Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

I think you're right. Let's just leave Saddam alone, for now. It's much too risky at this stage. Later, when he has a stockpile of nukes (like North Korea, now), we can deal with him or maybe his "kinder, gentler" son.

Cool. :wink:

Or, alternatively, we can wait for Kim to pull a Tojo and bring on WWIII. Nothing like taking the choice out of our hands, is there?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

I think you're right. Let's just leave Saddam alone, for now. It's much too risky at this stage. Later, when he has a stockpile of nukes (like North Korea, now), we can deal with him or maybe his "kinder, gentler" son.

Cool. :wink:

Or, alternatively, we can wait for Kim to pull a Tojo and bring on WWIII. Nothing like taking the choice out of our hands, is there?

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

This is all leftover theater from the 2T...the "concern" of an impotent Congress, the warnings from the military, the necessity of not losing "face" overseas, the protests and counter protests, a President with advice from the "Best & the Brightest", land war in Asia, the superiority of our weapons, the building of "democracy" as a goal. First time tragedy, second time tragedy, third time tragedy, fourth time trag....


The Prophets are puerile for quite a while yet...forever Young 'til the Next Turning.

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

This is all leftover theater from the 2T...the "concern" of an impotent Congress, the warnings from the military, the necessity of not losing "face" overseas, the protests and counter protests, a President with advice from the "Best & the Brightest", land war in Asia, the superiority of our weapons, the building of "democracy" as a goal. First time tragedy, second time tragedy, third time tragedy, fourth time trag....


The Prophets are puerile for quite a while yet...forever Young 'til the Next Turning.

I?ll attempt to answer everyone who responded to my tantrum in one fell swoop. I?ll try to keep it as brief as I can.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

Point taken. Generating more heat than light is one of my recurrent and intractable faults. I?ll keep working on it. I am genuinely pleased that you?re bemused and honored. Charmingly quaint in these flattened times.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?" Such an emotional approach to world problems is common among the young. What follows, in this kind of "self hatred," is everlasting guilt and despair for having been concieved in the first place: A very nomadic trait.

Problems? Yes. A burning bed? No.

Billy Joel prophesied the emotion, too.
?We didn?t start the fire/It was always burning since the world?s been turning.?
I admit to being unreasonably impatient with the constant fire drill of the late 3T. If the bed were really on fire we?d have to do the only reasonable thing: grab the nearest bucket. That instead we?re collectively comparing buckets is telling in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

I would suggest you start with the internet rather than a bookstore. When doing so it helps to have a specific question in mind. For example consider the issue of global warming.

I don?t need the internet for that: I have you! :wink:

Originally Posted by Buzz Painter

Try to dislodged that chip from your shoulder and don't take this all so personally. There are many more of us on this thread than are represented by the frequent posters. Remember, you are addressing an audience each time you post.

The chip got knocked off when Brian Rush levered my head to the right. I?m aware of the audience, but not likely to be inhibited by it. I?ll try to be more objective, though.

Originally Posted by Elilevin

Now to address Suz X and her tender feelings: You did ask for advice about how to learn something about ecology. I assumed you were talking about the science of ecology and it happens that my formal education is in that field. <snip> However. most of us can only study one of two areas in this kind of depth. Yet we are curious about many other areas. In that case, it still helpful to seek the guidance of others who have studied in depth. <snip> ?my advice to you if you were sincere in your desire to learn is:
1) Read a basic text on ecology--they are dull because they are not controversial but they do give you the necessary background and vocabulary. It really does help to crack the code
2)Get a good basic dictionary of biology to use when you read the literature. Heck, I have a Ph.D and I still use mine.

Elilevin, please don?t get me wrong. You?ve been quite helpful and I respect that this is your area of expertise. In fact, your input is of considerable weight to me because it is apolitical. The condescending tone I referred to didn?t come directly from you. It was more that I felt as if my admission that I haven?t studied ecology was taken to mean I haven?t studied science, and, further, that I haven?t yet learned how to learn. I just wanted to assert that I have and I have.
I finished The Diversity of Life yesterday. I selected it precisely because it is so widely used as a text in ecology courses on the 100 level. (I was in the book biz for a decade. I started my management career in a university bookstore.) And, again, I?m not trying to become an expert. I just wanted a platform of knowledge from which to better view the issues.

Originally Posted by Trollking

you've not used the internet much, have you?

I?ve been blustering about in cyberspace since 1993. It was different back then, though. The forums operated via listserv email platforms or Unix intranets. We were sooo much less civilized! I miss my old Unix superuser status, too. (killterm-u brianrush. Heh heh heh.) :evil: But, you?re right that I?ve not had much to do with post-pioneer forums such as this one. I graduated to real life and got busy for awhile. I?ll get the hang of it.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

I did get the impression that Eli sounded a little condescending in his reply to Suz X, but that should not be surprising on a site like this. Troll King has a point. If one is used to internet discussion, then it follows one is also used to their views being picked apart and even outright flaming (you don't have to like it, though).

