs." Hmm. WMDs, anyone? Naturally, different parties give different information, and only Kim knows for sure, but it is clear that the U.S. firmly believes that North Korea has at least one weapon, even though North Korea vacillates between saying "yes we do, we're going to kill you!" and "no we don't, leave us alone!". More facts on North Korea: Active military forces: 1.14 million soldiers (fifth-largest in the world) Reserve forces: 7.45 million soldiers Special forces: 100,000 estimated (largest in the world) North Korea is the most militarized nation in the world, in proportion to population. Take whatever interpretation you like of all this, but either way you cut it, the chances and willingness of North Korea to send nukes our way completely and utterly overshadow any piddling threat that Iraq posed, even according to Bush's WORST CASE scenarios...scenarios that turned out to be completely wrong anyway! Bush's claim that we invaded Iraq because they posed an immediate WMD threat to us is utterly and embarrassingly shattered when you compare Iraq to North Korea. That is why he quickly had to shift to another excuse, which also turned out to be bogus, and why he has settled on the oh-so-noble, difficult-to-criticize "motive" of freeing the Iraqi people. The only conclusion that the discerning questioner can come to is that Bush wanted this war for some other reason, something that he doesn't want to divulge, something that he needs other excuses to cover for. Likely options include simply wanting to secure oil, and--more likely--needing a diversion from our failure to capture Osama bin Laden, needing to have some scapegoat to attack and destroy and demonstrate our "progress" in the "war against terror". So he went about digging up (and inventing) evidence for WMDs, investigating (and manufacturing) ties to Al Qaeda, searching for *anything* to justify an invasion that would give Americans something to feel good about after 9/11. Bush's actions have been criminally deceptive, and he deserves immediate impeachment...and American citizens have been criminally negligent/pathetic in putting him back in power, and we/they deserve a good smack in the head. - --Chris ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:53:42 -0500 From: Vanessa Wills Subject: Re: [RS] Re: shindell-list-digest V6 #289 <> Honestly, for whatever it's worth, that comment wasn't meant to go out to the list. It was definitely not list-appropriate, and I'm sorry it ended up on the list--I got sloppy with the "reply to" field. Then, I had to decide whether to post to the list explaining the faux pas, or to let it blow over. I chose the latter. What you wrote in response is a lie and an obvious one, but of course I'm sure you don't even realize that. You probably really do think that everything I write to the list is fluff. I think I'm quite glad of that; I'd have to worry if you actually saw sense in anything I wrote. <> The word is spelled "write," not "right." <> I can't imagine you'll have too much trouble with that. - --V On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 08:47:14 -0600, Jason Stanley wrote: > Alright, I will try and hit everyone's comment on this so read through. > First, Vanessa, > Actually Vanessa, since you can't right anything of substance other > than accusing the "other side" of being ignorant" and incapable of > understanding subtletly I am pretty much ignoring you until you can. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:26:18 EST From: Patience9@aol.com Subject: [RS] time to switch Yeah, lets switch to sex and religion and we can kiss this list goodbye from the three. Is there a moderator on this list??? Hate to interrupt all the political talk, but I'm putting together ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:22:27 -0700 From: jolie@unclejolie.com Subject: [RS] A passive reader jumps into the fray First of all, a desperate if petty plea: In the name of all that is sacred, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE start new messages instead of replying to the old. I can't explain how difficult these garbled messes are to read for those of us subscribed to the digest version. And now on to the other stuff... I must say, I'm enjoying the renewed political discussion even though I haven't yet chimed in. I really believe that there's something to this whole intellectual divide. I have little patience for people who claim that Democrats are smart and Republicans are dumb - talk about not appreciating subtleties! I highly doubt there's a substantial correlation between raw intelligence and political leanings. In fact, I'd venture a guess that Carl Rove is one of the most brilliant Americans of our time, and as far as I'm concerned he's so far to the right that surely he must be one of Satan's henchmen (or at least on the payroll.) However, I think that the more highly educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to be an active participant in the political process. When presented with, say, a Fox News study (this is pure invention to illustrate a point) citing that people overwhelmingly support X or the evidence suggests Y, human nature is to automatically trust that information. Formal education teaches one to ask, "What's the source?" "Who designed the study?" "What was the methodology?" "What was the sample?" etc. When a leader says, "Here's how it is..." it DOES tend to be the more educated who demand proof rather than following on blind faith. As a culture we are very accepting of shallow analysis and embarrassingly forgiving of public inconsistencies. My (admittedly and decidedly biased) experience is that this questioning also tends to correlate to a more progressive viewpoint. In our deeply flawed two-party system, progressive sensibilities tend to align one with the Democratic party. Not always - I know some damn well-educated conservatives. And although I don't understand them, I guess I can respect their views. But they're the exception rather than the rule. Personally? I think our society thrives on a diversity of ideals and I normally welcome an intelligent exchange with well-informed conservatives. But at this point I'm ready to bitch-slap the next right-wing nutjob who faces me with some shallow argument about W's divinity. So much for my proud tolerance. Anyway, thanks for indulging me. Cheers,Amywho lives on a small island off the coast of Europe, known to some as Manhattan ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #292 ***********************************