No subject

ass
media outlets, including the Associated Press and the major television ne=
ws
networks, as well as getting serious attention from conservative writers =
such
as National Review Online's Jim Geraghty. The first newspaper article que=
stioning
the documents appeared in The Washington Post on September 10. However, t=
he
September 9 edition of the American Broadcasting Company's Nightline made=
 mention
of the controversy, along with an article on the ABC News website."

 The CBS broadcast was on September 8th.

> >  No, I was pointing to the utter lack of positive evidence for Bush
> > actually completing his National Guard service, the kind of evidence =
that
> > other people can produce.
> >
> >  Positive evidence would make for a better case, and the desire for t=
hat
> > corrupted Rather's judgement. But the *lack* of evidence is also high=
ly
> > suggestive.

> "Positive evidence"? Would that be the sort of evidence that=20
> would prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt? Objection, your honor!=


 Y'know, my phrasing there was ambiguous. There are two interesting types=

of evidence here. The allegation is that "Bush did not complete his Natio=
nal
Guard duties statisfactoraly but was honorably discharged anyway."

 1. As I stated, there's no actual evidence of Bush doing so. The kind of=

paperwork that the vast majority of Guard veterans can produce... he can'=
t.
This is negative evidence. Despite a strong political motivation to produ=
ce
it, it just hasn't appeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

 2. Rather was looking for positive evidence of Bush failing to fulfill h=
is
duties - that is to say, evidence of *not* doing so rather than a lack of=

evidence of doing so. He was stupid about how he vetted such evidence, th=
ough,
and he was conned because he failed to check his facts properly.

> >  You might want to check on recent developments in the "Jamil Hussein=
"
> > front.

> You're kind of missing the point. AP would like to present themselves a=
s=20
> credible, even-handed, thorough. But that goal's hardly achieved if=20
> they're no better as a source of information then the U.S. military=20
> which is not a news agency.

 Ah, but we haven't established that they are not. The police lieutenant
actually exists and has been confirmed. Other witnesses to the burning ha=
ve
been produced. Not all the facts in the original story appear to be corre=
ct,
I agree.

 However, I do *not* see evidence of a deliberate attempt to falsify stor=
ies
or even a lack of normal fact-checking here. I've had first-hand knowledg=
e of
a few events that have made it into a news story. In *no* case were the e=
vents
as reported 100% correct. What's your experience in this area?

> >  "Jordan's admissions drew criticism from commentators, both liberal =
and
> > conservative."
> >  =20
> Nope. The guy's like a bad cop or a pedophile priest, trading on the=20=

> authority and trust that comes with the office for personal gain, to=20=

> escape personal responsibility, without regard to the damage the=20
> transgression does to the entire profession. Like the two examples I=20=

> cited, Jordan has no place in the profession.

 Uh, gee, and "liberal and conservative" alike *agree* with you.

> If you want to throw Fox into that group you'll have to provide example=
s=20
> of similarly egregious behavior.

 I know of no other major news organization that has defended *in court* =
their
right to distort news and outright lie:

 http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html

> >  Particularly the "neo-anti-Semitism" charge. For example, I don't th=
ink
> > our (the United States') long-term interests are served by our staunc=
h
> > support of Israel. I'd be quite happy to reduce our dependence on oil=
 and
> > leave them to fend for themselves.

> You're free to believe that but I'd be interested to know what other=20=

> regimes in the area might have a confluence of interest with the U.S.=20=

> other then on a purely mercantile basis?

 None that I know of. But if we didn't need the oil there we wouldn't hav=
e
to care. Supporting Israel is like building a greenhouse to plant roses i=
n
Antarctica. One has to wonder at the expense, and whether the benefits
justify it. We might help them out of humanitarian impulses but, well, we=

don't have a great record there. I mean, it's a shame Darfour doesn't hav=
e
any oil...

 I don't wish Israel ill per se but I don't see why (aside from convenien=
t
bases near the oil) *we* need to pony up the kind of dough (not to mentio=
n
political capital) we have been to maintain them. If their situation is
that untenable, well, like I said they could probably buy a *lot* of land=

in South America.

> The only other nation in the area with a passing acquaintance with demo=
cracy
> is Egypt and that'd be a pretty tenuous acquaintanceship. For the rest =
it's
> a choice between a moderately repressive monarchy, a virulently repress=
ive
> monarchy, a repressive theocracy or various flavors of "people's" repub=
lics.
> There's simply no other nations in the region with which to have a frie=
ndly=20
> relationship.