Actually, I love it. This is the most fun I?ve had online in quite awhile. Everyone should feel free to pick my views apart to their heart?s content. Don?t fret, Dear Heliotrope, I don?t scare easily. Stay tuned.

I?ll attempt to answer everyone who responded to my tantrum in one fell swoop. I?ll try to keep it as brief as I can.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

Point taken. Generating more heat than light is one of my recurrent and intractable faults. I?ll keep working on it. I am genuinely pleased that you?re bemused and honored. Charmingly quaint in these flattened times.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Peter Garrett had burnt the Midnight Oil penning words like, "How can we dance when our earth is turning/How do we sleep while our beds are burning?" Such an emotional approach to world problems is common among the young. What follows, in this kind of "self hatred," is everlasting guilt and despair for having been concieved in the first place: A very nomadic trait.

Problems? Yes. A burning bed? No.

Billy Joel prophesied the emotion, too.
?We didn?t start the fire/It was always burning since the world?s been turning.?
I admit to being unreasonably impatient with the constant fire drill of the late 3T. If the bed were really on fire we?d have to do the only reasonable thing: grab the nearest bucket. That instead we?re collectively comparing buckets is telling in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

I would suggest you start with the internet rather than a bookstore. When doing so it helps to have a specific question in mind. For example consider the issue of global warming.

I don?t need the internet for that: I have you! :wink:

Originally Posted by Buzz Painter

Try to dislodged that chip from your shoulder and don't take this all so personally. There are many more of us on this thread than are represented by the frequent posters. Remember, you are addressing an audience each time you post.

The chip got knocked off when Brian Rush levered my head to the right. I?m aware of the audience, but not likely to be inhibited by it. I?ll try to be more objective, though.

Originally Posted by Elilevin

Now to address Suz X and her tender feelings: You did ask for advice about how to learn something about ecology. I assumed you were talking about the science of ecology and it happens that my formal education is in that field. <snip> However. most of us can only study one of two areas in this kind of depth. Yet we are curious about many other areas. In that case, it still helpful to seek the guidance of others who have studied in depth. <snip> ?my advice to you if you were sincere in your desire to learn is:
1) Read a basic text on ecology--they are dull because they are not controversial but they do give you the necessary background and vocabulary. It really does help to crack the code
2)Get a good basic dictionary of biology to use when you read the literature. Heck, I have a Ph.D and I still use mine.

Elilevin, please don?t get me wrong. You?ve been quite helpful and I respect that this is your area of expertise. In fact, your input is of considerable weight to me because it is apolitical. The condescending tone I referred to didn?t come directly from you. It was more that I felt as if my admission that I haven?t studied ecology was taken to mean I haven?t studied science, and, further, that I haven?t yet learned how to learn. I just wanted to assert that I have and I have.
I finished The Diversity of Life yesterday. I selected it precisely because it is so widely used as a text in ecology courses on the 100 level. (I was in the book biz for a decade. I started my management career in a university bookstore.) And, again, I?m not trying to become an expert. I just wanted a platform of knowledge from which to better view the issues.

Originally Posted by Trollking

you've not used the internet much, have you?

I?ve been blustering about in cyberspace since 1993. It was different back then, though. The forums operated via listserv email platforms or Unix intranets. We were sooo much less civilized! I miss my old Unix superuser status, too. (killterm-u brianrush. Heh heh heh.) :evil: But, you?re right that I?ve not had much to do with post-pioneer forums such as this one. I graduated to real life and got busy for awhile. I?ll get the hang of it.

Originally Posted by Heliotrope

I did get the impression that Eli sounded a little condescending in his reply to Suz X, but that should not be surprising on a site like this. Troll King has a point. If one is used to internet discussion, then it follows one is also used to their views being picked apart and even outright flaming (you don't have to like it, though).

Actually, I love it. This is the most fun I?ve had online in quite awhile. Everyone should feel free to pick my views apart to their heart?s content. Don?t fret, Dear Heliotrope, I don?t scare easily. Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Suz X:

Read Natural Capitalism before anything else by Hawkin.

Regarding your head leaning to the right, let me point out a couple of results of the free market for your consideration.

In a competitive system such as a capitalist market, any behavior that provides a competitive advantage will be engaged in, regardless of moral considerations or its intrinsic benefit or harm to society, unless forbidden by law. Those competitors who are too scrupulous or responsible to engage in such behavior will be overwhelmed by their less-scrupulous or less-responsible adversaries.

Without any law at all, a market-driven industrial enterprise will come inexorably to resemble the illegal drug trade, which operates completely outside the law and in which violent and contemptible practices are commonplace. Thugs dominate the drug industry not because of the nature of the product but because no law prevents their doing so. Note the collectively self-destructive nature of this tendency.

Ah, but in the environmental debate there is little talk of laws. There is mostly talk of regulations. I think there?s a difference. Environmental regulations take the form of sweeping, top-down initiatives designed to mitigate compound effects directly caused by government?s failure to protect individual property rights.

Society is a collection of individuals, each of whom possess inherent rights of person and property. Any competitive practice which infringes upon the rights of individual members of society can be most efficiently corrected by upholding those individual rights. Our current trend towards replacing the individual rights of our citizens with sweeping regulatory protections goes counter to how the environment itself works.

As I?ve made clear, I am not an environmental expert. But I think everyone here would agree that the environment is not an organized system of pre-programmed design. It is more a dynamic parallel processor of complex interactions and minute corrections. I think I could argue that our biosphere operates in the same way everything in this universe operates. A basic unpredictability, i.e., free will, in the actions of each individual (be they quantum particles, paramecium, or human beings), corrected for by a trend toward what is successful for each classification of individuals (species), which in turn is dynamically influenced by further interactions ensuring that all contribute to a constantly fluctuating balance. Whew! Human interactions, including economic transactions, work along the same lines, as does everything in this universe. I realize I'm throwing a whole lot of everything into the pot here, but I'm trying to draw upon fresh paradigms. Parallel processing is the best model we have right now to describe the biosphere, economics, and human/environmental interactions, IMHO. Envision a three-dimensional, many playered game of Go.

So to apply regulation in any sort of top down manner should, and does, fail in the long term. It just goes counter to the way things really work. To be most effective, laws must reflect the dynamics of life on this planet. They must apply themselves to the characteristics of the individual members of society by protecting individual rights. If applied so, laws will quite independently protect the good of all. Put in the context of this discussion, if our government had not abandoned individual property rights in exchange for what is essentially an easement granted to industrial polluters, we?d be better off today. To attempt to solve the problem in the same way it was created seems illogical to me.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Legitimate business does not descend so far, because laws punish violence and fraud in a business context and so reserve competition for the nonviolent and (somewhat) honest. But that is a difference only of degree. The competitive drive works in many ways to hurt the collective well-being of all business.

It systematically depresses wages and concentrates wealth at the top, thus undermining the consumer market on which all business depends. Higher wages across the board would make all businesses more successful, but any business that acts on this premise individually will put itself at a disadvantage in terms of operating costs, so no one does it.

This (above) strains the boundaries of common sense. Higher wages become meaningless in an inflationary economy. An inflationary economy is exactly what you describe. ?Wealth at the top? translates economically as cash reserves, which functions as investment capital, which drives innovation, which creates employment, which fuels productivity, forever and ever amen. Simply spreading the wealth around is a meaningless notion because it doesn?t take into account the elusive nature of value. Ask the former Soviets if you don?t believe it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unregulated capitalism and socialism are extremes; usually extremes are less pragmatically sound than some point in between them.

Just for fun, try defining ?unregulated socialism.?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Suz X:

Read Natural Capitalism before anything else by Hawkin.

Regarding your head leaning to the right, let me point out a couple of results of the free market for your consideration.

In a competitive system such as a capitalist market, any behavior that provides a competitive advantage will be engaged in, regardless of moral considerations or its intrinsic benefit or harm to society, unless forbidden by law. Those competitors who are too scrupulous or responsible to engage in such behavior will be overwhelmed by their less-scrupulous or less-responsible adversaries.

Without any law at all, a market-driven industrial enterprise will come inexorably to resemble the illegal drug trade, which operates completely outside the law and in which violent and contemptible practices are commonplace. Thugs dominate the drug industry not because of the nature of the product but because no law prevents their doing so. Note the collectively self-destructive nature of this tendency.

Ah, but in the environmental debate there is little talk of laws. There is mostly talk of regulations. I think there?s a difference. Environmental regulations take the form of sweeping, top-down initiatives designed to mitigate compound effects directly caused by government?s failure to protect individual property rights.

Society is a collection of individuals, each of whom possess inherent rights of person and property. Any competitive practice which infringes upon the rights of individual members of society can be most efficiently corrected by upholding those individual rights. Our current trend towards replacing the individual rights of our citizens with sweeping regulatory protections goes counter to how the environment itself works.

As I?ve made clear, I am not an environmental expert. But I think everyone here would agree that the environment is not an organized system of pre-programmed design. It is more a dynamic parallel processor of complex interactions and minute corrections. I think I could argue that our biosphere operates in the same way everything in this universe operates. A basic unpredictability, i.e., free will, in the actions of each individual (be they quantum particles, paramecium, or human beings), corrected for by a trend toward what is successful for each classification of individuals (species), which in turn is dynamically influenced by further interactions ensuring that all contribute to a constantly fluctuating balance. Whew! Human interactions, including economic transactions, work along the same lines, as does everything in this universe. I realize I'm throwing a whole lot of everything into the pot here, but I'm trying to draw upon fresh paradigms. Parallel processing is the best model we have right now to describe the biosphere, economics, and human/environmental interactions, IMHO. Envision a three-dimensional, many playered game of Go.