 You're right, but we support those regimes anyway, because they have the=
 oil.
We cozy up to thugocracies like, say, Iraq in the 1980s. We organize coup=
s to
overthrow democratically elected governments to install unpopular monarch=
ies
like, say, Iran. (Boy, *that* sure paid off for us, didn't it?) We suppor=
t the
Saudi regime even as they violently repress their own population and work=
 to
redirect the blame toward us. (And gee, that really paid off for the peop=
le in
the World Trade Center, didn't it? What nationality were 15 of the 19 hij=
ackers
again?)=20

> Are you proposing that nations actively undermining or barely tolerant=20=

> of U.S. interests be treated no differently from the single nation in=20=

> the region with which the U.S. does share values and goals?

 They'd have a lot less ability to mess with us if we weren't giving them=

hundreds of billions of dollars a year. And they wouldn't have quite the =
same
motivation if we weren't helping to 'stabilize' the region by supporting
violent thugocracies.

 By the by, *don't* try to twist this into some claim that I'm 'justifyin=
g'
the terrorists those regions spawn. Here, let me pop another .sig quote i=
n
here:

 "U.S. planes have thus far showered defoliant on more than 200,000
  acres, killing not just coca plants but entire ecosystems: damaging
  legitimate crops, poisoning water supplies, killing fish and livestock,=

  uprooting entire villages, and causing people to suffer fevers,
  diarrhea, allergies and rashes.

  And that's why they hate us: because, to keep drugs out of Bobby
  Brown's glove box, we kill peasants in Putumayo. If we did this kind
  of thing to the Arabs, they'd actually have the kind of beef with us
  that they think they do."

      - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"

 I just think it'd be awfully nice to produce the kind of tech that would=

drastically reduce our dependency on oil. Such tech would spread, too. An=
d
then we'd have a similarly drastic drop in the price of oil. At that poin=
t
I'd like to see how well people would like an Islamic theocracy in a poor=

economy. I figure within a decade the whole area would look like Afghanis=
tan
under the Taliban.

 Read this article I quoted at Aaron five days ago on this list:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/08/27/no_win/?page=3D=
full

 See below for some ideas to keep in mind when you read about the
"Manhattan Project" proposal.

> As for reducing our dependence on oil, I suggest you take a trip up to=20=

> Mackinac Island to revisit the halcyon days that preceded that dependen=
ce.

 I'm somewhat flummoxed here. Do you *really* believe that the only alter=
native
to the Hummer is an agrarian economy? On the other hand, I find it hard t=
o
credit that you'd use so clumsy a rhetorical ploy. I really don't know wh=
at to
think, to be honest.

 Let's make things clear. I am not a Luddite, and I while I've enjoyed vi=
siting
Macinac Island many times and hope to take my kids there again in the fut=
ure,
I don't plan on living there. However, I can visualize quite a few altern=
atives
that let me keep my computer and car, but still drastically reduce our de=
pendence
on foreign oil. Consider, for example, a quote from one of my .sigs that =
went out
when I quoted that boston.com article to Aaron:

 "Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
  would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
      - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"

 We had austerity programs in WWII. Why not in the "War on Terror"?

 But we can go much further than this. How about investing in nuclear pow=
er?
Consider pebble-bed reactors which are *extremely* safe and scale well, e=
ven
in a modular fashion. What about more daring (at least politically, thoug=
h not
in any engineering sense) ideas like using this (read the whole article f=
or
full effect, including the note about disposing of the nuclear waste):

 http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship7.htm

 to launch these:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite

 (Note that recent advances in solar cell technology have dramatically
increased the efficiency beyond the 28% quoted there. Also note the wikip=
edia
article assumes chemical-fueled lauch costs, not nuclear.)

 These kinds of things were seriously proposed, and designs worked on, ba=
ck
in the 1970s. We could do them *much* better now.

> >  Does that make me a neo-anti-Semite?
> Yup.

 Ah. Not giving unconditional support for Israel equals active dislike of=

Jews. Right...

> The move from disdainful intellectual to fictional swordsman as a sourc=
e=20
> of quotes is a move in the right direction but that's more a function o=
f=20
> how poorly you started then how far you've come.

 Well, as long as we're being snide, how about one more disdainful
intellectual... :->

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                    (313) 227-2317

 "Many people would sooner die than think. In fact, they do."
                    - Bertrand Russell
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It=
 contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named =
addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or discl=
ose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immed=
iately and then destroy it.=20