So to apply regulation in any sort of top down manner should, and does, fail in the long term. It just goes counter to the way things really work. To be most effective, laws must reflect the dynamics of life on this planet. They must apply themselves to the characteristics of the individual members of society by protecting individual rights. If applied so, laws will quite independently protect the good of all. Put in the context of this discussion, if our government had not abandoned individual property rights in exchange for what is essentially an easement granted to industrial polluters, we?d be better off today. To attempt to solve the problem in the same way it was created seems illogical to me.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Legitimate business does not descend so far, because laws punish violence and fraud in a business context and so reserve competition for the nonviolent and (somewhat) honest. But that is a difference only of degree. The competitive drive works in many ways to hurt the collective well-being of all business.

It systematically depresses wages and concentrates wealth at the top, thus undermining the consumer market on which all business depends. Higher wages across the board would make all businesses more successful, but any business that acts on this premise individually will put itself at a disadvantage in terms of operating costs, so no one does it.

This (above) strains the boundaries of common sense. Higher wages become meaningless in an inflationary economy. An inflationary economy is exactly what you describe. ?Wealth at the top? translates economically as cash reserves, which functions as investment capital, which drives innovation, which creates employment, which fuels productivity, forever and ever amen. Simply spreading the wealth around is a meaningless notion because it doesn?t take into account the elusive nature of value. Ask the former Soviets if you don?t believe it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Unregulated capitalism and socialism are extremes; usually extremes are less pragmatically sound than some point in between them.

Just for fun, try defining ?unregulated socialism.?

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

Well then, you are scarcely better than the Chinese Communists. Or should I call you George Wallace? ;-)

Is Gloria La Reva a member of that Party? I heard at the SF demonstration that she was the main organizer. I have a leaflet that lists all the sponsors; I'll check again but I didn't see the WWP.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Who are the sponsors of the anti-American (or, as they put it, "antiwar" protests?

The group sponsoring it is the Workers' World Party.

To see where they stand on the political spectrum, read this:

http://www.workers.org/ww/tienanmen.html

The "people" taking part in these protests support the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is time to turn the tables on them and show them what it's like to be run over by tanks.

Well then, you are scarcely better than the Chinese Communists. Or should I call you George Wallace? ;-)

Is Gloria La Reva a member of that Party? I heard at the SF demonstration that she was the main organizer. I have a leaflet that lists all the sponsors; I'll check again but I didn't see the WWP.

Originally Posted by Suz X

Ah, but in the environmental debate there is little talk of laws. There is mostly talk of regulations. I think there’s a difference. Environmental regulations take the form of sweeping, top-down initiatives designed to mitigate compound effects directly caused by government’s failure to protect individual property rights.

I beg to differ with you. There are environmental laws, just as there are safety laws. Regulations are how these laws are applied. In many cases there aren't even regulations. The usual situation is business negotiates with the regulatory agency to find an interpretation of the law/regulation that makes sense and that we can live with.

For example my company didn't bother to comply with the Clean Air Act of 1970. Then in 1990 we had a consent judgement found against us and we had to go around and put LAER (low achievable emission rate) on everything. We spent $80 million putting in state-of-the-art pollution control and we plummetted off the list of the state's biggest pollutors.

We were also required to produce a report for the state environmental regulatory agency that characterized the VOC (volatile organic carbon) content of our fermentor exhaust. I was assigned this project as part of a larger team (mostly managers, an analytical chemist's and my labs did all the work and I wrote the reports). We went to the Capitol to get approval for the methodology we wanted to use for the study. When the meeting started the regulatory folks were spitting fire, but by the end of the negotiations they we eating out of our hands. The report was done, we identified 67 different VOCs (at very low levels) in the exhaust gas. We also investigated a whole range of control technologies. In the LAER report, I successfully argued (i.e. the regulators thought my conclusions were technically sound--regulators are often very reasonable folks) that LAER for our fermentors was no control. This saved us big bucks. Nobody else in the industry has any fermentor VOC controls, but they have followed the law since 1970 so they had no consent judgement (we were required to consider LAER for the fermentors because of the consent judgment).

Originally Posted by Suz X

Ah, but in the environmental debate there is little talk of laws. There is mostly talk of regulations. I think there’s a difference. Environmental regulations take the form of sweeping, top-down initiatives designed to mitigate compound effects directly caused by government’s failure to protect individual property rights.

I beg to differ with you. There are environmental laws, just as there are safety laws. Regulations are how these laws are applied. In many cases there aren't even regulations. The usual situation is business negotiates with the regulatory agency to find an interpretation of the law/regulation that makes sense and that we can live with.

For example my company didn't bother to comply with the Clean Air Act of 1970. Then in 1990 we had a consent judgement found against us and we had to go around and put LAER (low achievable emission rate) on everything. We spent $80 million putting in state-of-the-art pollution control and we plummetted off the list of the state's biggest pollutors.

We were also required to produce a report for the state environmental regulatory agency that characterized the VOC (volatile organic carbon) content of our fermentor exhaust. I was assigned this project as part of a larger team (mostly managers, an analytical chemist's and my labs did all the work and I wrote the reports). We went to the Capitol to get approval for the methodology we wanted to use for the study. When the meeting started the regulatory folks were spitting fire, but by the end of the negotiations they we eating out of our hands. The report was done, we identified 67 different VOCs (at very low levels) in the exhaust gas. We also investigated a whole range of control technologies. In the LAER report, I successfully argued (i.e. the regulators thought my conclusions were technically sound--regulators are often very reasonable folks) that LAER for our fermentors was no control. This saved us big bucks. Nobody else in the industry has any fermentor VOC controls, but they have followed the law since 1970 so they had no consent judgement (we were required to consider LAER for the fermentors because of the consent judgment).

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!

....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. 8) As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

I agree with Virgil. Good heavens, I've been offended by everyone here at one time or another, and from all sides of the political spectrum. There is healthy debate here (at least most of the time it's healthy), and at a very high intellectual level.

Let's face it, anyone who's gotten through the Strauss and Howe books is going to be pretty bright, and those who then take the time to find this forum and then post are going to be pretty opinionated as well. I'm surprised we do get along as well as we do sometimes.

I undoubtedly stepped on a few toes when I was getting used to this place, and I've seen others who have come after me do it, too. It's the nature of the Internet beast. ;-)

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Suz X

I'm feeling just a little bit condescended to when everyone seems to think I don't even understand the concept of peer review. I said I don't know a whole lot about ecology; I never said I don't understand scientific methodology!

....You collectively show such a strong penchant towards the notion of an "intellectual elite" you might as well all supply each other with special library cards. I wonder how much of environmental affairs are disrupted and stymied by people such as you who assume you know so much more than the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat in your tax-subsidized cafeterias everyday, whatever that really means in real terms.

Many who post here, write for each other and a general audience of lurkers in response to a particular question. From one of "the people who actually earn a living by exploiting the "biosphere" and provide you with the food you eat ", I would allow you and everyone else to be offended as often as you wish and if drives you to Mr. Lamb, the more power to him. 8) As to the charge of "intellectual elite", I am both bemused and honored that such a notion is about in these levelling times.

I agree with Virgil. Good heavens, I've been offended by everyone here at one time or another, and from all sides of the political spectrum. There is healthy debate here (at least most of the time it's healthy), and at a very high intellectual level.

Let's face it, anyone who's gotten through the Strauss and Howe books is going to be pretty bright, and those who then take the time to find this forum and then post are going to be pretty opinionated as well. I'm surprised we do get along as well as we do sometimes.

I undoubtedly stepped on a few toes when I was getting used to this place, and I've seen others who have come after me do it, too. It's the nature of the Internet beast. ;-)

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I agree with Virgil. Good heavens, I've been offended by everyone here at one time or another, and from all sides of the political spectrum. There is healthy debate here (at least most of the time it's healthy), and at a very high intellectual level.

Healthy debate?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Re: Disagreeing with Mr. Rush Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:14 am

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Brian, I also admire your patience, and the thoroughness of your responses to those who disagree with you. And another thing: you have the grace to own up to your mistakes, few as they are. It's a pleasure to share this forum with you.

Gosh, Ms. Kiff, that was a nice thing to say to Mr. Rush. I agree, Mr. Rush is quite thorough in his "responses to those who disagree" with him. However, I wondering if you could help me out here. Which of the following "responses to [Marc Lamb] who disagree[s] with" Mr. Rush, do you agree with?

1. Marc Lamb is a "liar" and "hypocrite."
2. Marc Lamb is a "character assassin."
3. Marc Lamb is a "contemptible con artist."
4. Marc Lamb is "a thoroughly low and despicable excuse for a human being."
5. Marc Lamb is a "shill and toad."
6. Marc Lamb has earned the "contempt and odium of everyone on this forum."
7. Marc Lamb is "a masochist."
8. Marc Lamb "suffers from rectal cranial occlusion."
9. Marc Lamb lacks "intellectual integrity."
10. Marc Lamb should "Go crawl back under [my] rock." And finally,
11. Marc Lamb should "just leave" this website."

That the debate, in question, was all about Saddam Hussein, it occured to me that Mr. Rush was more than willing to cut the "butcher of Bagdad" a lot more slack than his fellow poster here at T4T.

Such kinds of "intellectual debate" probably doesn't bode well for our fine Republic, eh, Ms. Kiff? :-?

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I agree with Virgil. Good heavens, I've been offended by everyone here at one time or another, and from all sides of the political spectrum. There is healthy debate here (at least most of the time it's healthy), and at a very high intellectual level.

Healthy debate?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Re: Disagreeing with Mr. Rush Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:14 am

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Brian, I also admire your patience, and the thoroughness of your responses to those who disagree with you. And another thing: you have the grace to own up to your mistakes, few as they are. It's a pleasure to share this forum with you.

Gosh, Ms. Kiff, that was a nice thing to say to Mr. Rush. I agree, Mr. Rush is quite thorough in his "responses to those who disagree" with him. However, I wondering if you could help me out here. Which of the following "responses to [Marc Lamb] who disagree[s] with" Mr. Rush, do you agree with?

1. Marc Lamb is a "liar" and "hypocrite."
2. Marc Lamb is a "character assassin."
3. Marc Lamb is a "contemptible con artist."
4. Marc Lamb is "a thoroughly low and despicable excuse for a human being."
5. Marc Lamb is a "shill and toad."
6. Marc Lamb has earned the "contempt and odium of everyone on this forum."
7. Marc Lamb is "a masochist."
8. Marc Lamb "suffers from rectal cranial occlusion."
9. Marc Lamb lacks "intellectual integrity."
10. Marc Lamb should "Go crawl back under [my] rock." And finally,
11. Marc Lamb should "just leave" this website."

That the debate, in question, was all about Saddam Hussein, it occured to me that Mr. Rush was more than willing to cut the "butcher of Bagdad" a lot more slack than his fellow poster here at T4T.

Such kinds of "intellectual debate" probably doesn't bode well for our fine Republic, eh, Ms. Kiff? :-?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Re: Disagreeing with Mr. Rush Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:14 am

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Brian, I also admire your patience, and the thoroughness of your responses to those who disagree with you. And another thing: you have the grace to own up to your mistakes, few as they are. It's a pleasure to share this forum with you.

Gosh, Ms. Kiff, that was a nice thing to say to Mr. Rush. I agree, Mr. Rush is quite thorough in his "responses to those who disagree" with him. However, I wondering if you could help me out here. Which of the following "responses to [Marc Lamb] who disagree[s] with" Mr. Rush, do you agree with?

1. Marc Lamb is a "liar" and "hypocrite."
2. Marc Lamb is a "character assassin."
3. Marc Lamb is a "contemptible con artist."
4. Marc Lamb is "a thoroughly low and despicable excuse for a human being."
5. Marc Lamb is a "shill and toad."
6. Marc Lamb has earned the "contempt and odium of everyone on this forum."
7. Marc Lamb is "a masochist."
8. Marc Lamb "suffers from rectal cranial occlusion."
9. Marc Lamb lacks "intellectual integrity."
10. Marc Lamb should "Go crawl back under [my] rock." And finally,
11. Marc Lamb should "just leave" this website."

That the debate, in question, was all about Saddam Hussein, it occured to me that Mr. Rush was more than willing to cut the "butcher of Bagdad" a lot more slack than his fellow poster here at T4T.

No doubt! I personally suspect that Mr. Rush would wish to see the President forced to back down, such that not only is there no war (for the time being), but Saddam Hussein remains in power, and all sanctions are lifted, including the prohibition against him developing and amassing WMD, including nukes. Said retreat should lead to a far leftrist Democrat sweep in 2004, followed by Hussein using his newly developed nukes to gain control over all the Gulf Oil Fields, and then place us under a permanent oil embargo - which he then expands to a total UN trade embargo against us (likewise permanent) with a combination of oil and nuclear blackmail aimed at those few nations who would still be reluctant to vote in favor of such a course of action. Then, with luck, our economy would implode, and the extreme leftists still in office could then scrap whatever's left of the Constitution, and turn the US into another Stalinist horror show. Of course, I don't expect any part of the above nightmare scenario to unfold, though I honestly do believe that Mr. Rush would not mind one bit if it did.

As for insults, Mr. Rush was nice enough to call me a Fascist, which coming from someone who's instincts and attitudes towards this country and towards those who disagree with him are still those of a Communist, must mean I'm doing something right.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Re: Disagreeing with Mr. Rush Tue Sep 24, 2002 9:14 am

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Brian, I also admire your patience, and the thoroughness of your responses to those who disagree with you. And another thing: you have the grace to own up to your mistakes, few as they are. It's a pleasure to share this forum with you.

Gosh, Ms. Kiff, that was a nice thing to say to Mr. Rush. I agree, Mr. Rush is quite thorough in his "responses to those who disagree" with him. However, I wondering if you could help me out here. Which of the following "responses to [Marc Lamb] who disagree[s] with" Mr. Rush, do you agree with?

1. Marc Lamb is a "liar" and "hypocrite."
2. Marc Lamb is a "character assassin."
3. Marc Lamb is a "contemptible con artist."
4. Marc Lamb is "a thoroughly low and despicable excuse for a human being."
5. Marc Lamb is a "shill and toad."
6. Marc Lamb has earned the "contempt and odium of everyone on this forum."
7. Marc Lamb is "a masochist."
8. Marc Lamb "suffers from rectal cranial occlusion."
9. Marc Lamb lacks "intellectual integrity."
10. Marc Lamb should "Go crawl back under [my] rock." And finally,
11. Marc Lamb should "just leave" this website."

That the debate, in question, was all about Saddam Hussein, it occured to me that Mr. Rush was more than willing to cut the "butcher of Bagdad" a lot more slack than his fellow poster here at T4T.

No doubt! I personally suspect that Mr. Rush would wish to see the President forced to back down, such that not only is there no war (for the time being), but Saddam Hussein remains in power, and all sanctions are lifted, including the prohibition against him developing and amassing WMD, including nukes. Said retreat should lead to a far leftrist Democrat sweep in 2004, followed by Hussein using his newly developed nukes to gain control over all the Gulf Oil Fields, and then place us under a permanent oil embargo - which he then expands to a total UN trade embargo against us (likewise permanent) with a combination of oil and nuclear blackmail aimed at those few nations who would still be reluctant to vote in favor of such a course of action. Then, with luck, our economy would implode, and the extreme leftists still in office could then scrap whatever's left of the Constitution, and turn the US into another Stalinist horror show. Of course, I don't expect any part of the above nightmare scenario to unfold, though I honestly do believe that Mr. Rush would not mind one bit if it did.

As for insults, Mr. Rush was nice enough to call me a Fascist, which coming from someone who's instincts and attitudes towards this country and towards those who disagree with him are still those of a Communist, must mean I'm doing something right.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

I think you're right. Let's just leave Saddam alone, for now. It's much too risky at this stage. Later, when he has a stockpile of nukes (like North Korea, now), we can deal with him or maybe his "kinder, gentler" son.

Cool. :wink:

Marc,

I think you misread what I said. I was not suggesting that we "leave Saddam alone, for now." I do not agree with that at all. That is why I did not go out to join the protesters. As I said, they are for leaving Saddam alone and also back the idea that the United States ought to demilitarize. That's just plain crazy. I think even the suggestion of such sends the wrong message to the Bin Ladens and Saddams of the world.

What I was suggesting, though, is that the protesters do have their uses. Even the United Nations has its uses. It seems to me that the Bush admin is using the United Nations and the weapons inspectors in order to position the United States for the coming confrontation. It is better for us if we can get the agreement of our "allies" (perhaps diplomatic sparring partners is a better term?) or at least not have them actively oppose or obstruct us in the coming war. For their part, except for England, they seem to be positioning themselves so that they can wash their hands of it if we do poorly and so that they can claim credit if we do well in Iraq. Kind of like the French, who single-handedly "won" WWII.

I don't know what you mean by Saddam's "kinder, gentler" son. They guy appears to be a psychopath. In any case, since his daddy is doomed, he's not going to be an issue.

What I was asking you all to comment on is the role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers (and they have been righteous for a long time) in order that the crisis age well. Calling the boomers "puerile" is not much of a discussion point. Perhaps they are, but then, if you think so, with one of them at the head of state, that ought to worry you.
Rather than leave it at that, perhaps you could elaborate.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by elilevin

Perhaps the protesters are filling a role in this whole generational constellation. S & H warned in T4T that a crisis that is precipitated too soon can have disastrous consequences. Perhaps the protesters are helping us all by trying to hold back the fury of the righteous prophets so that the crisis can come to regeneracy and decide the real issues before we end up in total war.

What say all of you?

I think you're right. Let's just leave Saddam alone, for now. It's much too risky at this stage. Later, when he has a stockpile of nukes (like North Korea, now), we can deal with him or maybe his "kinder, gentler" son.

Cool. :wink:

Marc,

I think you misread what I said. I was not suggesting that we "leave Saddam alone, for now." I do not agree with that at all. That is why I did not go out to join the protesters. As I said, they are for leaving Saddam alone and also back the idea that the United States ought to demilitarize. That's just plain crazy. I think even the suggestion of such sends the wrong message to the Bin Ladens and Saddams of the world.

What I was suggesting, though, is that the protesters do have their uses. Even the United Nations has its uses. It seems to me that the Bush admin is using the United Nations and the weapons inspectors in order to position the United States for the coming confrontation. It is better for us if we can get the agreement of our "allies" (perhaps diplomatic sparring partners is a better term?) or at least not have them actively oppose or obstruct us in the coming war. For their part, except for England, they seem to be positioning themselves so that they can wash their hands of it if we do poorly and so that they can claim credit if we do well in Iraq. Kind of like the French, who single-handedly "won" WWII.

I don't know what you mean by Saddam's "kinder, gentler" son. They guy appears to be a psychopath. In any case, since his daddy is doomed, he's not going to be an issue.

What I was asking you all to comment on is the role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers (and they have been righteous for a long time) in order that the crisis age well. Calling the boomers "puerile" is not much of a discussion point. Perhaps they are, but then, if you think so, with one of them at the head of state, that ought to worry you.
Rather than leave it at that, perhaps you could elaborate.

Saddam's "kinder, gentler" son makes his daddy look like an angel, Ms. Levin. That was the whole point of my stupid post.

Anyway, you've got your eyes on a bunch of Marxist leftist protestors, Ms. Levin. As usual, with their ridiculous show otherwise intelligent people are distracted from reality and into fantasy. Sheesh, this stuff gets so old.

Your so-called "role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers" is quite silly, if I don't mind saying so. And it is sooo very, very... Boy we really do overestimate the "power of the young." And S&H really do perpetuate this silly myth.

If anybody is "slowing down the righteous Boomers," Ms. Levin, its Silents like Colin Powell.

Saddam's "kinder, gentler" son makes his daddy look like an angel, Ms. Levin. That was the whole point of my stupid post.

Anyway, you've got your eyes on a bunch of Marxist leftist protestors, Ms. Levin. As usual, with their ridiculous show otherwise intelligent people are distracted from reality and into fantasy. Sheesh, this stuff gets so old.

Your so-called "role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers" is quite silly, if I don't mind saying so. And it is sooo very, very... Boy we really do overestimate the "power of the young." And S&H really do perpetuate this silly myth.

If anybody is "slowing down the righteous Boomers," Ms. Levin, its Silents like Colin Powell.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

I beg to differ with you. There are environmental laws, just as there are safety laws. Regulations are how these laws are applied. In many cases there aren't even regulations. The usual situation is business negotiates with the regulatory agency to find an interpretation of the law/regulation that makes sense and that we can live with.

I'm sure you're right, Mike. It only makes sense that the people who actually have to make things work do so reasonably and efficiently. My husband used to work for a nuclear power plant doing computer modeling. He says that, while the regulations were often unwieldly and difficult to interpret, the people in charge of enforcing them were reasonable and helped to keep everything moving forward.

--Suz

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander

I beg to differ with you. There are environmental laws, just as there are safety laws. Regulations are how these laws are applied. In many cases there aren't even regulations. The usual situation is business negotiates with the regulatory agency to find an interpretation of the law/regulation that makes sense and that we can live with.

I'm sure you're right, Mike. It only makes sense that the people who actually have to make things work do so reasonably and efficiently. My husband used to work for a nuclear power plant doing computer modeling. He says that, while the regulations were often unwieldly and difficult to interpret, the people in charge of enforcing them were reasonable and helped to keep everything moving forward.

--Suz

[quote="Marc S. Lamb]

Anyway, you've got your eyes on a bunch of Marxist leftist protestors, Ms. Levin. As usual, with their ridiculous show otherwise intelligent people are distracted from reality and into fantasy. Sheesh, this stuff gets so old.

I disagree, Mr. Lamb. I know quite a number of people who are not at all Marxist nor are they on the left and yet they oppose this war. Many of these people are members of the military and so were not on the streets last Saturday. They are the ones who will be putting their lives on the line, Mr. Lamb, as they volunteered to do, and they are opposed to this war for reasons that have nothing to do with Karl Marx. There were also numerous organizations that sponsored the protest and they were not all leftist and/or Marxist.

Mr. Lamb, as you commonly do, you have provided a lot of adjectives but no substantial arguments to support your claims that the protests are a "ridiculous show" or that they "distract" people into "fanstasy." You may indeed be right but unless you provide arguments and evidence for your claims, I will not be persuaded.

Your so-called "role of the X-ers in slowing down the righteous Boomers" is quite silly, if I don't mind saying so. And it is sooo very, very... Boy we really do overestimate the "power of the young." And S&H really do perpetuate this silly myth.

Again, Mr. Lamb, you make the claim that my question for discussion is "silly" but you did not provide an argument. I do not accept name-calling as an acceptable replacement for a good, well thought out argument. If you were one of my students I would write "glittering generalities" in the margin and ask you to support your assertion.
As it stands, I can tell that my question created emotion in you and that you responded by name-calling but that is all I can glean from your diatribe. I am guessing that you do not like the protests and/or the protesters.

If anybody is "slowing down the righteous Boomers," Ms. Levin, its Silents like Colin Powell...

At last, a good topic sentence. Now, support that with discussion and at last we can communicate!